Why didn't opus just combine the Park East Tower and Lindell Condos to make one 60 story building. Why is St. Louis so affraid of height.



The ordinance against buildings being taller than the arch is so rediculous.



Did you know that St. Louis used to have an ordinance against any building being taller than the old court house.



We have broken the rule before, lets work on doing it again.

cwegurl wrote:The ordinance against buildings being taller than the arch is so rediculous.

No such thing exists. Total and complete urban legend.

http://www.westendword.com/moxie/news/s ... ook-.shtml

cwegurl wrote:Did you know that St. Louis used to have an ordinance against any building being taller than the old court house.

Never heard of this, I'd like to see some documentation.

cwegurl wrote:Why didn't opus just combine the Park East Tower and Lindell Condos to make one 60 story building. Why is St. Louis so affraid of height.

Land values are not yet high enough to dictate such a height. Building taller means more expensive. Land values must be expensive enough to warrant extra height, not just because it will look cool.

cwegurl wrote:Did you know that St. Louis used to have an ordinance against any building being taller than the old court house.

I'm not sure this is true. The OC isn't particularly tall (although it is easily one of the most beautiful buildings in its style), and for some time the Railway Exchange (Famous-Barr) was the tallest building in St. Louis.

Urban Elitist wrote:

cwegurl wrote:Why didn't opus just combine the Park East Tower and Lindell Condos to make one 60 story building. Why is St. Louis so affraid of height.

Land values are not yet high enough to dictate such a height. Building taller means more expensive. Land values must be expensive enough to warrant extra height, not just because it will look cool.

The taller a building is, the more infrastructure it also needs. More elevators, more emergency stairs, bigger plumbing and sewer lines, etc. All of these things increase the building 'core', and at some point the core could take too much space away from the intended purpose. Office buildings require far less infrastructure; but it's rare to see 60-story residential buildings anywhere, save maybe the most densely populated cities. (Anyone have stats out there? What's the average height of an apartment building in Sao Paulo, for example?)

I don't think buildings in Sao Paulo are really all that tall. Certainly not 60 stories. Chicago, I believe, has several 60-story-plus residential buildings. You can check this out at Emporis (sorry, I don't know how to post the link).

http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/ty/rs/



It looks like Chicago has several in the 60-story range.

Zezuz wrote:http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/ty/rs/



It looks like Chicago has several in the 60-story range.

Interesting site - thanks for posting the link! It's interesting to note that, with the exception of say Dubai, those are all very densely-populated cities. And then it's pretty clear there are some 'statement' projects in the list, just to prove they can (Moscow, Dubai, Melbourne).

Tysalpha wrote: The OC isn't particularly tall...

Don't call it that.

The Old Courthouse could have easily been the tallest building for a number of years. The Railway Exchange (famous barr) was built roughly 60 years after the Old Courthouse was built.

Actually, there was a 12 story height limit until the Railway Exchange broke it in 1914. My source of that info is from Guide to the Architecture of St. Louis.



There is an Arch height limit in St. Louis. It goes from the Arch grounds to Broadway, to the north to the Martin Luther King Bridge, and south to the Poplar street bridge. I'm not sure of the exact limit, but it is a height of a certain elevation above sea level. The elevation limit puts all the high rises in this zone somewhere slightly under 300'. This explains why you have buildings of these heights: 281,263,275,275,285,285,285,282,253 all grouped together.

The area east of Broadway to the River, from Chouteau north to Carr is zoned "L" for the "Jefferson Memorial District." The regulations for the "L" district are very similar to the "I" or "Central Business District" zone, except largely a height restriction. I don't know where you're getting the MLK bridge thing from, and nowehere in the zoniing does it even mention the word "Arch". The sea level height you are talking about is 751' above sea level. This doesn't sound like an Arch height restriction to me and it doesn't effect the vast majority of Downtown. Just because the height restriction in this area happens to be less than 300' doesn't mean it's an Arch Height restriction. It could be Zoned "L" for other reasons. Also go back a page and read the article where city employees could not find an ordinance on any books restricting buildings taller than Arch height....it is a MYTH.

26.64.040 Height regulations.



The height regulations are the same as those in the I central business district except that in no instance shall any portion of a building or structure including all appurtenances and super structures thereon, exceed a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet. It shall be unlawful to increase the height of an existing building or other structures located within this district unless it complies with the regulation of the district. (Ord. 59979 ? 17 (part), 1986.)

http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/title26.htm

Does anyone know why we have height restrictions in the first place? I can understand it in some contexts, but in the CBD? I just don't see what the point is. All I see is an arbitrary exercise of power.

steve wrote:Does anyone know why we have height restrictions in the first place? I can understand it in some contexts, but in the CBD? I just don't see what the point is. All I see is an arbitrary exercise of power.

What are you talking about? There is no height restriction for the CBD which is zoned "I":

26.52.040 Height regulations.



Buildings may be erected to such height that the cubic contents of said building above the established grade shall not exceed the volume of a prism having a base equal to the projected horizontal area of the building and a height of two hundred (200) feet. In the case of buildings occupying a lot having frontage on intersecting streets and which buildings are so designed as to provide a setback or open space at one (1) corner or corners where such street intersections occur, or when such setback begins below the two hundred (200) foot height above the established grade, the volume determined by the above rule may be exceeded by an amount equal to the volume so taken out of the reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height; provided, however, that the total volume of the actual building shall not exceed by more than twenty-five percent (25%) the volume of said reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height. (Ord. 59979 ? 14 (part), 1986.)

http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/t2652.htm



The height appears to only be restricted by the volume of the building based on the size of it's base. That means that you can build taller so long as the building becomes more slender as you go up. This may just be for structural stability. There is no hard height cutoff in the CBD. Read the zoning people.

Zezuz wrote:http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/ty/rs/



It looks like Chicago has several in the 60-story range.

Actually, Chicago has dozens in the 60-story range and most other cities St. Louis' size or larger have at least one 40 plus story residential tower.



Check out this very interesting website and click on "Full Search Form":



http://skyscraperpage.com



Interesting, albeit somewhat unrelated fact. The following cities have, or will have by 2010, buildings as tall or taller than any building in St. Louis:



Des Moines, Tulsa, Omaha, Mobile, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Tampa, Columbus, Nashville, Louisville, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, New Orleans and Milwaukee, and most of these cities have at least 3 or 4...



All of these metropolitan areas are roughly the same size or are smaller than St. Louis. Most are considerably smaller. Draw your own conclusions.

Framer wrote:I don't think buildings in Sao Paulo are really all that tall. Certainly not 60 stories. Chicago, I believe, has several 60-story-plus residential buildings. You can check this out at Emporis (sorry, I don't know how to post the link).

Sao Paulo has a dozen or so in the 30-40 story range, but only one over 40 stories. But then again, South America is not exactly the economic dynamo that Asia and Europe are...



http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?

Tysalpha wrote:


And then it's pretty clear there are some 'statement' projects in the list, just to prove they can (Moscow, Dubai, Melbourne).

There are several buildings going up in Dubai taller than the Sears Tower. What is going on in Dubai is much more than just "statement projects". There are actual economics behind it. Where do you think all that $$$ you spend on gas every day is going? Yes, I know Dubai has little oil, but their neighbors do!

^^If you notice, the cities that have taller buildings than St. Louis have thier central business districts exactly where they originally were. Here in St. Louis, for some strange reason, corporations have moved to downtown Clayton.

Builders aren't going to make a grand mark in a suburb. They want their investement of a tall building to be seen, not hidden. How many images in ads concerning St. Louis have you seen lately containing a picture of downtown Clayton? How many people not from St. Louis even HEARD of Clayton? Really, what do you imagine people would think when you tell them St. Louis' major business district is in one of its suburbs?

Clayton may be impressed that they have the biggest skyline of any suburb, but for a metro area of nearly three million people, it really is not very impressive at all...in fact, dismall IMO.

Sorry to get off topic, but I just had to make a point of something that, strangely, no one seems to realize...especially those who should realize... by now.

St. Louis is getting owned in the tall building department. Heck, we're excited just to see a sub 300' building built(Park EAst).

jlblues wrote:

Zezuz wrote:http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/ty/rs/



It looks like Chicago has several in the 60-story range.

Actually, Chicago has dozens in the 60-story range and most other cities St. Louis' size or larger have at least one 40 plus story residential tower.



Check out this very interesting website and click on "Full Search Form":



http://skyscraperpage.com



Interesting, albeit somewhat unrelated fact. The following cities have, or will have by 2010, buildings as tall or taller than any building in St. Louis:



Des Moines, Tulsa, Omaha, Mobile, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Tampa, Columbus, Nashville, Louisville, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, New Orleans and Milwaukee, and most of these cities have at least 3 or 4...



All of these metropolitan areas are roughly the same size or are smaller than St. Louis. Most are considerably smaller. Draw your own conclusions.

Marmar wrote:Here in St. Louis, for some strange reason, corporations have moved to downtown Clayton.

There is more to it than that. It has a lot to do with the general attitude of a city. Look at Chicago. Most of Chicago's largest corporations moved to the suburbs a long time ago. Sears, McDonald's, Motorola are just a few examples. Many others have been acquired. There are not many Fortune 500 companies left in the city of Chicago and although there is a tremendous amount of construction in and around downtown, very little of that is office construction.



I believe that the main function of downtowns as central business districts is a thing of the past, at least in the United States. The initial necessity of a downtown as a place to buy and sell goods and services, raise capital and attract quality employees is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to Al Gore's information superhighway. There are a few industry exceptions where office location is still important. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are still somewhat necessary because that is where the providers of capital are, and they want the beneficiaries of their capital close by (where they can keep an eye on them). There is also an obvious benefit to having groupings of office/lab/research space near major universities, so professors and other researchers can go to and fro.



But the future of any downtown, especially St. Louis', is as an entertainment/cultural/residential centerpiece of a larger metropolitan area. Incidentally, there will always be some demand for office space in such an area because the entrepreneurs will naturally gravitate there. But the idea of MegaCorp locating downtown and building a 70 story HQ building is a thing of the past.



But I digress, Lindell Condominiums look awesome Perhaps I will start this discussion in a different forum.

^^I've read several years ago many corporations in DT Chicago have moved out to the burbs, I would assume that is due to economics...there's no doubt that there is an incredible boom in DT Chicago's residential market...so naturally the price of real estate has got play a role there in terms of usage. Still, there's the Trump Tower going up and a couple other office buildings. But I would say Chicago is not a good comparison for this topic for that reason...the vast majority of Chicago's miraculous growth is residential.

So, is the same true of Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Nashville, Des Moines, etc., IOW, why have the CBD's continued to grow with corporate office buildings? Or do you think this is also playing out in these cities? According to Emporis, it doesn't seem to be. True, there may be those smaller corps. that would rather be away from the CBD, but that has always been a fact.

I think the big guys still want to make their mark on a city's skyline, that is if the value of the space there hasn't been driven up by residential demand. Needless to say, St. Louis (and even our peers) hasn't reached that level.

Sorry to get off topic again...!

Marmar wrote: Still, there's the Trump Tower going up and a couple other office buildings. But I would say Chicago is not a good comparison for this topic for that reason...the vast majority of Chicago's miraculous growth is residential.

Trump's latest ego-driven detriment to society has very little, if any office space. It is all residential, hospitality and entertainment. It was originally to include some office space on the lower floors, but demand from the condo flippers was too great to pass up. What is that whistling sound? The very near, bottom-dropping-out-of-the-market in Chicago. Which by the way, may be great for St. Louis.





By the way, I have created a new forum for continuation of the Clayton thread, so everyone on here can get back to speculating about a building without any information.



http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=2589

^I had to laugh at the first part of the first sentence...not a fan of the Donald, eh? Well, me neither...I'll never forgive him for destroying the art deco relief of the old Bonwit-Teller in New York back in the 70's.

Whence commeth your information??? If the bottom falls out of the condo market in Chicago, that would be disaterous. With all those new condos going up and propossed, you or someone better inform those folks! (And, you've got my curiosity, how would that benefit St. Louis?)

Marmar wrote:Whence commeth your information??? If the bottom falls out of the condo market in Chicago, that would be disaterous. With all those new condos going up and propossed, you or someone better inform those folks! (And, you've got my curiosity, how would that benefit St. Louis?)

Simple supply and demand. Buildings are being built based on the demand that existed 2 years ago. But in those two years the supply of highrise units has increased tremendously, ultimately driving down prices.



Any white-hot high-rise condo market (Miami, Chicago, and to a lesser extent Manhattan) is always at least partially driven by flippers. They buy several units in a building before the developers break ground, then sell them off as soon as the building is finished for a nice profit. They do this again and again, and many amateurs try to copy what they do. There are ways they can limit their risk, but that is too much to explain here. Flippers have no intention of holding on to properties until they rebound, so if they believe that prices are going to drop, they can and will break their contract, possibly losing their deposit (maybe not if the project goes bankrupt), but ultimately being better off walking away from the deal. If enough flippers break their contract half way through construction, then the project could very well go bankrupt. The bottom has already dropped out of the Miami market. High rise condos there are going for 30-40% less than they were 6 months ago. I know of a few projects that have stalled.



There is also the fact that a tremendous number of units are coming online in Chicago right now in what was already, IMO, a saturated market. The demographics in Chicago do not support all these new units. Chicago is losing population, the metro area is only growing slightly (yes the 2000 census says 11%, but if you actually look at the numbers, some counties were added to the CMSA, so real growth is considerably less). At least Miami grew at 21.4%.



The bottom dropping out of the Chicago market (and other major markets) could be good for Saint Louis because the REITs will look elsewhere for investment. They have already started to look at secondary markets such as Saint Louis and the bubble bursting in major markets would only hasten that trend.

Aren't they the ones who are creating and popping these Bubble markets?

Only to the extent that they are providing some of the capital. I don't know of too many REITs that develop high-rise condos, but there may be a few.



Why do you think the REITs are any more responsible for a real estate bubble than the average condo buyer in those markets?

This just all seems like speculation to me. I find it odd that construction in Chicago would continue in the rapid and impressive pace with rumors of the bottom falling out. Doesn't make sense to me, and surely developers building those things have knowlege of real estate trends and just who is investing and why.

(Could 9-11 be responsible for this growth (demand) in Chicago? Or are high rise condos cheaper in Chicago than New York?)

Whatever, at this point I hardly think condo high rise living in St. Louis would increase because the bottom falls out in Chicago. I'd see that happening in Seattle, Atlanta or Minneapolis before in St. Louis. But then again, one never really knows, do they? St. Louis IS getting a much more posative image and is being noticed.