urbanSTL

wrong thread

jkl96c wrote:please ask your friend if there is a date on the brochure please.

I have the brochure too. There's no date on it.



It references "Gateway Village" so it was created after they announced the new name.



Here's a interesting paragraph. Pay attention to the last sentence...



"Future residents of Gateway Village will choose from urban apartment units set on top of retail space, historic loft-style condominiums, luxury mid-rise units overlooking a scenic green space, or high-rise luxury units with a panoramic view of downtown St. Louis, the Gateway Arch, The Mississippi River, and the proposed New Mississippi River Bridge. The project will also include the possibility of one or more office towers."

jambalaya wrote:That is such lame circular logic. It was originally designed for NY and since they relieved him of the project he was originally awarded through competition, he picks up his design and tries to make it fit here. Call it what you wish, but "original" it is not. And by the way, Libeskind has not worked on this project since his first release (or re-release as it were). The design modifications were provided by Forum Studio - Libeskind has not touched this project in almost a year. Please remeber what he was called in to provide - he was a hired gun to attempt to provide some national attention for a project that missed its development window of opportunity. The "you snooze - you lose" saying is very appropriate for this development. And while I would admit that the Freedom Tower knock-off was more interesting (in a sculptural sense) than the most recent renderings provided by Ghazi - it still needs to be financially feasible and have a realistic market/end users. The best thing for TBD would be to package up all 16-acres and sell it to a developer who knows the region and knows what they are doing (I am tired of watching this current ownership group continue to shoot themselves in the foot). Fish or cut bait.

Framer wrote:Libeskind's got several high-rises going up around the world now. They all pretty much look the same.

So, you could say pretty much the same thing about Sullivan, Wright, and our own Theodore Link, and you definitely could about the acclaimed modern architects, Foster, Gehry, Calatrava, Piano, et al. Not that I think he is in the same league, I just don't understand the Libeskind-hatin'. Do you haters work for Clayco, or maybe HOK? Yes, he is an arrogant p.o.s., but can you name an acclaimed architect that isn't? And, considering some of the other players involved in the Freedom Tower and the WTC memorial, there is more than enough blame to go around for the conflict and delays on those projects, and Libeskind being forced into the backseat.



In any case, I thought his design for GV would have greatly enhanced the architectural significance of our skyline and complemented the Arch very well. Regarding the feasibility of his design, I see no reason why it would have cost all that much more than the bland, boring boxes w/ brick and precast panels we will probably get in Ballpark Village.

Brick panels are not considered "faux" materials, as they are still made up of individual bricks, just cast together with concrete before installation. However, as we can see from New Busch Stadium and the Renaissance Grand parking garage, among many other examples, brick panels are not nearly as attractive as brick placed by a mason (no, I have no affiliation with the Bricklayer's Union) and often can be downright unattractive. Precast panels in general are normally not considered "faux" materials, unless it is an attempt to look like something it is not. The only examples of a "faux" material that I can think of, that might be used on a project like this, would be something like GPFRC (fiber-reinforced composites) that are sometimes used to replicate decorative pressed metal or terra cotta on historic buildings, or EIFS (exterior insulated finishing system - I think) that is then painted/finished to look like stone (see The Boulevard). I would also put aluminum or vinyl siding in this category.



In any case, I have no idea what Dewitt, or whoever said that, meant by "faux" materials, but, as much as I wish you were right, if you think there won't be any precast panels on the Village, I am afraid you are dreaming.

I saw that it was all block off how long has it been that way and now restrooms

jlblues wrote:Brick panels are not considered "faux" materials, as they are still made up of individual bricks

That's incorrect. There are different kinds of brick panels. The ones they used for Busch III are precast concrete with simulated brick.

^Well, if they are made out of concrete, they wouldn't be brick panels then would they? Anyway, didn't know they were completely fake on Busch, just thought it was an odd color of brick. Per my definition then, the ones on Busch would be faux materials, as it is a concrete panel trying to look like another material, brick. I am positive the panels on the Renaissance Grand garage are real brick, however, cast into concrete, if you really want to compare/contrast. Either way, they look like crap if you ask me.

jkl96c wrote:I saw that it was all block off how long has it been that way and now restrooms

what?

jlblues wrote:

jambalaya wrote:That is such lame circular logic. It was originally designed for NY and since they relieved him of the project he was originally awarded through competition, he picks up his design and tries to make it fit here. Call it what you wish, but "original" it is not. And by the way, Libeskind has not worked on this project since his first release (or re-release as it were). The design modifications were provided by Forum Studio - Libeskind has not touched this project in almost a year. Please remeber what he was called in to provide - he was a hired gun to attempt to provide some national attention for a project that missed its development window of opportunity. The "you snooze - you lose" saying is very appropriate for this development. And while I would admit that the Freedom Tower knock-off was more interesting (in a sculptural sense) than the most recent renderings provided by Ghazi - it still needs to be financially feasible and have a realistic market/end users. The best thing for TBD would be to package up all 16-acres and sell it to a developer who knows the region and knows what they are doing (I am tired of watching this current ownership group continue to shoot themselves in the foot). Fish or cut bait.

Framer wrote:Libeskind's got several high-rises going up around the world now. They all pretty much look the same.

So, you could say pretty much the same thing about Sullivan, Wright, and our own Theodore Link, and you definitely could about the acclaimed modern architects, Foster, Gehry, Calatrava, Piano, et al. Not that I think he is in the same league, I just don't understand the Libeskind-hatin'. Do you haters work for Clayco, or maybe HOK? Yes, he is an arrogant p.o.s., but can you name an acclaimed architect that isn't? And, considering some of the other players involved in the Freedom Tower and the WTC memorial, there is more than enough blame to go around for the conflict and delays on those projects, and Libeskind being forced into the backseat.



In any case, I thought his design for GV would have greatly enhanced the architectural significance of our skyline and complemented the Arch very well. Regarding the feasibility of his design, I see no reason why it would have cost all that much more than the bland, boring boxes w/ brick and precast panels we will probably get in Ballpark Village.

I cannot believe you would mention Libeskind (the one-trick pony) in the same paragraph as Sullivan and Wright. The architects you listed have, for the most part, endured and enjoy the longevity provided timeless architecture. They do have an architectural style, and all Libeskind has is a Xerox machine. This is not Libeskind "hating" as much as it is expressing dissatisfaction with the decision-makers in charge of this project trying to pawn-off some NY "starchitect" and his tired design as something unique and exlusive to TBD. This development team seems to continually make the wrong decisions.

bpe235 wrote:

jkl96c wrote:I saw that it was all block off how long has it been that way and now restrooms

what?

All your base are belong to us.

You have no chance to survive make your time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_b ... long_to_us

dweebe wrote:

bpe235 wrote:

jkl96c wrote:I saw that it was all block off how long has it been that way and now restrooms

what?

All your base are belong to us.

^ Wasn't there a song that came out years back that said that?

Yeah there's a techno song that goes along with the video. Hilarious.

ya I actually googled it after that post .... funny indeed...



back on topic... I'm excited for them to start construction on this project... It is confusing when they have an official ground breaking and yet no visible progress is being made...and I am hopeful ghazi will begin work in the next 6 months...

So where does this development stand? It seems that with Chouteau's Landing, BPV, MW Tower, Wash Ave, Laclede's Landing/Pinnacle Casino, that this may not make it. St. Louis can't have 4 or more seperate entertainment districts downtown. There is residential in most of these, but each one has been advertised to have similar shops/amenities.



How does everyone see these projects playing out?



IMO - BPV is close to a done deal and will be a huge project. Wash Ave will continue to gain restaurants/shops as lofts are developed and people continue to move in. Laclede's Landing seems to (anecdotally) have benefitted from Metro to Wash U and the Casino will draw more people. MW Tower is still a rumor, but if built would have significant retail space. The full development of Chouteau's Landing seems dependent on a the lake and I'm not sure that this project will ever get close in scope to the fantastic renderings. This leaves the Bottle District: separated from the other major developments and with the least recent hype.

They are just STILL working out the kinks on this project... lets stay and be patient and it will eventually be built.



BPV - I see this being built, just waiting on the financing to be sorted out

Wash ave - so many units about come on line, Once that happens the neighborhood will begin to mature and necessary amenities like dry cleaners, grocers, and other retailers will naturally absorb local retail space.

Landing - I think the casino and hotel will be good for the area, once we see more residential down there, that will be when it really improves...

MW Tower - Purely rumor with hints of actuality...If it's true it has already been mostly financed, then I guess we'll just wait and see here in a few months...If not, what a cruel rumor to start, not just that we would get a massive tower, but the possibility of the city lureing a large corp. back to the city...

CL - I have no idea on this project, seems to me it is a big undertaking... anyone else know more?



All in all I am extremely excited for the city to FINALLY see some new construction, even with all the beautiful rehabs spread throughout downtown, I think the perception of the citizens in this metro will really change when they see new buildings go up...I know the changes are obvious to the people on this forum but for Joe West County Shmoe they are hardly recognizable...

People will see the real change when they see the skyline change, and new infill buildings going up...then a great number of people will finally be like, "wow did you see whats going on downtown?" and the buzz really start to gain momentum and hopefully that is when you alot of people will be heading downtown to "just to check things out"...(Real excitement)

Alderwoman Ford-Griffin has introduced BB#129, enabling a Planned Unit Development for the Bottle District.



In Exhibit B (must click separate PDF in higher Adobe versions), you'll see a sketch plan similar to Ghazi's site plan and rounded square footage for each subarea of the site. Exhibit B also says Phase One will include mostly non-residential uses (all retail/office, but only 250 residential units) and not be complete until Fall 2008, with full residential build-out of all remaining towers not anticipated until 2016 (although first condo tower in 2010).



A rough financial plan is also included. The financial plan includes $51.5 million in subsidies (TIF/CID/TDD), $15 million in owner equity and $581.1 million in construction loans for a $647.6 million total.

I think it's best if the Bottle District gets scrapped as it doesn't seem viable; at least not for at least 5-10 years. Lofts/housing will be hot now and in the near future on WashAve, the Central Business District (CBD), BPV, and to some extent, the Landing. If the scope of BPV is what is suggested, that will put the dagger through the heart of the Bottle District (BD.)



Simply speaking, there will be such a high concentration of people living in WashAve, CBD, BPV and some on the Landing that are in the target area of the BPV. In contrast, what residential does the BD pull from? Really only itself and the Landing... BPV should be able to offer most of what the BD would offer. We're talking groceries, restaurants, bars, pharmacy, movie theater, etc. And if you're living in these areas, where would you choose to go? Do you choose to go to a central BPV near where everyone lives or do you trek north? The answer is pretty obvious. The key to downtown development will be to build a strong core and to slowly radiate outward if the market supports it.



Pinnacle is happening and really isn't going to compete with other districts per se. I do see Choteau's Landing and the MW taking off, but time needs to be given to allow the first areas to mature.



In 5-10 years, maybe the BD will be viable. If it does get built in the near future, hopefully it's scaled way back. Otherwise I'm pretty certain it'll be the next St. Louis Center. Really hate to see investors throw money down the tubes when more money could be focused in the areas where it's really needed. I'd like someone to demonstrate why the BD makes sense now.

You know, there is a chance that the MW tower might be part of the Bottle District development.

It's possible but makes much more sense for it to be in Choteau's Landing or the BPV.

appraisalman wrote:You know, there is a chance that the MW tower might be part of the Bottle District development.

innov8ion wrote:I think it's best if the Bottle District gets scrapped as it doesn't seem viable; at least not for at least 5-10 years. Lofts/housing will be hot now and in the near future on WashAve, the Central Business District (CBD), BPV, and to some extent, the Landing. If the scope of BPV is what is suggested, that will put the dagger through the heart of the Bottle District (BD.)

Simply speaking, there will be such a high concentration of people living in WashAve, CBD, BPV and some on the Landing. BPV should be able to offer most of what the BD would offer. We're talking groceries, restaurants, bars, pharmacy, movie theater, etc. And if you're living in these areas, where would you choose to go? Do you choose to go to a central BPV near where everyone lives or do you trek north? The answer is pretty obvious. The key to downtown development will be to build a strong core and to slowly radiate outward.

Pinnacle is happening and really isn't going to compete with other districts per se. I do see Choteau's Landing and the MW taking off, but time needs to be given to allow the first areas to mature.

In 5-10 years, maybe the BD will be viable. If it does get built, hopefully it's way scaled back.... Otherwise, I'm pretty certain it'll be the next St. Louis Center.... I'd like someone to demonstrate why it makes sense now.

Huh? Why do you hope it gets scraped? Why do you think both BPV and TBD can't coexist? How does TBD not seem viable?

Lofts/housing will be hot now and in the near future on WashAve, the Central Business District (CBD), BPV, and to some extent, the Landing. If the scope of BPV is what is suggested, that will put the dagger through the heart of the Bottle District (BD.)

Why?

I disagree... but that is just my opinion... I think there is enough momentum and pent up demand for both... I think we are just scratching the surface of the renaissance?

1. BPV & TBD projects are similar and thus will compete against each other.

2. BPV area has the highest concentration of residents in the demographic necessary for success. (Pulling from WashAve, CBD, BPV, Landing)

3. Downtown has finite residential growth potential as it's targeted mainly to young professionals and empty nesters. Also, not enough jobs downtown yet. I'd like to see the lofts fill in the CBD, Washington Ave & BPV & Landing areas first. Correspondingly, the necessary infrastructure to fill in around it. For cripes sake, is it too much to ask to have an open restaurant or store open up at night or on the weekend? Let's solve that problem first; and where people actually live, not on the periphery.

4. Both projects can't succeed as envisioned. BPV will thrive and TBD won't for the reasons stated above.

5. Make the core of downtown strong first.... If money is wasted in the periphery, it weakens the core and could hurt the beloved renaissance.