I've seen many posts with similar styles to these before on various review sites. This post raises way too many flags that a normal reviewer would not trip. You can bet it is a fake...stlmike wrote:This was by far the best hotel experience we have ever had. We stayed at the Wyndham in St. Louis last year during Ribamerica Festival. It was good then. However, they have renovated many of the rooms now and it is absolutely beautiful.
Really, how would you know that?
Well, if you read this whole quote, it says they were here last year, then stayed again this year and must have noticed changes and inferred that they have renovated.
I'm not saying this isn't fake, but in that comment I think you were a little presumptuous.
Well, I have been in the Orpheum as well. And while it is not the Fox, it certainly wasn't as bad as you portray or witnessed it when I visited.citywatcher wrote:I have been in the Orpheum recently and it is a mess, it is WAY dated and not in good shape. The common public areas are barely acceptable. The bathrooms are tiny and never been updated. The back hallways and steps are dangerous and moldy. The paint is falling off and desperatly needs to be redone.. Sorry but using the Orpheum was a BAD comparison.. I wouldnt have even brought it up, but when I saw what a halfassed job they did on Ed Boxx's work, I dont trust these guys for nothing. I was happy to see they were "right on the problem" but was perplexed when I saw the PAINT being applied to the stone They painted the stone for christs sake!MORONS
Also, the Orpheum was used an example because JCity cited it in an earlier reply. He still hasn't said whether or not he has experienced inside the Orpheum. I doubt it.
Also citywatcher, if you are so disgruntled with how Ed Boxx's artwork/statements were covered, perhaps you should call the Roberts Companies. Voice your concerns. Call your alderman/woman. Call the alderman/woman for downtown. I'm not joking either. I'm serious. Internet b*tching helps very little or maybe you don't see their remedy as too egregious.
- 11K
BTW - there's another billboard at 40/Newstead. The rendering looks great - hopefully they'll hit 50% soon and get a shovel in the ground!
I was at the Orpheum New Years Eve 2006. It has been a while, but it was "renovated" before that time. It is a beautiful old theatre, but honestly I couldn't really notice the "renovations".
Arch, I got it that you are DOWN with the Roberts, and NOTHING they do could be in any way wrong, but the comments I've made are just a few observations. I really want their new building to happen, and it looks like it will. The BOE does look good. I've been through the building. I neglected to mention that development. But, imo, I think they could be more impressive with all the resources they have.
Oh, and those Tripadvisor comments, dude are you joking? Those were written in the basement offices of the Mayfair by some intern.
Arch, I got it that you are DOWN with the Roberts, and NOTHING they do could be in any way wrong, but the comments I've made are just a few observations. I really want their new building to happen, and it looks like it will. The BOE does look good. I've been through the building. I neglected to mention that development. But, imo, I think they could be more impressive with all the resources they have.
Oh, and those Tripadvisor comments, dude are you joking? Those were written in the basement offices of the Mayfair by some intern.
Actually JCity, I am not "DOWN" with the Roberts brothers. I don't know either one of them. And actually, them charging $19 per square foot for their BOE retail/commercial space is a bit ridiculous for Locust St., which has almost zero foot traffic. So no, I don't think they can't do "any way wrong", but I do believe they should be given a fair shake just like everyone else.JCity wrote:I was at the Orpheum New Years Eve 2006. It has been a while, but it was "renovated" before that time. It is a beautiful old theatre, but honestly I couldn't really notice the "renovations".
Arch, I got it that you are DOWN with the Roberts, and NOTHING they do could be in any way wrong, but the comments I've made are just a few observations. I really want their new building to happen, and it looks like it will. The BOE does look good. I've been through the building. I neglected to mention that development. But, imo, I think they could be more impressive with all the resources they have.
Oh, and those Tripadvisor comments, dude are you joking? Those were written in the basement offices of the Mayfair by some intern.
Also, if you were aware of the intern comment, you should have alerted me when you first advised me to read tripadvisor.
Overall, I hear you.
Unless I am mistaken, I don't think the Roberts Tower is requiring a 50% pre-sell. I think they are banking on the fact these will be St. Louis' first green condos.Grover wrote:BTW - there's another billboard at 40/Newstead. The rendering looks great - hopefully they'll hit 50% soon and get a shovel in the ground!
- 8,912
Arch City wrote:Unless I am mistaken, I don't think the Roberts Tower is requiring a 50% pre-sell. I think they are banking on the fact these will be St. Louis' first green condos.Grover wrote:BTW - there's another billboard at 40/Newstead. The rendering looks great - hopefully they'll hit 50% soon and get a shovel in the ground!
Are you saying they don't have a presale requirement from the banks?
I think they are banking on the fact these will be St. Louis' first green condos.
This isn't the smartest business strategy...
Full page color rendering in todays PD Downtown Progress Report insert. Very sharp. Also, it refers to the building as now "under construction".
For your enjoyment...
![]()
And maybe someone mentioned it already, but there is also a website:
Roberts Tower
And maybe someone mentioned it already, but there is also a website:
Roberts Tower
Yeah, that's my understanding.bpe235 wrote:Are you saying they don't have a presale requirement from the banks?
^I don't know if they are using a bank. Again, that is my understanding. This could have changed.
Anyway, if the preservationists/architectural purists hadn't killed the 40-42-story addition for the Renaissance Grand, this part of downtown might have had a little bulk to it with the addition of the Roberts Tower.
![]()
They may have b*tched about it, but it was the National Park Service what killed the 40-story addition - unless you are calling the NPS preservationists? In any case, if they had built a 40-story addition, then there would be no Renaissance Conference Center between 9th and 10th and we would have ended up with a giant parking lot, parking garage, or some combination of the two, covering that whole block.Arch City wrote:Anyway, if the preservationists/architectural purists hadn't killed the 40-42-story addition for the Renaissance Grand, this part of downtown might have had a little bulk to it with the addition of the Roberts Tower.
You are right, ultimately the National Park Service killed the tower. Initially however, the NPS appeared to care less about the height. The NPS did nix the plan for the tower at the urging of local preservationists.jlblues wrote:
They may have b*tched about it, but it was the National Park Service what killed the 40-story addition - unless you are calling the NPS preservationists? In any case, if they had built a 40-story addition, then there would be no Renaissance Conference Center between 9th and 10th and we would have ended up with a giant parking lot, parking garage, or some combination of the two, covering that whole block.
Preservationists complained about the 46-story tower, the 38-story tower, and the 28-story tower from what I recall. They complained and ultimately the tower was nubbed down to compliment the height of the Statler/Gateway. Then the exterior design was also changed to compliment the Statler/Gateway.
And by the way, where the conference center is now......that land could have been used for a higher density building - a tower.
- 8,912
can someone explain what the NPS had to do with this building?
jlblues wrote:For your enjoyment...
And maybe someone mentioned it already, but there is also a website:
Roberts Tower
LOL, the server for the website is down.
The NPS has nothing to do with Roberts Tower. It helped can the 46-story Renaissance Grand addition, had it been built would have added some skyline bulk to this part of downtown - along with the forthcoming Roberts Tower.bpe235 wrote:can someone explain what the NPS had to do with this building?
They are not related. An observation was simply made.
- 8,912
jlblues wrote:They may have b*tched about it, but it was the National Park Service what killed the 40-story addition - unless you are calling the NPS preservationists? In any case, if they had built a 40-story addition, then there would be no Renaissance Conference Center between 9th and 10th and we would have ended up with a giant parking lot, parking garage, or some combination of the two, covering that whole block.Arch City wrote:Anyway, if the preservationists/architectural purists hadn't killed the 40-42-story addition for the Renaissance Grand, this part of downtown might have had a little bulk to it with the addition of the Roberts Tower.
I meant, what jurisdiction did the NPS have on the 40 story addition? Does it have something to do with the tax credits?
what a JOKE! How in the HELL did the National Park Service have ANY say in the height of the tower? Someone please enlighten me.
I don't get it either. I thought the Historic Tax Credits were a state thing.
