woah ..... hold on there. 100 floors. Lets keep Patti Tepper's health in mind. If she reads this forum she's probably dead of shock by now
and I would much rather have 4 or 5 30 story buildings - we have way too many vacant lots - still -
Lets get one 60 - 70 story building in the Central Business District (CBD) first... then once downtown has some real density... we can (should) think of midtown, CWE, or Clatyon. For the time being I dont think the CWE infrastucture could handel 70 story buildings (the amount of people coming and going)... nor is the demand even remotely there. I agree with the assersition by markofucity that a few 30 story buildings would be a better start for this part of the city (start off one at a time - remember we have had one tower built in the last 24 years - excluding BJC). I agree in an ideal world this would be nice... but lets not get make the CWE anything similar to the Magnificant Mile.
Grover wrote:Well, I'm usually not one to pass along a rumor of a rumor, but as long as everyone understands that . . . Bruce Mills still wants to go big and is looking to partner with a national hotel chain to produce a mix-use development.
I think another nice hotel would be great for the area, though I always kind of fantasized about it going in the Kindred parking lot at Euclid and Lindell. The Roberts' need to get crackin on the Inn at the Park, as far as I can tell, nothing's really happened since they closed it. Speaking of hotels, how long ago was the building that is now the Catholic senior housing at Lindell and Taylor converted from a hotel?
Back to the Doctor's building site, I'm a bit torn. Whatever goes there definitely needs a lively first floor that increases foot traffic in the area, but I honestly could care less how tall the building is. Before I'd heard any plans, I always thought it would be so much nicer if there were some sort of building with similar massing and attractiveness to the Forest Park Hotel at that site. 5-7 quality storeys would be great.
^^So, what's wrong with Magnificent Mile? I'd love it if the CWE was more like it, and actually it WAS far more like it in the past (you may not be old enough to remember) than it is now...not in towering highrises of course, but in function in urban terms, albeit not as big. There used to be at least one department store (Sax Fifth Avenue) and other high end specialty stores, which are now gone (Maryland Plaza).
Filling empty lots is fine. I just think the CWE needs a few visual head turning landmarks. If everything stops at 30 stories, that sounds visually boring to me.
Filling empty lots is fine. I just think the CWE needs a few visual head turning landmarks. If everything stops at 30 stories, that sounds visually boring to me.
I don't know. While clearly other than Clayton, the CWE has the most existing and likely has the best future market for highrise development, with all of the vacant lots and the overwhelming residential nature of the area away from BJC and off of Euclid, I am not sold that the CWE could support or that it would be approrpriate to build a 100 story building in the CWE.
- 11K
I agree. I'm not sure a 100 story building can/should be built anywhere in StL. I would love to see maybe 40 stories somewhere in the CWE. After the large parking lot at the Doctor's building and the Euclid/Lindell corner we really just have the block bounded by West Pine/Euclid/Lindell/Kingshighway to build out. I'm sure there are other open lots on which to build, and that this block represents a LOT of space . . . but we're getting there. I think the CWE can support some taller buildings.
For comparison: Here's Boston's Back Bay,
![]()
The tower on the left is the Prudential Tower at 52 stories (750 ft). When built in 1954 it really stood out but is now complemented by a few 15-20 story buildings. The one on the left is Hancock Place at 60 stories (790). It makes for a startk presence, but I don't think it fits at all. It was built in 1976.
For comparison: Here's Boston's Back Bay,
The tower on the left is the Prudential Tower at 52 stories (750 ft). When built in 1954 it really stood out but is now complemented by a few 15-20 story buildings. The one on the left is Hancock Place at 60 stories (790). It makes for a startk presence, but I don't think it fits at all. It was built in 1976.
No, I don't think CWE or downtown is "ready" for a 100 story building, either. That is, the climate that would warrant the building of such a structure simply does not exist, for what little I know. The McGowan-Walsh 81 story building would be pushing the envelope, and before their announcement I would have been very skeptical about such a building, but I think it's realistic in that since a developer proposed it (seemingly seriously), half the 'need' has been met. Getting tenants is next step.
Really, the realities of such towers: dreams realized.
Really, the realities of such towers: dreams realized.
- 11K
^ very true - I used the think that buildings were 99% $$ and 1% vision, but with large signature buildings I think it's more like 50/50.
- 476
I really dont think a 100 storey building would fit in anywhere in STL right now. Even if we got an 81 storey building in the CBD it would be ou of place. The Met Square is only 42 stories, so anything that tall would be twice as tall as our tallest building. It would be like Nashville's proposed Signature Tower. If we got a 50+ and then a 60+, then I would welcome a 80-100. But hey, this is all dreams anyway
- 11K
The Met Square is only 42 stories, so anything that tall would be twice as tall as our tallest building. It would be like Nashville's proposed Signature Tower.
What's wrong with that?
First of all I don't see anything wrong with a tower surrounded by others half the size. It makes a skyline dynamic and interesting. Secondly, there always has to be a first that reaches new heights with more to follow once people are confident that it is a viable business decision and the first has broken the ice with the general public. This was true for the 30-40 story buildings we have DT today and will be for taller buildings in the future.
Interesting that neither one of Nashville's open-air stadiums acknowledge the skyline. The one across the river blocks the view with one of the grandstands, while the majority of the seats in the baseball stadium face directly away from the skyline.
- 476
I noticed that too. My guess is that it has to do with typical wind direction. I think Im right that West is on the left side of the picture and thats the direction the wind blows from typically. Busch Stadium faces east too, we just got lucky and get to see most of the skyline. They want the wind to blow out most of the time.
- 11K
I thought football fields, tennis courts, soccer fields etc. were built north/south to avoid having the sun directly in one team's eyes. Didn't the old Busch face southeast (I know it was symetrical, but the field was oriented this way) and now the new one faces northeast?
This one seems to work...
I would LOVE to see more 40 story highrises in the CWE. Think Chicago, on a smaller scale. How "out of control" did the Plaza seem in 1929 when it was built? If that building were scaled to today's buildings, we would see a 100 story building in the CWE.
Hmmm...are the "no real tall towers around shorter buildings" folks catching NIMBY fever?
- 11K
To be fair, there are some real market concerns. The Empire State Building has struggled with occupancy for the majority of its history. If given a choice I'd rather have 6 5-story infill throughout the CWE than one 30-story building, but that's not how it works.
I would say the ESB is a success to the extent that it's a national icon. But there's little hope such a building in St. Louis would achieve such iconic status. My worry about an 80-100 storey building anywhere in St. Louis depressing the office or development market in the surrounding area would greatly outweigh my confidence that such a building would become a national icon.
- 11K
^ Yes, and maybe somewhat surprisingly, being a national icon doesn't fill office space. Too bad the ESB doesn't get a royalty for every tourist pic snapped.
If high rises fill up fast, more will be built. If higher floors sales are brisk, taller will be built. If not enough interest is generated in the new towers built or on the drawing board, likely no more will be built, regardless of what any of us want or don't want. Personally, I would like to see the CWE move more toward something like North Michigan Avenue in Chicago, yet on a scale befitting the CWE, but this is MY wish. I (and everyone else) have to wait and see what the reality of demand brings. I would add here that if St. Louis becomes a city where businesses and corporate headquarters seek to relocate, the CWE would almost HAVE to achieve that Boule Miche embiance...or if not the CWE, certainly another in the city...perhaps Grand Center...??? Or maybe even both...???!!! Woohooo...nothing like dreaming...!!!
One of the main reasons skyscrapers get built is because there just isn't enough land to go sideways so you have to go up, i.e. you have to fit more people on less land. While there will always be a niche market for people who want something different, e.g. the Park East Tower or the ESB, there will only be so many people willing to pay a steep premium for that kind of living space. So until prime land becomes scarce, that premium will probably deter a massive onslaught of tall buildings. The fact we have so many empty lots in the CWE cannot be ignored. While a few of those lots might be held by crazy people who simply do not want to sell, it's hard to imagine ALL those lots are being held by those same wierdos. Hopefully, the CWE will continue to grow and those lots will get filled, and once they do, then maybe more towers will have a chance of rising.
One notable exception to the above is Dubai. They could go out (and I guess they do go out into the water) but they are definately going up.