Maybe Centene will decide to come east of Skinker after all if Clayton falls through. I actually think that, considering the legal aspects, Centene is likely not to get their Clayton location. What do you all think about them moving to another "glamorous" location further east?
It seems clear to me that these tall buildings have little to do with anything other than the hubris of their developers and tenants. It's one thing if there's a high development pressure on the land and there's nowhere to go but up, or as Tysalpha says if they're completely privatley financed, but pushing it as a matter of civic pride because you're envious of the size of other people's buildings smacks of something an insecure city would do. I'd rather chase Portland (tallest building 546', how do they sleep at night?...must be all that economic growth) than Cleveland.
jefferson wrote:It seems clear to me that these tall buildings have little to do with anything other than the hubris of their developers and tenants. It's one thing if there's a high development pressure on the land and there's nowhere to go but up, or as Tysalpha says if they're completely privatley financed, but pushing it as a matter of civic pride because you're envious of the size of other people's buildings smacks of something an insecure city would do. I'd rather chase Portland (tallest building 546', how do they sleep at night?...must be all that economic growth) than Cleveland.
Hubris? That seems a bit much. I could be wrong, but there's a touch of "just folks" to your reasoning.
Why do we have any skyscrapers in Saint Louis at all? We have plenty of room, then wouldn't arguably any building over three stories then smack of hubris? Even in places where the real estate market encourages building up, could it not be said that "hubris" drives them to build anyway? I mean, why do people feel the need to live or work in Manhattan? They don't need to be there, not in this era of instantaneous and relatively cheap communications, so why don't companies just buy old warehouses and Wal-Marts in Tulsa or Plano, TX? Or (and maybe I'm belaboring the point here) why does Congress sit in that magnificent confection of a building, when it'd probably be a hell of a lot cheaper to call General Steel and have them throw up a box?
I think what drives people to build skyscrapers even when they're not absolutely necessary is the desire to be excellent, to achieve, to do something great--there's nothing wrong with that. In fact it should be encouraged. Was it "hubris" to build the Arch?
(N.B.: "hubris" involves some kind of fall or tragedy, which isn't applicable to Centene--perhaps "overweening pride" sums up what you mean?)
I think Jefferson might have been referring to the trophy buildings. That said, but-for the Park East I would not be a homeowner in St. Louis City. Some of us desire that hubris-touch.
- 11K
Hubris does come in all sizes. I drive a Honda Civic and could have gone without the sunroof, but my ego needed room to breathe!
- 476
Frankly, I think hubris is a good thing to have (in moderation). STL doesnt have as many "skyscrapers" because our fortune 500 companies are small enough to fit in smaller buildings. Peabody is a huge company, but they dont have 1000 employees working in their HQ. Same with Express Scripps.
What I dont like, is that there ARE 1000+ employees at CitiMortage but it is in Ofallon.
What I dont like, is that there ARE 1000+ employees at CitiMortage but it is in Ofallon.
They shouldn't be allowed to call themseves "Citi" if they don't work in the "Citi". It should be SuburbsMortgage.
I wasn't referring to skyscrapers in general, just the idea of a mid-market city like St. Louis shooting for 1000ft. in some vain attempt to assert itself on the national stage. Again, if MW wants to put up a 1000ft tower downtown because they just have that much faith in the property market, great. But I hope the city's leaders don't push such a development because we need to somehow "catch up" with Cleveland or Mobile AL for God's sakes. It's just a big pi**ing contest and something that down on their luck cities like Cleveland and St. Louis should stay out of. How smart is it to put up a 1000ft tower surrounded by empty lots?
Good point, if you look at the WTC redevelopment in NYC, the Freedom tower alone (1700'+) is fast approaching $3 billion and they're having trouble filling it with anything but government tenants, so there's probably some wishful thinking/hubris component to it; but I still think you say it's more economically justifiable in Manhattan than St. Louis, where the 1000ft building seems to come more from a sense of civic inferiority than from market reality.
As for the Arch, there might be a little bit of hubris to it, or maybe justifiable pride would be a better way to say it but:
a) the Arch doesn't suck up development potential and,
b) it's unique enough that there's no chance of it being eclipsed, which I can't say about a skyscraper.
Even in places where the real estate market encourages building up, could it not be said that "hubris" drives them to build anyway?
Good point, if you look at the WTC redevelopment in NYC, the Freedom tower alone (1700'+) is fast approaching $3 billion and they're having trouble filling it with anything but government tenants, so there's probably some wishful thinking/hubris component to it; but I still think you say it's more economically justifiable in Manhattan than St. Louis, where the 1000ft building seems to come more from a sense of civic inferiority than from market reality.
As for the Arch, there might be a little bit of hubris to it, or maybe justifiable pride would be a better way to say it but:
a) the Arch doesn't suck up development potential and,
b) it's unique enough that there's no chance of it being eclipsed, which I can't say about a skyscraper.
- 11K
As for the Arch, there might be a little bit of hubris to it, or maybe justifiable pride would be a better way to say it but:
a) the Arch doesn't suck up development potential and,
Uh, yes it does. It actually sucks up a HUGE area of development potential. Let's not forget what was torn down to put it up AND how it serves a a barrier to the river for the rest of downtown. I don't think it's all bad, people are drawn to the Arch, but we're missing some livable space that we would otherwise have.
Grover wrote:As for the Arch, there might be a little bit of hubris to it, or maybe justifiable pride would be a better way to say it but:
a) the Arch doesn't suck up development potential and,
Uh, yes it does. It actually sucks up a HUGE area of development potential. Let's not forget what was torn down to put it up AND how it serves a a barrier to the river for the rest of downtown. I don't think it's all bad, people are drawn to the Arch, but we're missing some livable space that we would otherwise have.
I meant to type development "pressure". My mistake.
As far as the development potential, I agree it might be fun to have some development there or perhaps to have our old historic district back, but that's for another discussion (I think).
I agree with Mr. Jefferson that it would be downright harmful to build a super tower based on ego and wishful thinking rather than market demand. An empty building might look better than an empty lot but only for a certain period, and the resulting loss for the developers will send a bad signal to other developers that this is not a good market to invest in. As for the Freedom Tower in NYC, one of the problems they are having is that companies that can afford that kind of office space don't want to lose employees who are afraid of getting blown up in a copy cat attack. I suppose either the government agencies don't think their emloyees will be scared or they just don't care.
In time though, once the tower is finally built, it will be a premium spot and I'd be surprised if the big boys like Bear Sterns and Goldman Sachs don't set up shop there. The area has really come back a lot since 9-11 and it should be popping in 5-10 years. It's amazing how things can change in 10 years, look at Washington avenue.
In time though, once the tower is finally built, it will be a premium spot and I'd be surprised if the big boys like Bear Sterns and Goldman Sachs don't set up shop there. The area has really come back a lot since 9-11 and it should be popping in 5-10 years. It's amazing how things can change in 10 years, look at Washington avenue.
- 85
Imagine if: Instead of building the ugly, isolated Eagleton building (whose employees never seem to emerge during the day), the Federal govt had built a "campus" of 3 or 4 smaller buildings. You might actually see a real live person in that area of downtown once in a while.
I completely disagree, I like the Eagleton Courthouse. It's not my favorite, but I think it's a great addition to downtown. They need to build on that empty lot to the east of the building that is called "green space". what a waste.
Downtown doesn't need any other towers taller than 60 stories. In fact, with the current demand, which there is close to nil, it barely needs more than one or two new buildings.
Historic tax credits have been excellent. How about some tax credits for businesses that move to the city?! what is city hall doing to entice businesses from the county (or elsewhere) to move to the city? The county is already "enticing" businesses with a lack of an earnings tax, and has been doing this for decades.
Again, Historic Tax credits have been GREAT. Now time for STEP 2.
Downtown doesn't need any other towers taller than 60 stories. In fact, with the current demand, which there is close to nil, it barely needs more than one or two new buildings.
Historic tax credits have been excellent. How about some tax credits for businesses that move to the city?! what is city hall doing to entice businesses from the county (or elsewhere) to move to the city? The county is already "enticing" businesses with a lack of an earnings tax, and has been doing this for decades.
Again, Historic Tax credits have been GREAT. Now time for STEP 2.
- 10K
JCity wrote:I completely disagree, I like the Eagleton Courthouse. It's not my favorite, but I think it's a great addition to downtown. They need to build on that empty lot to the east of the building that is called "green space". what a waste.
I agree with you. That "park" is such a complete waste of space. Imagine the area with a second, complementary tower at Bank of America Plaza (per the original plans) and new high- or mid-rise office and housing on the green space east of the courthouse. Suddenly, you have some great density that helps strengthen the connection between Cupples and the Ballpark.
I noticed some construction trailers on the parking lot behind this site. Anyone know anything?
- 11K
There's been a dumpster on the lot for quite some time and of course the building has been vacated since early spring. The last I heard the property owner was holding out for a large project (20+ stories/hotel/etc.). With the current feeling towards the housing market and W Hotel coming to Lindell, maybe this is on indefinite hold. IMO - a 4-5 story building fronting West Pine and Euclid with vibrant street-level retail would be perfect. I'd rather see the highrises along Lindell.
I didn't know the W hotel was coming to Lindell, is that W as in Starwood hotels? Is there a thread about this?
- 11K
^ Sorry, I meant Hotel Indigo - the Robert's conversion of the old Best Western.
Is there a thread on that? So much is happening on Euclid and Lindell. And to think it wasn't that long that the Argyle apartments were there.
The trailers and equipment there are for the Park East Lofts project a block South.
The Doctor's building site could be a great project, but at this point it's definitely in the "wake me when something happens" category.
The Doctor's building site could be a great project, but at this point it's definitely in the "wake me when something happens" category.
This is now moving again. Additional enabling legislation is making it's way through the process. Mills settled on the shorter version (6 stories)--approximately 180 units of apts designed to later be sold as condo's and 14000 sqft of retail-- traditional design, sidewalk to alley foot print, that relates well with the street.
Am I reading that incorrectly? How could 6 stories come out to 180 units? If there is retail on the first floor, that means there is more than 30 units per floor.
ward17 wrote:This is now moving again. Additional enabling legislation is making it's way through the process. Mills settled on the shorter version (6 stories)--approximately 180 units of apts designed to later be sold as condo's and 14000 sqft of retail-- traditional design, sidewalk to alley foot print, that relates well with the street.
Can you say "L A M E"???
Granted, I have not seen the renderings, but this sounds dreadfully boring. Another "traditional" design. Yay...
And 6 stories??? Whatever replaces the Doctors Building should be at least as tall in my opinion. B o r i n g...
- 835
Well this is no surprise. When I heard that Mills was planning a development on this site, I knew I couldn't get my hopes up for much. We needn't look any further than their West End Terrace project at Taylor & Maryland to see that this company lacks the vision and imagination necessary to carry out an exciting urban project. If I were Mills, I would just go the cheaper route and renovate the Doctors Building inside and out rather than construct another mediocre slab of nothingness from scratch.
- 11K
STLgasm wrote:ward17 wrote:This is now moving again. Additional enabling legislation is making it's way through the process. Mills settled on the shorter version (6 stories)--approximately 180 units of apts designed to later be sold as condo's and 14000 sqft of retail-- traditional design, sidewalk to alley foot print, that relates well with the street.
Can you say "L A M E"???
Granted, I have not seen the renderings, but this sounds dreadfully boring. Another "traditional" design. Yay...
B o r i n g...
What the heck!?!?!?!? This is going to be a great development. Sure, you could put up something the height of the Doctor's Building, but then you would have your big street-life sucking surface parking lot still sitting there. This is a very large parcel of land and six stories along Euclid and West Pine. The stretch along West Pine is fully 1/3 of the length of that entire block!!!! I'm assuming that this is front the length of the parcel on both sides to get the 180 units. This is a GREAT use of this space. I'm glad the developer stuck with this. 14k sq ft of retail is fantastic as well. With Rasoi basically at this corner and an additional retail space in the same building this corner is really going to come to life! By comparison the south west corner is the Residences at Forest Park Hotel at six stories. I think the north west corner is basically the same. Also, the Metro Lofts along Forest Park Parkway are five stories. We have a signature tower in the Park East, a nice highrise with 4545 and some marquee vacant lots that are better suited to 15+ stories. If they'd put a larger building at the corner with 3-6 stories all along West Pine that would have been great too. But this will add ~250+ residents along Euclid - hooray!
Ward17 - any renderings?
The intersection in question - in case some of you haven't seen it:
