This is so damn stupid.
^Perhaps the old Laclede's Landing Ferris wheel proposal can join the fray.
KB, you bring up some really good points/arguments. It's funny and sad that Cordish/Cardinals would see any sort of mixed-use/higher-use building on the Mike Shannon's site as competing with BPV, as opposed to contributing to the built environment and making it a more lively and attractive area for visitors, residents, and businesses. But, that's entirely consistent with what we've seen from them thus far.
KB, you bring up some really good points/arguments. It's funny and sad that Cordish/Cardinals would see any sort of mixed-use/higher-use building on the Mike Shannon's site as competing with BPV, as opposed to contributing to the built environment and making it a more lively and attractive area for visitors, residents, and businesses. But, that's entirely consistent with what we've seen from them thus far.
- 2,631
Exactly. Shannon's site is extremely high visibility, and a successful BPV will need a surrounding built environment in order to actually thrive. It can't just be an island. Maybe the Cards can buy the land and add it to BPV.
- 733
I think the Shannon's ferris wheel is being promoted by the same people who built the ATL ferris wheel. They are actually based out of STL I believe???
- 472
Chicago builds the first ferris wheel. St. Louis destroys the first ferris wheel. Chicago puts a ferris wheel on a pier and makes lots of money. St. Louis spends lots of money to build ferris wheels to be Chicago's peer. It seems like we're doing it wrong.
CarexCurator wrote:Chicago builds the first ferris wheel. St. Louis destroys the first ferris wheel. Chicago puts a ferris wheel on a pier and makes lots of money. St. Louis spends lots of money to build ferris wheels to be Chicago's peer. It seems like we're doing it wrong.
Agreed. In my opinion, the City of St. Louis will not allow this to happen.debaliviere wrote:This is so damn stupid.
There are too many pieces of green parkland in greater downtown St. Louis where a ferris wheel go.
I really don't even like the idea of a ferris wheel at Union Station, but I am more receptive to it than this Shannon's site rumor.
Speaking of Chicago, I don't know if they have it or not on the Navy Pier still, but they had an interactive 3D ride on the history of Chicago - including its founding, growth, the fire that burned it down etc. You could feel the heat when they discussed the fire, cold when discussing Chicago's winters, the seats moved during certain segments etc. It was pretty cool.
If Sansone wants to develop of entertainment value in downtown St. Louis, why not build an interactive/tech museum of some sort or an interactive 3D history museum of St. Louis like the one in Chicago - but better?
By the way, I would like to see a developer OTHER THAN Cordish or the Cardinals building something on the Shannon's site - reliable developers like Koman, CRG (Claycorp) etc. While making it a GOOD entertainment property is okay, I would prefer to see a mixed-use development - perhaps with an entertainment component.
I completely agree with this. I don't know why everybody would be against the ferris wheel on Mike Shannon's spot over Union Station. For one, there will not be demand in the foreseeable future to build a 40 story tower on the Mike Shannon's lot (especially if BPV2 proposes new hi-rises). For two, the Union Station ferris wheel would not offer near as good views of downtown St. Louis, specifically the things tourist would want to see. Anybody that has been to Atlanta's sky wheel can attest that this will be pretty cool and actually bring a cool attraction to St. Louis' downtown. Tourist would be able to go to the Arch, Old Courthouse, CityGarden, the new Wheel and then Ballpark Village. The Union Station development doesn't need a ferris wheel and will do just fine with the other attractions and of course the aquarium.kbshapiro wrote:There will only be one Ferris Wheel. To be determined if it's a Mike Shannons or Union Station.
Bob OLoughlin's only reason to fight the Ferris Wheel at Mike Shannons is because he wants it at Union Station. Guess he thinks he has a monopoly on entertainment in St Louis.
Mike Shannons property does not block the view of his hotel as its directly west of his property. His customers will still see the Arch, CBD and Busch Stadium. This was just some made up complaint to distract people from the real reason he opposes the Ferris Wheel at Mike Shannons.
Lastly, the purpose of a Ferris Wheel is to give a good fun view of the surrounding area. There's nothing around Union station to see. At Mike Shannons, you'll see CityGarden, Busch, activity at BPV, CBD up close, Arch, old State Capital, etc.
Lastly, from the old Busch Stadium days to not allow buildings to look over onto the field like Wrigley, there was a 35 ft height restriction imposed on the Mike Shannons property controlled by Cardinals and Cordish. They will not waive this restriction for any type of project that would compete with BPV like a office tower, hotel, residential tower, etc. So, you guys have a point of wanting some amazing mixed use tower on this site but it's highly unlikely to ever get the blessing of Cards/Cordish.
That's my case for the Ferris Wheel at Mike Shannons.
- 2
What a circus. Can't wait to show off the 'Ferris Wheel' in the middle of downtown STL to my out of town friends visiting from KC and Chicago. Think we can just rent the one that is in South County mall's parking lot every other weekend during the summer?debaliviere wrote:This is so damn stupid.
- 170
Add me to the group of folks who would prefer not to have a Ferris Wheel at either location.
- 2,631
I don't see why we are only talking about two Ferris wheels, why don't we just tear down Soulard and put in an entire theme park!
- 2,430
It'd be cool to see a simulation of the proposed views.... may be wrong, but I think one on top of the Shannon's building would provide some interesting views but also suffer quite a bit from its adjacency to the Hilton's western tower. The Union Station wheel, otoh, benefits from a more open view but suffers from greater distance from points of interest.
Anyway, just in general I'm highly skeptical of a ferris wheel like that in the CBD... certainly something I wouldn't subsidize in any way.
Anyway, just in general I'm highly skeptical of a ferris wheel like that in the CBD... certainly something I wouldn't subsidize in any way.
- 592
If we're going to do dueling Ferris wheels, let's have three and be known as the best place with four places where you can pointlessly go hundreds of feet in the air and come back down again.
- 2,430
Silly me was thinking that the fantasy Ferris wheel proposal was to put it on top of the Shannon's building. But apparently the idea is to demo that commercial building for the wheel. This odds of this happening are more or less zero.
Height restriction a complicated obstacle to downtown St. Louis Ferris wheel project
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 40f21.html
Height restriction a complicated obstacle to downtown St. Louis Ferris wheel project
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 40f21.html
- 6,120
Okay, okay. I'll bite. More simulated wheel views. All four views look out from a height of about 700' above sea level. The street elevation seems to be around 480' right there, so you're talking a wheel of a bit over two hundred feet. A couple of notes: this is a darn tight site. A wheel two hundred feet tall is also two hundred feet wide. The present building is about a hundred feet east to west . . . so any large wheel on that site will be facing north/south, not east/west. Also note: I goofed and took my snaps in between the hotel towers and not over Shannon's so the views are slightly off, but the difference is pretty small, really. So without further ado . . . Google Earth.STLrainbow wrote:It'd be cool to see a simulation of the proposed views.... may be wrong, but I think one on top of the Shannon's building would provide some interesting views but also suffer quite a bit from its adjacency to the Hilton's western tower. The Union Station wheel, otoh, benefits from a more open view but suffers from greater distance from points of interest.
Anyway, just in general I'm highly skeptical of a ferris wheel like that in the CBD... certainly something I wouldn't subsidize in any way.
The views aren't bad, really. But you could get the same view from a tower and an observation deck. Also . . . there's already a wheel downtown. There's a quite lovely Big Eli (a twelve car, I believe) offering approximately this view:
- 3,766
Those pictures are not in the right location. That is not on top of Shannons that is between the two hilton towers. I also doubt it would be that high in the air.
- 6,120
I noted that the location was off slightly in my description, but it's close enough I didn't see the purpose of redoing it. The view from the correct location is really quite comparable. Also, if you look at the notes I explain the height of the view. The view is intended to be what you would see from the top of a roughly two hundred foot wheel. The street elevation is about four hundred eight feet there. The "eye elevation" is a hair below seven hundred, so it's about two hundred twenty feet above the street. (And you'll note that you're about eye level with the roof of the Hilton West Tower, which is billed as being 227' on the Skyscraper Page.) Not sure how tall the proposed wheel would be. The one for Union Station was quoted at two hundred, so I used that figure. Interestingly, the Shannon's site is about two hundred feet deep, so the wheel should just fit there.jshank83 wrote:Those pictures are not in the right location. That is not on top of Shannons that is between the two hilton towers. I also doubt it would be that high in the air.
Sorry about the screwed up location. I can fix it if there's really a desire . . . but the difference in the view feels quite minimal to me.
Of course the presence of a veritable picket fence exceeding two hundred feet in height stretching away from Shannon's in both directions makes that thirty five foot restriction seem pretty silly. I think there's a strong argument against it on the grounds of the neighborhood. If they're trying to protect their view it's way too late. Sure, most of them can see only the outfield, but you ought to be able to see home plate from several. Here's a nice picture to demonstrate the point. When standing behind home plate, if you can see the window the window can see you. Which means your buddy with the National Park service has good reason to sneak into the Old Courthouse dome on game day . . . if he can get away with it. I cannot believe that height restriction is really enforceable. It's a paper tiger meant to scare the developer. Their only solution would be to build a bunch of tall buildings right around the stadium . . . more or less like they planned way back when. All that said . . . the Shannon's site looks like a great spot for a residential tower.
- 19
It's behind a paywall, but
Group eyes site near Union Station for MLS stadium
Group eyes site near Union Station for MLS stadium
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... union.htmlA group of local business and sports leaders aiming to lure a Major League Soccer team to St. Louis has narrowed its focus for a potential stadium site to the area just west of Union Station where the Interstate 64 Market Street interchange is located, according to sources familiar with the deal.
- 103
If the MLS awards us a team, when would the stadium be built and the team start playing?
- 1,868
I think I read somewhere that the hope was for STL to be part of the 2020 expansion class.cardinalstl wrote:If the MLS awards us a team, when would the stadium be built and the team start playing?
- 6,120
It would be so neat to have a soccer team again. When I was growing up I think I and most of my friends were more excited about the Steamers than the Football Cardinals or the Blues. (The Cards still ruled the roost of course, but . . . well . . . )