^ Didn't you say somthing like "I'm never posting on this forum again. All of you are worthless."(and I've cleaned your statment up quite a bit) Why have you returned? It seems simply to stir.
- 1,649
I have mentioned this in another thread, but it has come up again.... let's not use this forum to attack each other with insults as we are all here to discuss the issue. There will be times some of us disagree with someone's point of view, but disrespectful or derogatory comments are prohibited in this environment.
I believe some people have misunderstood my intent several posts back. I am not lamenting the fact that the whole project will not be built at all once. Having followed the progress of this project, I have been well aware that the BD will be built as demand dictates. My concern was the Architecture has become lacklustre and the punch taken out of the project because of this. Apologies for not making my statement clearer.
I realize too, that new renderings are to be revealed, but I doubt if they will be as superb as those given by Liebskind. I do hope I will be wrong about that, though.
I realize too, that new renderings are to be revealed, but I doubt if they will be as superb as those given by Liebskind. I do hope I will be wrong about that, though.
don koester,
It is not that people on this forum think greenspace in downtowns is bad in theory. Nor do we think the greenspace in those European cities you mention isn't anything less than ideal.
Unfortunately, the great difference between Berlin, London, and Paris with St. Louis is that the population desnity is much higher in the European cities. The dense groups of people living and working around the parks ensures their use.
Currently, the greenspace of downtown St. Louis actually outweights its density. The greenspace is underused!
In short, it's not that we don't like greenspace. But the use of greenspace in the urban environments you mention are luxuries that only the most world class areas can afford. Perhaps we should first concentrate on retaining and gaining strong job and office market downtown as well as population growth. We really need to build more buildings--THEN we can really set aside some greenspace, but not before the land that gets set aside is valuable.
It is not that people on this forum think greenspace in downtowns is bad in theory. Nor do we think the greenspace in those European cities you mention isn't anything less than ideal.
Unfortunately, the great difference between Berlin, London, and Paris with St. Louis is that the population desnity is much higher in the European cities. The dense groups of people living and working around the parks ensures their use.
Currently, the greenspace of downtown St. Louis actually outweights its density. The greenspace is underused!
In short, it's not that we don't like greenspace. But the use of greenspace in the urban environments you mention are luxuries that only the most world class areas can afford. Perhaps we should first concentrate on retaining and gaining strong job and office market downtown as well as population growth. We really need to build more buildings--THEN we can really set aside some greenspace, but not before the land that gets set aside is valuable.
- 8,912
IMO
i think we should all wait to critique. The latest renderings look to be done in colored pencil for the love...
i think we should all wait to critique. The latest renderings look to be done in colored pencil for the love...
I was browsing the forum studio website and there are some renderings that libeskin did... I haven't seen every page (my god there's 53 now) on this forum but i have seen most and i don't remember seeing these...
check it out
http://www.forumstudio.com/projects/boards/bottle_1.htm
check it out
http://www.forumstudio.com/projects/boards/bottle_1.htm
bpe235 wrote:I was browsing the forum studio website and there are some renderings that libeskin did... I haven't seen every page (my god there's 53 now) on this forum but i have seen most and i don't remember seeing these...
check it out
http://www.forumstudio.com/projects/boards/bottle_1.htm
Those were Libeskind's first impressions for the project (a Midwest version of his initial Freedom Tower). Libeskind has not touched this project since those initial images, but the ones you saw on this website are very dated (before Ghazi was involved).
- 5,433
I drove by the site on Saturday to get a better feel for the project.
I've had mixed emotions about the plan all along. I want it to succeed, however, I cannot shake the feeling that it is isolated relative to the rest of downtown. Looking toward Cole Street from the site, all you see is the business end of the Edward Jones Dome and America's Center, which isn't exactly attractive.
Also factor in that there are only 10 Rams home games (2 pre-season + 8 regular season) annually. Even when there are games and/or other events at the dome and convention center, pedestrian traffic along Broadway is light. Most people coming from outside of downtown to an event walk south to the Metrolink stop or to one of the nearby garages where their car is parked.
I guess it's good for Columbus Square residents, and I like the idea of pushing development northward to bridge the gap between downtown STL and the Near North Side. But I still get the impression that this project could be an island unto itself, and therefore I worry about its viability. And why did the city commit to a TIF for this, but not Ballpark Village? Please, feel free to tell me what I'm missing here...
I've had mixed emotions about the plan all along. I want it to succeed, however, I cannot shake the feeling that it is isolated relative to the rest of downtown. Looking toward Cole Street from the site, all you see is the business end of the Edward Jones Dome and America's Center, which isn't exactly attractive.
Also factor in that there are only 10 Rams home games (2 pre-season + 8 regular season) annually. Even when there are games and/or other events at the dome and convention center, pedestrian traffic along Broadway is light. Most people coming from outside of downtown to an event walk south to the Metrolink stop or to one of the nearby garages where their car is parked.
I guess it's good for Columbus Square residents, and I like the idea of pushing development northward to bridge the gap between downtown STL and the Near North Side. But I still get the impression that this project could be an island unto itself, and therefore I worry about its viability. And why did the city commit to a TIF for this, but not Ballpark Village? Please, feel free to tell me what I'm missing here...
^ That is all true.
However, my hope is that more downtown action begins to stretch toward the north a little bit to make the northside more desirable to other developers and my biggest hope is that the Bottle District, if done right, will be a catalyst in this process.
However, my hope is that more downtown action begins to stretch toward the north a little bit to make the northside more desirable to other developers and my biggest hope is that the Bottle District, if done right, will be a catalyst in this process.
They committed to a TIF, but they did not actually garuntee the TIF if it defaults. Big difference from what Ballpark Village wants.
314, I think that sums up a lot of feelings here very well.
314, I think that sums up a lot of feelings here very well.
MayorSlay.com
The Bottle District, a mixed-use development planned for an area immediately north of the Jones Dome, has taken a couple steps forward. The City?s Planning Commission has voted to recommend both Planned Unit Development legislation and zoning change legislation for the 15-acre District for passage by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. When completed in several phases, the development is expected to include ?Times Square? signage (the details of which are still being negotiated), as well as hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail, entertainment, office, and residential space. Bottle District developers have been working with traffic planners, the CVC, and the Regional Convention and Sports Authority to improve access to the District. Building heights in the District will be limited to 751 feet above mean sea level.
- 101
From Mayor Slay's Website, May 20, 2006:
"The Bottle District, a mixed-use development planned for an area immediately north of the Jones Dome, has taken a couple steps forward. At its meeting on June 7, the City?s Planning Commission voted to recommend both Planned Unit Development legislation and zoning change legislation for the 15-acre District for passage by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. When completed in several phases, the development is expected to include ?Times Square? signage (the details of which are still being negotiated), as well as hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail, entertainment, office, and residential space. Bottle District developers have been working with traffic planners, the CVC, and the Regional Convention and Sports Authority to improve access to the District. Building heights in the District will be limited to 751 feet above mean sea level."
What does "751 feet above mean sea level" mean? Isn't St. Louis already at like 400 feet above sea level. This seems stupid to restrict growth, especially upward...
"The Bottle District, a mixed-use development planned for an area immediately north of the Jones Dome, has taken a couple steps forward. At its meeting on June 7, the City?s Planning Commission voted to recommend both Planned Unit Development legislation and zoning change legislation for the 15-acre District for passage by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. When completed in several phases, the development is expected to include ?Times Square? signage (the details of which are still being negotiated), as well as hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail, entertainment, office, and residential space. Bottle District developers have been working with traffic planners, the CVC, and the Regional Convention and Sports Authority to improve access to the District. Building heights in the District will be limited to 751 feet above mean sea level."
What does "751 feet above mean sea level" mean? Isn't St. Louis already at like 400 feet above sea level. This seems stupid to restrict growth, especially upward...
St. Louis is more like 550 something feet above sea level. I don't think that "sea level" aspect is accurate. ...At least I hope not.
- 1,493
I don't think he means there will be laws restricting height. I think he means Ghazi has decided that is the tallest that they will build.ToastedRavioli wrote:What does "751 feet above mean sea level" mean? Isn't St. Louis already at like 400 feet above sea level. This seems stupid to restrict growth, especially upward...
St. Louis is about 535 feet above sea level according to city-data.com. That leaves a measly 216 feet of room for which to build up! 
What the heck would they put a limit like that on the district for? I like the idea of the times square signage, but times square is surrounded by huge buildings. I think large buildings would better advertise the BD's presence to tourists and be a constant reminder to residents. I guess it could be successful without them, but I'd rather see it with them.
What the heck would they put a limit like that on the district for? I like the idea of the times square signage, but times square is surrounded by huge buildings. I think large buildings would better advertise the BD's presence to tourists and be a constant reminder to residents. I guess it could be successful without them, but I'd rather see it with them.- 8,912
I'm gonna get to the bottom of this height restriction thing...the times square signage sounds cool!!!!!!
261 feet...whats that in stories...like 20-24???
- 3,433
bpe235 wrote:261 feet...whats that in stories...like 20-24???
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt ... 6050814180
This links says,
"The St. Louis Gateway Arch is 192 meters (630ft) high. But it is sitting on land that is 132 meters (433ft) above sea level. This comes to a total height above sea level of 324 meters (1066ft)."
So 751 minus 433 means the buildings would be no more than 30 stories higher than the base of the Arch, and well below the 1066 sea level top of the Arch.
Why would they say 'mean' sea level, and not just sea level? It doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they just say the regular height limit as defined from the ground it's built on?
- 1,026
and we all know from Al Gore's movie that the sea will swell and engulf the entire east coast by the time this project gets off the ground - so how do we measure it then? I suppose if St. Louis has a beach when they break ground - 751 feet higher wouldn't be that bad.
and that is a good question - why the hell would somebody measure height from sea level when you're in the middle of the damn country?
and that is a good question - why the hell would somebody measure height from sea level when you're in the middle of the damn country?
Yeah this whole above sea level is ridiculous. Any height restriction in that area is ridiculous IMO.
- 1,026
i;m not sure if that was a swipe at me (I am - in fact - a lawyer) or at the "people who would measure by sea level." Either way its a good point.
you know ... when I first read that I wondered if sea level was significant in some way for engineers because of the water table. I imagine the water table would have somethign to do with calculating your foundation ... wouldn;t suprise me if sea level affected the water table ... i'm just thinking here .... if any engineers out there want to set us straight - please - enlighten us