Well, that's why i said "at some point" but not right away. Cities, especially older midwest cities do have defined boundaries. And there was a time when a lot of people for a variety of reasons wanted to live inside those boundaries instead of in the boonies.San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017That's a good point. It would make sense that the expense of going vertical only makes sense once the land value of going elsewhere makes it make sense... However, if this premise is absolutely true, I'm not sure you can explain why any building of any serious height exists in Midwest cities.FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017Topography and population growth/decline are really the only reasons you need to focus on. History of cities in this country shows that if there's enough available land the city will always grow outward at some point.
- 20
- 307
Ah, so more than just topography and population but also desire to not live in the boonies. So are you suggesting that desire to live in the boonies changed at some point for residents of cities like STL?FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017Well, that's why i said "at some point" but not right away. Cities, especially older midwest cities do have defined boundaries. And there was a time when a lot of people for a variety of reasons wanted to live inside those boundaries instead of in the boonies.San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017That's a good point. It would make sense that the expense of going vertical only makes sense once the land value of going elsewhere makes it make sense... However, if this premise is absolutely true, I'm not sure you can explain why any building of any serious height exists in Midwest cities.FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017Topography and population growth/decline are really the only reasons you need to focus on. History of cities in this country shows that if there's enough available land the city will always grow outward at some point.
- 20
San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017Ah, so more than just topography and population but also desire to not live in the boonies. So are you suggesting that desire to live in the boonies changed at some point for residents of cities like STL?FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017Well, that's why i said "at some point" but not right away. Cities, especially older midwest cities do have defined boundaries. And there was a time when a lot of people for a variety of reasons wanted to live inside those boundaries instead of in the boonies.San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017
That's a good point. It would make sense that the expense of going vertical only makes sense once the land value of going elsewhere makes it make sense... However, if this premise is absolutely true, I'm not sure you can explain why any building of any serious height exists in Midwest cities.
Do you want me to recount the history of white flight? That subject has been very well covered on this board, no?
- 307
I don't think it's that simple. White flight was in its prime in the 70's. The three tallest buildings in downtown were built in 1989, 1986 and 2000. I do not have numbers at my disposal but it seems fairly safe to say that other cities (many which are peers to STL) had seen large amounts of white flight, are not lacking land, and yet have been adding to their skyline.FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2017San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017Ah, so more than just topography and population but also desire to not live in the boonies. So are you suggesting that desire to live in the boonies changed at some point for residents of cities like STL?FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017
Well, that's why i said "at some point" but not right away. Cities, especially older midwest cities do have defined boundaries. And there was a time when a lot of people for a variety of reasons wanted to live inside those boundaries instead of in the boonies.
Do you want me to recount the history of white flight? That subject has been very well covered on this board, no?
There is a 300' height limit east of Broadway that runs from PSB to Lumiere Place. Beyond that, there are density limits downtown but no actual height limit.Chalupas54 wrote: ↑Oct 07, 2017Probably not.chriss752 wrote:Nice design for the Denver building. One day, we will have something taller than the arch.
Is there any truth to the height limit?
As for a sea of 400' buildings (I'd say more 200' - 300' range), not only do many think it looks better, but it's much better for activating street life. Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Omaha, all have 600'+ buildings and they're not doing much to change the city's image. Especially OKC's 850' palace to Oil. Personally, I would have supported Saarinen's idea of a 200' foot height limit for the city (barring existing structures), giving the arch a Washington Monument or Eiffel Tower effect.
I don't have beef with building height, I'm super excited for One Hundred. I do have beef with the false association between building height, good urbanism, and economic prosperity.
- 20
The vast majority of any city's building stock is residential. Commercial buildings make a very small percentage. The 80's office tower building boom around the country didn't change the fact that people were living further and further away.San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2017I don't think it's that simple. White flight was in its prime in the 70's. The three tallest buildings in downtown were built in 1989, 1986 and 2000. I do not have numbers at my disposal but it seems fairly safe to say that other cities (many which are peers to STL) had seen large amounts of white flight, are not lacking land, and yet have been adding to their skyline.FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2017San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2017
Ah, so more than just topography and population but also desire to not live in the boonies. So are you suggesting that desire to live in the boonies changed at some point for residents of cities like STL?
Do you want me to recount the history of white flight? That subject has been very well covered on this board, no?
- 307
If anything, that shows to me that there is no correlation between the two.FoghornLeghorn wrote:The vast majority of any city's building stock is residential. Commercial buildings make a very small percentage. The 80's office tower building boom around the country didn't change the fact that people were living further and further away.San Luis Native wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2017I don't think it's that simple. White flight was in its prime in the 70's. The three tallest buildings in downtown were built in 1989, 1986 and 2000. I do not have numbers at my disposal but it seems fairly safe to say that other cities (many which are peers to STL) had seen large amounts of white flight, are not lacking land, and yet have been adding to their skyline.FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2017
Do you want me to recount the history of white flight? That subject has been very well covered on this board, no?
Yes. And no. Kinda.aprice wrote: ↑Oct 09, 2017There is a 300' height limit east of Broadway that runs from PSB to Lumiere Place. Beyond that, there are density limits downtown but no actual height limit.Chalupas54 wrote: ↑Oct 07, 2017Probably not.chriss752 wrote:Nice design for the Denver building. One day, we will have something taller than the arch.
Is there any truth to the height limit?
I wrote up a post in 2014 around height restrictions around the Arch Grounds (here). As some of the links have changed, I'm going to presume upon this thread and repost the content with updated links. As you can see the answer is a bit complicated.
Here (<- note - large PDF download) is a map of the building zones. The Gateway Tower is in the Jefferson Memorial District zone (in blue on the map that encompasses the JNEM/Archgrounds and portions of the city immediately surrounding it.
Here are the height regulations from the JMD zone:
^ Now it mentions the Central Business District height regulations. Those are here: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.)
From the CBD codes:
Simple, no? In short, you take the property boundaries and draw an imaginary cube 200 feet tall. Take the volume of that cube, and that can be the volume of your building. So a perfectly square building built out to the edges of the property can only be 200 feet tall, but you can by code make the building taller by tapering the tower, hollowing out the center, or doing what the designers of the Gateway Tower did and have a shorter pedestal on one half of the property (a small-volume base) and a taller higher-volume tower on the other half. Here's a simple example of two cubes of the same volume but different heights: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.)
Nowhere is there the arch specifically mentioned by name or by height in building codes. However, in the JMD zone only it does mention a specific hard height limit of "a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet". That's actually fairly limiting.
The arch grounds are 478' above sea level (reference, page 2), giving the 630'-tall arch a height above sea level of 1,108'. That means by code buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Archgrounds must be '357 shorter than the pinnacle of the Arch itself measuring from sea level.
So if you're building on ground at the same elevation above sea level as the Arch (an important qualification), that would limit a tower in the JMD zone to 273' in height. Buildings that are uphill from the Arch would need to be shorter to fit under the 751' mean sea level elevation limit. The Gateway Tower, for reference, is 260' tall.
-RBB
It should be noted, too, that height regulations are every bit as negotiable as taxes. If Amazon comes in and says 'we want to locate 15,000 new high-paying jobs in a 700' tower in the CBD (not very likely at all, but not impossible), the mayor's office and board of alderman can absolutely grant exemptions to any height/volume regulations to land those jobs if they so desire.
-RBB
-RBB
Doesn't the city have a height restriction of 500 feet?....Nothing higher than the Arch???
Or 600 feet....the Metropolitan building is exactly the height of the Arch. And if this ordinance is still in effect, it's time to progress and modernize our crappy skyline with new tall skyscrapers , which will attract more businesses, and tourism.
I believe I was told the other day that that height restriction only applies to east of Broadway. Maybe? It was something like that. It was on Twitter, but I'll have to see if I can find the response.
The Arch is 630'.
Met Square 593'
One ATT 588'
Eagleton Courthouse 557'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _St._Louis
Met Square 593'
One ATT 588'
Eagleton Courthouse 557'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _St._Louis
- 190
Aesthetically, I like the vision of Saarinen's described by the previous poster of the Arch dominating a skyline of 200 foot max height bldgs, presumably all brick, which would give our city an architecturally homogenous old-world feel, if you will allow. But even hoping the remaining intact historic brick neigborhoods decay no further seems a bit of a stretch.
I see no reason to worry of upstaging the arch nowadays. The park itself and the river do a fair enough job of protecting its prominence, in my estimation.
Or maybe a 5 mile high gold obelisk in Clayton would be preferable. Blow Kingdom Tower skyhigh, that's the ticket. Happy New Year!
I see no reason to worry of upstaging the arch nowadays. The park itself and the river do a fair enough job of protecting its prominence, in my estimation.
Or maybe a 5 mile high gold obelisk in Clayton would be preferable. Blow Kingdom Tower skyhigh, that's the ticket. Happy New Year!
