I saw that, how incredibly wasteful and unnecessary but cool at the same time. I mean cool both figuratively and literally, of course.
- 11K
They could go out (and I guess they do go out into the water) but they are definately going up.
They're doing all 3:
mosl wrote: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.
Yes, they're going up -- on the backs of slave labor. I wouldn't call Dubai a success. Anyone can build that tall when (a) money is no object and (b) there is no oversight of work conditions or safety.
- 11K
Actually, when money is no object the workers can be paid very well!
Labor issues in Dubai are horrendous. Despite all the money going into the developments, most of the workers there are the equivalent many Mexicans in the US. They have few rights and must send home all the money they earn to their families in (primarily) Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. If you aren't an Emirati to begin with, you'll never gain citizenship, which is a convenient way for contractors and developers to stretch the workforce.
But that's off topic.
If they've redesigned this building from that 30-story, poorly-massed, Disney-fied design, then great. I actually think there is nothing wrong with having this thing be 11-stories or even a bit shorter. A tower would be nice, but getting projects like this to go ahead, and get more people into the area might do more to encourage further developments (against typical real estate logic).
It would be great to see this go up with ground-floor retail, which might help out Park East (is a bank seriously the only thing they could come up with so far?) and the building kitty-corner to where this would be located (I forget the name at the moment.)
Would it ever be possible though to hire an architect for these sorts of buildings that isn't based in St. Louis? I mean, I know it isn't a requirement, but why do these big developments look no further than HOK, Forum, Lawrence, etc.?
But that's off topic.
If they've redesigned this building from that 30-story, poorly-massed, Disney-fied design, then great. I actually think there is nothing wrong with having this thing be 11-stories or even a bit shorter. A tower would be nice, but getting projects like this to go ahead, and get more people into the area might do more to encourage further developments (against typical real estate logic).
It would be great to see this go up with ground-floor retail, which might help out Park East (is a bank seriously the only thing they could come up with so far?) and the building kitty-corner to where this would be located (I forget the name at the moment.)
Would it ever be possible though to hire an architect for these sorts of buildings that isn't based in St. Louis? I mean, I know it isn't a requirement, but why do these big developments look no further than HOK, Forum, Lawrence, etc.?
I'm sorry, if it's so horrible in Dubai, then why do the foreign workers move there? Perhaps, as bas as the conditions allegedly are, they are STILL better than in India? Or at least they can make more money in Dubai.
JCity wrote:I'm sorry, if it's so horrible in Dubai, then why do the foreign workers move there? Perhaps, as bas as the conditions allegedly are, they are STILL better than in India? Or at least they can make more money in Dubai.
The glorification of Dubai is probably greater than the end results. Dubai does have horrible labor conditions.
I apologize, I did not mean to cause the thread to diverge off topic like that by mentioning Dubai. I simply made an off-the-cuff remark about Dubai, which has quite a bit of land to spread out, comparatively, also building very tall buildings (going for the tallest) and building out into the water (great photo above). I certainly did not mean to bring up human rights issues related to their working conditions.
^^ I believe its called urban planning. Also the land they have to spread out on is desert owned by (??) where we have farmers etc who see it as a good way to cash out the property of their land. Also they are an absolute monarchy backed by a state religion... we are a "democratic republic"... I agree it would be nice to have a city smaller than what we are now but have a skyline that is the envy of the world... but hey -- we got what we got.
- 11K
^ I think the point is that tall buildings are built with hubris. Dubai could create a wonderful, livable community by building nothing tall than twenty stories, but big buildings aren't about "livable communities," they're about showing off economic power. I think it's good for the CWE to get some of this energy, but we all hope that the existing vacant lots are simply filled in - that will do more to increase the quality of life.
- 8,912
I saw a Modern Marvels about dubia and that flower island thing they are building. They interviewed the Prince/king (some government official) and they said they rely mainly on oil monies now, but are building these "magnificent" resorts on the coast to try to create a massive tourism indunstry. He said that he knows the oil will not always be there, and they need another big industry to fall back on.
i know this is still way-off topic but the ironic thing about tourism being the fall-back for oil is that, of oil-dependent industries, one of the most-doomed is aviation. airplanes are FAR behind most other industries in having commercially-viable successors under study. how else does one get to dubai?
Grover wrote:^ I think the point is that tall buildings are built with hubris. Dubai could create a wonderful, livable community by building nothing tall than twenty stories, but big buildings aren't about "livable communities," they're about showing off economic power. I think it's good for the CWE to get some of this energy, but we all hope that the existing vacant lots are simply filled in - that will do more to increase the quality of life.
"Signature" buildings really seem to be going out of fashion. At least in North America, that seems so 20th century. Taipei, Dubai, and Kuala Lumpur are just experiencing what we did 80 years ago. Give them time and they'll realize it's all a bunch of hubris.
Now back to St. Louis: We've seen the boom times and bust. At this point what we need is sustainable buildings--places that are livable or workable and inspire comfort or pride no matter the height of the building. In some areas this may mean 20-30 floors, maybe even 40 downtown. But for the most part it's just balancing realism and imagination. CWE can probably sustain a couple more 20-story buildings, but beyond that someone needs to be asking if we have the infrastructure to support additional units, and if those units have a 20+ year occupancy expectancy, or are they only going to lead to greater vacancy and dilapidation in other buildings?
How do you do it, Grover? It took you just 8 minutes to find the perfect picture, cut & paste (or whatever you do), and post it here for all of us to get a little chuckle (obviously, I'm not a computer guy). If I knew how, I'd post that little guy applauding for you.
if we have the infrastructure to support additional units, and if those units have a 20+ year occupancy expectancy, or are they only going to lead to greater vacancy and dilapidation in other buildings?
The infrastructure to support additional units? What are you talking about? roads? services?? Right.. a few more towers, and our "infrastructure" would collapse...
If you build it, they will come. Everyone always views stl as some kind of static population, like there are only ___ number of people in the region that would move to downtown or CWE.. I don't get it.
JCity wrote:if we have the infrastructure to support additional units, and if those units have a 20+ year occupancy expectancy, or are they only going to lead to greater vacancy and dilapidation in other buildings?
The infrastructure to support additional units? What are you talking about? roads? services?? Right.. a few more towers, and our "infrastructure" would collapse...
If you build it, they will come. Everyone always views stl as some kind of static population, like there are only ___ number of people in the region that would move to downtown or CWE.. I don't get it.
My question about infrastructure was intentionally abstract. In the case of CWE, it could mean many things -- parking spaces, for one.
JCity I agree with you that St. Louis isn't static and in fact good development of the core like we've seen over the past 5 years may actually drive population growth in the whole region -- but I don't agree that 'if you build it, they will come'. St. Louis Centre and Union Station are perfect examples: People came for a while, but considering those developments had a shelf life of about 10 years each, were they worth it?
The best interest for the developer may (or may not) also be the best interest for St. Louis -- and it's fair for us to be skeptical sometimes.
people live in Park East, 4545, lofts, etc. No one lives/lived in St. Louis Centre or Union Station. Entirely different.
You people really need to start thinking a little bigger. Buiding a couple more 20 story buildings in the CWE and a 40 story building downtown isn't going to bring St. Louis to the brink of destruction. For crying out loud, the city population was over 850k some 50 years ago, over twice of that today.
Actually, I'm all for more 20-40 floor buildings--as I said earlier in this thread on April 17. My issue is with "signiture" buildings in the 1000+ foot range. Specifically, is the "prestige" such a building would bring worth the resources it would take to get built, the deals we would grant (TIF?) to get it done, and the impact it would have on other buildings. (Now sure if it's entirely private financing then financially it wouldn't be such a hardship.)
The metro St. Louis area has a population near 3 million. We have many Fortune 500 companies here. Look at the skylines (Emporis or a World Almanac are good resources) of other U.S. cities that compare in size and/or corporate atmosphere and you will see far taller buildings than what we have now. There's no reason why a major tower can't (shouldn't, some cry) be built in DT St. Louis. It only takes a developer (like, maybe....McGowan Walsh) who has a vision and tenants willing to occupy. I don't understand the pesimism...(oh wait a minute, yes I do...I just don't understand the sentiment behind it).
As for the statement, "Build it and they will come".... St. Louis Center was a mistake from the get-go. They didn't build it...right (that's the keyword that goes missing from this phrase. You can't just build something without any realistic function or purpose and expect it work just because it's new.) In the case of Union Station, it was a project of the 80's that worked then, doesn't work now. How many times have people said right here US needs residential near it? Where's the developers? Where's Mayor Slay's call for archetectural/city planner competions to develope all those surface parking lots just west of it? While parts of downtown are booming, other parts slip into the beginings of decay. St. Louis is plenty large enough to develope in all these areas...we just need good developments that are properly designed.
As for the statement, "Build it and they will come".... St. Louis Center was a mistake from the get-go. They didn't build it...right (that's the keyword that goes missing from this phrase. You can't just build something without any realistic function or purpose and expect it work just because it's new.) In the case of Union Station, it was a project of the 80's that worked then, doesn't work now. How many times have people said right here US needs residential near it? Where's the developers? Where's Mayor Slay's call for archetectural/city planner competions to develope all those surface parking lots just west of it? While parts of downtown are booming, other parts slip into the beginings of decay. St. Louis is plenty large enough to develope in all these areas...we just need good developments that are properly designed.
^...Have tallests that are taller than our tallest (if that wasnt made clear)
