You would have to think that this development, along with BPV will make the Millennium one hot property. If this all gets built, the Millennium owners should cease the opportunity and finally sell to a developer that will properly utilize that site.
We need some of our graphic art experts to superimpose these buildings into the skyline from a few good angles. BPV & 300 Tower will really fill in the south side of the skyline.
How many "pier cities" can boast this much development, outside of the outliers like Denver and Nashville.
It depends on how one looks at it.
For regional standards, STL is seeing a boom. The list of proposals/under constructions is pretty extensive. If we look at total high rise construction, STL is probably in the top 4 in the midwest at the moment in total projects.
Some regional competitors, KC and Indianapolis, are seeing nowhere as much high rise proposals as STL. I don't believe Indianapolis has any at the moment. KC has a few, but only at P&L.
STL is definitely seeing a higher pace of development right now. Exciting times are ahead...
Pier rust belt cities we probably compare favorably but not so much if you consider Denver, Minneapolis, and Nashville peers.
The rendering shows an open air balcony the length of the entire West facade of the building around floor 16. I am curious if that is going to be an amenities level with an outdoor patio facing into the stadium.
Reading comments from all over, many are saying that this should be built on any of the vacant lots around here. The answer is that the developer cannot simply do that. Or Parking companies purchase lots and then sit on them.
It is certainly a shame to be losing a handsome building like that. Buildings like this are what make St. Louis so architecturally interesting.
That said, this has the potentially to transform the skyline, as well as the perception of downtown.
I know where you're coming from but I think the BPV construction will take a good whack at the perception issue on its own. Keeping our existing quality, contributing buildings, especially the historic ones, while directing new construction to vacant parcels is the way to go for creating a more healthy and vibrant downtown. And while It certainly is possible that this proposal would stimulate surrounding infill demand beyond what BPV will do, I think in a comparatively slow-growth market it more likely would mean development on such sites will take more time.
Reading comments from all over, many are saying that this should be built on any of the vacant lots around here. The answer is that the developer cannot simply do that. Or Parking companies purchase lots and then sit on them.
I agree, this more of a public policy issue than anything. Obviously it would be cheaper for the developer to build on empty land/parking lots, but they would have to buy it for a premium from parking companies. A land tax on underutilized land, vacant land, parking lots, and car lots would go a long way in St. Louis. You have to make developing the land more profitable than holding it or for parking lots.
A vacant 6 story building vs a 33 story skyline-altering structure.
I really do not see the opposing arguments. I do understand the vacant lot issues, but...come on people. This is a downtown development many of us have DREAMED of. I don't think DT is in a place to be picky...
chriss752 wrote:Reading comments from all over, many are saying that this should be built on any of the vacant lots around here. The answer is that the developer cannot simply do that. Or Parking companies purchase lots and then sit on them.
I think most of us understand the reality of the situation. Even with my previous comments, it’s obvious this specific developer can’t just pick it up and move it. It’s more of wishing the investment were happening somewhere else.
St. Louis Community College wants to sell the building and use that money to fund projects at it's Forest Park Campus. While I love this building and it definitely has historic value, it's not like we don't have many more historically significant buildings sitting vacant throughout downtown and downtown west. While I do agree that plethora of historic buildings in our urban core makes us a unique city, I think we can sometimes be homers for historic preservation. Historic preservation is not driving growth in Nashville, Denver, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Portland etc. etc. etc. It's quality of life and in a sense the "newness" of the place. St. Louis had a large enough urban core in 1900 that we are not in any danger of being confused for a soulless sunbelt city, but one thing people can say is that the place is a little stale when you compare it to other metros. I mean just drive into downtown from I-55 or I-70 and it's an utter embarrassment. Nobody cares if it is a 100 year old building with architectural merit if it gives off the appearance of a decaying wasteland, people will just make assumptions about the city being a decaying mess and "ghetto" etc. and that will not attract future development or residents. Look how NASHVILLE has totally changed it's narrative. I remember going through Nashville as a kid and thinking, what a hick town, and my family in Nashville always look at St. Louis as the superior city. Go forward 20 years and now Nashville is an "it" town and we are considered a decaying backwater.
It'll be a shame to lose the building (one of the few intact street walls facing Busch) but I think this is a fair trade off. New residential towers downtown certainly challenge certain narratives flying around the City.
DogtownBnR wrote:You would have to think that this development, along with BPV will make the Millennium one hot property. If this all gets built, the Millennium owners should cease the opportunity and finally sell to a developer that will properly utilize that site.
We need some of our graphic art experts to superimpose these buildings into the skyline from a few good angles. BPV & 300 Tower will really fill in the south side of the skyline.
I can use a 3d model from a similar design of building so we can get an idea
DogtownBnR wrote:You would have to think that this development, along with BPV will make the Millennium one hot property. If this all gets built, the Millennium owners should cease the opportunity and finally sell to a developer that will properly utilize that site.
We need some of our graphic art experts to superimpose these buildings into the skyline from a few good angles. BPV & 300 Tower will really fill in the south side of the skyline.
I can use a 3d model from a similar design of building so we can get an idea
Is there any chance we could see a rendering of how both proposed towers would look in the skyline? I'm curious how much of an impact these towers would have on the skyline.
These towers will be visually impressive from the Poplar, especially when you clear the river going west. Great way to "welcome to St. Louis". Looking forward to some to scale skyline pictures with the renderings
Construction is to start by years end per business journal. Im curious on the height of this high-rise if BPV 1 is going to be 29 floors at around 350 or so feet could this be about 33 floors around 400 feet?.
This is strictly a quick and dirty approximation. I'm using a picture off this forum of 212 Meramec for the 300 S. Broadway tower. (My apologies. I forget whose photograph it was. Please forgive. I could probably look it up, but it's late so . . . maybe tomorrow.) The north elevation in the renderings in the PD article really strongly remind me of that, so I'm using that for the east elevation. And the height is almost sheer guesswork. They appear to be short floors, since the seventh floor in the rendering is about the same altitude as the fifth floor of the neighboring structure. I'm guessing this will be 300' at most, so probably a little shorter than the Cardinals tower. But it's a block closer, so we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing all of them will approximate the visual prominence of the Millennium from across the river. BPV2 is very very loosely based on the renderings from the Cardinals site, but . . . it's almost as much fantasy as reality. Really just a vague blurry shape, since that's the one side I can never find a rendering of. And of course the lighting looks wrong to my eye, but . . . well . . . it's tiny anyway. Just an impression. I suppose I should really just draw the dang things and be done with it. The sykline is from a Wikimedia user who goes by Buphoff.
Unless I'm mistaken, other than the aforementioned lot that was recently purchased by the Nashville developer (and the BPV parking of course), the only other surface lots proximate to Busch are south of the Highway, which would preclude any views into the stadium and is also a visual and pedestrian barrier to the rest of downtown. Those sites south of the stadium - while they could be interesting to develop in their own way - are not really suited for 33 stories of high end high rise living what with the lack of adjacent density, the rail lines, etc.
I agree that it would be nice if new projects were being built on vacant lots instead of tearing down existing buildings but such is the price of progress sometimes and if what is driving this project are the particulars of this exact site - which it seems to be the case - I don't think the other sites offer a comparable alternative...not to mention again the fact that not every lot or parcel is available for sale. And you could certainly make the case that the BPV site SHOULD have been split up in to multiple parcels available for development by multiple developers but that's just not the case so there's not much use in wish-casting for that which didn't and won't happen.
And.....of course it would be great if the Stadium East garage was seeing the wrecking ball for this project instead of the 300 building but unfortunately that garage is not for sale.
I definitely agree that before the wrecking ball comes for this building the new project should be shovel ready. No demo unless the thing actually gets built. Easier said than done but I'm sure the particulars could be worked out.
I also am a big believer that one good project builds momentum for the next and so on and so forth, so from a long term perspective those who want a vibrant downtown should be rooting for projects like this to succeed, because it increases the chances that some of those vacant lots (or the Stadium Garages, or the Millennium site, et al) get developed in the future.
Here is what they did in Boston when Northeastern University wanted to build a high rise dorm on the site of the oldest YMCA in America. They tore down the back of the building only and built the tower there. The Y used the money to greatly modernize the rest of their building.
symphonicpoet wrote:This is strictly a quick and dirty approximation. I'm using a picture off this forum of 212 Meramec for the 300 S. Broadway tower. (My apologies. I forget whose photograph it was. Please forgive. I could probably look it up, but it's late so . . . maybe tomorrow.) The north elevation in the renderings in the PD article really strongly remind me of that, so I'm using that for the east elevation. And the height is almost sheer guesswork. They appear to be short floors, since the seventh floor in the rendering is about the same altitude as the fifth floor of the neighboring structure. I'm guessing this will be 300' at most, so probably a little shorter than the Cardinals tower. But it's a block closer, so we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing all of them will approximate the visual prominence of the Millennium from across the river. BPV2 is very very loosely based on the renderings from the Cardinals site, but . . . it's almost as much fantasy as reality. Really just a vague blurry shape, since that's the one side I can never find a rendering of. And of course the lighting looks wrong to my eye, but . . . well . . . it's tiny anyway. Just an impression. I suppose I should really just draw the dang things and be done with it. The sykline is from a Wikimedia user who goes by Buphoff.
I like your homemade Rendering. They fill in the skyline a little bit. I am thinking that the tower will be between 350-380 feet tall because...
1. The Garage portion appears to be the same height as the Busch Garage. So about 10 foot ceilings in the garage?
2. The lobby of the tower has high ceilings (About 15ft maybe?)
3. I think that the apartment floors will have around 10 foot tall ceilings, to stay competitive and about a foot of separation between one floor and the one above. So about 11ft in all.
Just those combined equal out to be 360 feet tall. Now, I am merely taking a guess, and there good be higher or lower ceilings. I guess we won’t know until the Preservation meeting on December 18th.
