I think its safe to say that no one knows what the hell is going on at the Bottle District.
A couple of you have emailed or asked about a phrase I noted in the draft PUD ordinance for the Bottle District.
The "751 feet above mean sea level" language in the draft of the PUD ordinance would permit building heights of approximately 306 feet. That?s boiler plate language limiting heights for areas close to the Arch, but it is in the draft PUD ordinance for the Bottle District (which is further away from the Arch) both by inadvertence ? and by caution. The Arch is the dominant landmark in the City?s skyline. It is everyone?s intent that some new buildings in the Bottle District will be taller than 306 feet.
Here?s how we will handle it: We?ll consider the impact of any new tall buildings added to the skyline very, very carefully. The ?751 feet AMSL? language will be modified when the developers let us know exactly what they are planning to do ? and when we?ve looked at the effect such buildings would have on the Arch.
FYI: Barb Geisman thinks the height limitation in the final PUD ordinance will probably be 50-60 stories. Somebody with a GPS will have to figure what that is in XXX feet AMSL.
Mayor Slay's Blog
- 8,912
ya i saw that too...Thats pretty much what I heard over the phone...
Kudos to mayor slay and his office...Super fast results...I'm glad to hear that our voices are being heard...and maybe making a difference... Kudos to the forum!
Kudos to mayor slay and his office...Super fast results...I'm glad to hear that our voices are being heard...and maybe making a difference... Kudos to the forum!
The mysterious height limitation strikes again! I thought this thing didn't really exist!? Somebody better tell K. McGowan or else each of his 71 stories may be awfully short.
- 1,493
^It's not a restriction, just a Gentleman's Rule. One that city hall seems to want to write into the zoning for this project so that they can have final say on the plans for any new tower taller than the Arch, sounds like good planning to me.
Bastiat wrote:A couple of you have emailed or asked about a phrase I noted in the draft PUD ordinance for the Bottle District.
The "751 feet above mean sea level" language in the draft of the PUD ordinance would permit building heights of approximately 306 feet. That?s boiler plate language limiting heights for areas close to the Arch, but it is in the draft PUD ordinance for the Bottle District (which is further away from the Arch) both by inadvertence ? and by caution. The Arch is the dominant landmark in the City?s skyline. It is everyone?s intent that some new buildings in the Bottle District will be taller than 306 feet.
Here?s how we will handle it: We?ll consider the impact of any new tall buildings added to the skyline very, very carefully. The ?751 feet AMSL? language will be modified when the developers let us know exactly what they are planning to do ? and when we?ve looked at the effect such buildings would have on the Arch.
FYI: Barb Geisman thinks the height limitation in the final PUD ordinance will probably be 50-60 stories. Somebody with a GPS will have to figure what that is in XXX feet AMSL.
Mayor Slay's Blog
This stuff is silly. There is no legitimate reason to have any type of height restrictions. The arch will be just fine if something in this city is taller. I could understand if they were planting something righ underneath it, but let's not be ridiculous with height restrictions. I mean is the city stuck in Mid Rise doldrums??
I highly doubt that any proposal to erect a building taller than the Arch would ever be refused by the city, unless it was right on the Gateway Mall. For that matter, I doubt that there has ever been a proposal for a building exceeding the height of the Arch, which did not become reality solely for that reason.
The only reason it hasn't happened yet, is because, for a variety of reasons, the local market hasn't supported a building of that height. It has nothing to do with the building's impact on the Arch, or the real or imagined city height restrictions. Would Met Square or the ATT Tower diminish the Arch if they were 40 or 50 feet taller? Of course not.
The only reason it hasn't happened yet, is because, for a variety of reasons, the local market hasn't supported a building of that height. It has nothing to do with the building's impact on the Arch, or the real or imagined city height restrictions. Would Met Square or the ATT Tower diminish the Arch if they were 40 or 50 feet taller? Of course not.
That may be the case, but why are they talking about just that? I mean it sounds like to me they are wanting final say on the matter of the building heights in comparison to the arch; unless I misinterpreted it. I agree the market should dictate the height, and it may not be ready for anything taller the the arch, but let's leave it to the market not regulation IMO at least.
jfknet wrote:That may be the case, but why are they talking about just that? I mean it sounds like to me they are wanting final say on the matter of the building heights in comparison to the arch; unless I misinterpreted it. I agree the market should dictate the height, and it may not be ready for anything taller the the arch, but let's leave it to the market not regulation IMO at least.
Probably just a half-assed attempt at a negotiating tactic on the part of the city.
Well, for a city that is not living in the lap of luxury, a bunch of mid rises built slowly and steadily is much healthier for a city's density than one randomly placed tall building with twice as many empty lots. For this reason, I think that the arch is a good thing. It allows us to focus smaller buildings first, already having a prominent focal point. I'd love to see a large building, but I would want to see a bunch of smaller buildings built in the gaps first.
Well my argument is not so much for or against a tall building, but more about letting the market dictate a buildings height, and not regulation. The city IMO is not in a position health wise to turn away developments like this based on height. The Sears Tower is the prominent figure in the Chicago skyline; would they ever say nothing should be taller? I just don't like seeing a city that has shot itself in the foot more times then not starting to place what I see as silly restrictions, but I do understand others may not share this view.
I also realize they are most likely talking out their back sides, but the development is already facing an uphill battle without placing restrictions on it. I think they can find a lot better things to put restrictions on then the height of the buildings LOL.
I also realize they are most likely talking out their back sides, but the development is already facing an uphill battle without placing restrictions on it. I think they can find a lot better things to put restrictions on then the height of the buildings LOL.
A comparison with the Sears tower is not an apples & apples comparison (a commercial high rise vs. a public monument), so in that respect I do think the mysterious development bowl creating a height restriction around the Arch is something that should at least be initially respected - but it should also be viewed on a case by case basis (if there is an appropriate development that responds to a true market need then it should be studied - and a true high rise structure in downtown had better be a fantastic piece of architecture as well). All that being said, I do think the substantial number of mid to moderate high rise structures would provide a greater foundation for the city on the whole (greater urban density and a stronger tenant base to build upon for longevity with downtown development). I could see several 20-30 story buildings being built and then a market supported need for some world class high rises would probably follow - the financial impact for our city would be great and the aesthetic impact of our skyline could be phenomenal.
- 366
I thinka tall building in the middle of downtown being built will give St. Louis that image to the rest of america that it is becoming a major city again.
I am not for height restrictions!! I hope nobody missed the point of my argument. All I am saying is that, we got the "distinctive skyline" out of our system with the arch, so I think it is good that we are not building tall just to throw something to look at. If we build tall, it will be because the market demands it. I think that is a good thing.
Agreed, let the market drive the development. I just want to stay away from something as artificial as "The Boulevard" downtown, and that is a possible result if the development is not driven by a sustainable market demand.
- 359
Anything new going on with this project? 
I really want to see it start up and get built. It's going to be a great addition to downtown St. Louis.
I really want to see it start up and get built. It's going to be a great addition to downtown St. Louis.- 366
Im praying that something new starts up on this one. Im tired of waiting and debating!! Start constructing!!!!!
I drove by the other day, the land is pretty cleared out now. They just need to start digging.
- 20
St. Louis Texan wrote:Im praying that something new starts up on this one. Im tired of waiting and debating!! Start constructing!!!!!
Construction starts in the fall per their website.
Guy Legend wrote:
Construction starts in the fall per their website.
Uh, what year?
just want to stay away from something as artificial as "The Boulevard" downtown
What's with the hate for The Boulevard? I think it's a great project and has really added a lot of value to the Galleria area. Let's face it, before that project was built the area surrounding the Galleria was very embarassing. Visitors always go to the big mall in the city they visit and when they come to the Galleria they got to ride on a crappy road (now repaved) and got to see a bunch of crappy strip malls across the street with fast food chain restaurants that brought in a shady crowd and threw trash all over the area.
Once all phases of The Boulevard is complete that area will be very nice and will be something we won't be ashamed to have visitors see.
Let's just hope the Bottle District actually starts construction and will be something we can all be proud of and use.
I agree with UAB. The Boulevard has narrow streets with street level retail and apartments above... exactly what people keep saying they want to see downtown. It looks a little six flagish (fake), and it doesn't have a real city street grid to connect to, but hopefully we could emulate its good points DT.
Excelent point UAB.
Why would everyone hate something that is emulating what we all want to see as a model for development in suburban communities? I mean would people be opposed to seeing Town and Country or Ballwin adopt a Boulevard or Kirkwood style traditional or neo-traditional downtown with density and a mix of uses?
Why would everyone hate something that is emulating what we all want to see as a model for development in suburban communities? I mean would people be opposed to seeing Town and Country or Ballwin adopt a Boulevard or Kirkwood style traditional or neo-traditional downtown with density and a mix of uses?
SoulardD wrote:...the Boulevard has narrow streets with street level retail and apartments above... exactly what people keep saying they want to see downtown. It looks a little six flagish (fake), and it doesn't have a real city street grid to connect to, but hopefully we could emulate its good points DT.
JMedwick wrote:Excelent point UAB.
Why would everyone hate something that is emulating what we all want to see as a model for development in suburban communities? I mean would people be opposed to seeing Town and Country or Ballwin adopt a Boulevard or Kirkwood style traditional or neo-traditional downtown with density and a mix of uses?
What may be beneficial (though certainly fake/artificial) for a suburban setting may NOT work downtown. To emulate the Boulevard's good points, we'd have to agree on what the good points are.