urbanSTL

Just a reminder of what Downtown STL has to compete with,a mere 8 miles away. I don't think any city our size has a secondary business cluster this big, this close (image courtesy Arch City):

^Dats what I'm talkin' bout bro's. Build an arch in front or behind that mofo and you'd be like "What duh what?!?!? Duh Mississippi River done dried up?!?!?".

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Jan 02, 2018

wabash wrote: Downtown St. Louis has had much more, probably many times more, investment and construction in the last 50-60 years as Downtown Clayton.

Unfortunately, if investment has been "many times more" in downtown St. Louis verse Clayton over the last 5-to-6 decades this is even more troubling than simply comparing the two at current face value

That's the key question. While corporate, municipal and developer investment has been vastly greater in Downtown St. Louis than Downtown Clayton in the last 50-60 years, many may not have been the right investments or the kind that really contributed to the sustainability or continued success of the CBD. Also, it doesn't help that all of the major investments had a much greater context to enliven and influence - the 2+ square miles of Downtown and Downtown West - than the relatively diminutive DT Clayton.

As an example of that difference in scale, this development will be a modest addition to Downtown's skyline and building stock, but at 33 stories will be taller than anything ever built in Clayton.

framer wrote: ↑

Jan 02, 2018

Just a reminder of what Downtown STL has to compete with,a mere 8 miles away. I don't think any city our size has a secondary business cluster this big, this close (image courtesy Arch City):

Minneapolis has St. Paul
Tampa has St. Petersburg
Seattle has Bellevue
Baltimore has Towson
Cincinnati has Covington

All relatively similar sized metros with secondary urban business districts outside the primary city. St. Louis is a metro area of nearly 3 million people, it's supposed to have secondary urban districts at that point. I think the bigger problem with St. Louis is that the growth of Clayton doesn't necessary benefit the city of St. Louis, because unlike Minneapolis-St. Paul there is no metro wide revenue sharing, so sometimes it can be a zero-sum game where cities that shouldn't be competing end up competing directly for jobs and residents.

wabash wrote: As an example of that difference in scale, this development will be a modest addition to Downtown's skyline and building stock, but at 33 stories will be taller than anything ever built in Clayton.

IIRC Centene second (or third?) phase has a 34 story office building planned. It'll be interesting to see what happens with both of these plans over the next few years.

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Jan 02, 2018

^STLRainbow didn't specify, but I took it upon myself to suspect he meant more with respect to "over decades"

yeah, I was thinking of past decades helping get to our current point. On the one hand, things are more difficult here than in a lot other cities. Like Detroit and Cleveland, we do not have a state capitol, major medical institution and/or flagship university downtown to help anchor a diverse economy and are in part products of macro-economic forces that were not kind to the Rust Belt in the post-war world. But I think there are things we could have done better... downtown leaders should have been worried more about smaller details like sidewalks and cleanliness and safety and every day issues that make people want to be there and pursuing a more logical, strategic redevelopment plan and less about Urban Redevelopment schemes that pushed silver bullet ideas. Having a better resourced and competent downtown group like Cincy's 3CDC I think would have been helpful over the course of the more recent decades.

Anyway, there are definitely some good things going on downtown and hopefully we'll see them built upon and reach a point where its on clearly upward path with more and more jobs announcements that will in turn drive more residential and retail announcements.

Just came across yet another example of a modern tower soon to rise out of a preserved, historic building in Milwaukee:



https://www.biztimes.com/2017/industrie ... velopment/

If this can be done in Milwaukee then it sure-as-sh*t can be done here.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Jan 08, 2018

If this can be done in Milwaukee then it sure-as-sh*t can be done here.

I really believe the best solution is a different site if we're trying to preserve the existing building. These additions feel so awkwardly forced that it cripples the aesthetic of both old and new together.

I mean, they can say other spots aren't available, but they just might not have asked anyone for a price, or tried otherwise.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Jan 08, 2018

Just came across yet another example of a modern tower soon to rise out of a preserved, historic building in Milwaukee:



https://www.biztimes.com/2017/industrie ... velopment/

If this can be done in Milwaukee then it sure-as-sh*t can be done here.

I don't think anyone ever said it cant be done, of course it can be done but at what cost

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jan 08, 2018

These additions feel so awkwardly forced that it cripples the aesthetic of both old and new together.

subjective, i know, but i like the aesthetic (though it doesn't always work).

dbInSouthCity wrote: I don't think anyone ever said it cant be done, of course it can be done but at what cost

i was more referring to having the will to do it. i mean, i'm sure it would be cheaper for the dev in Milwaukee to demo and build new as well. if the cost is that prohibitive i think they should find a different site. i suspect they're going to make a pretty penny off of this tower though due to proximity to Busch (along with plenty of tax abatement), so i don't have much sympathy for them re having to spend a little more to preserve the facade.

With so much development news recently like 300 S Broadway proposal you have to wonder if any other high-rises will be announced...perhaps these two possibilities from 2014 as candidates...

Gateway Tower office building for sale
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 22645.html

Sovereign Partners did a feasibility study of a plan to build a 16-story residential tower on top of KMOV, which occupies Gateway Tower's lowrise portion. The preliminary plan is for 80 residences ranging in size from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet.

Apartment tower possible on Laclede's Landing
More definite is additional parking as part of the Arch grounds redevelopment.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... c5980.html

A 30-story tower — six levels of parking topped by 24 floors of luxury apartments — might go up on Laclede’s Landing.

Anyway, you gotta wonder what's next if development announcements keep going the way they've been recently.

Landing would be excellent. Unfortunately, that article from a few years ago states it would be the second phase, only to be superseded by just.. a big parking garage.

Why not kill two birds with one stone? It would be an awesome location to live at and would drive restaurant and retail on the Landing with some vibrancy in density.

^ makes sense. I'm curious what's up with the garage tho; if it's moving forward or not. It could be that the Metro's HQ move away from the Landing means that replacement garage may not move forward. And then if the tower was contingent upon the garage then maybe things are just mucked up, Anyway, a lot of time has passed and who knows what's being contemplated; but it does seem like they've been intent op putting upa tower at some point.

...................................

So I'm running a twitter poll on how many high-rises we'll see under construction downtown next year and the results so far are evenly split b/w just BPV, BPV + 300 S. Broadway, and 3 or more,

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Jan 12, 2018

With so much development news recently like 300 S Broadway proposal you have to wonder if any other high-rises will be announced...perhaps these two possibilities from 2014 as candidates...

Gateway Tower office building for sale
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 22645.html

Sovereign Partners did a feasibility study of a plan to build a 16-story residential tower on top of KMOV, which occupies Gateway Tower's lowrise portion. The preliminary plan is for 80 residences ranging in size from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet.

Thsi wouldv'e been cool to see. IF it ever happens, there will eb another building beween One Cardinal Way and 300 Broadway. The tower would be visible abve the Deloitte Building. Now, I personally belive thta this will not happen. A resuidential tower with views of the Arch and city is great, but this was now almost 4 years ago and whoever had the idea may have did it only for marketing purposes.

As for the Drury project, I cast my bets on it not happening in the future as we shoudl have ehard somethign by now. Once agin, it has been 4 years. On top of that, Drury representatives don't want to comment on it and the City is quiet ion the garage portion.

^ interesting on the Drury tower/garage, sounds like you've inquired?

as for the Gateway/KMOV, you're right that the second tower was part of sales pitch... the group also owns the Butler Bros. and they did something similar with showing what it could be (iirc about a 300 unit mixed-use building) when they put it up for sale. I don't believe either building has sold, but of course Butler Bros. has been in the news with the JA owner saying he might partner on it. What I'd like to know is if that KMOV pod was intended for a future tower in mind... it would be cool to have a roster of such structures downtown.

STLrainbow wrote:^ interesting on the Drury tower/garage, sounds like you've inquired?

I have called and emailed The Drury Company about it. The phone call was me being placed on hold and then being hung up on. And the city also won’t answer my questions on the garage. One of my family friends is an Aldermen and he asked Tishaura’s office and they had nothing to say on it.

I think the plan is to just use the Kiener garages for the Arch, which makes sense to me.

wabash wrote: ↑

Jan 13, 2018

I think the plan is to just use the Kiener garages for the Arch, which makes sense to me.

They need a face lift

Agreed. Literally... just adding some paint would help the damn thing. They look like prisons.

moorlander wrote: ↑

Jan 15, 2018

wabash wrote: ↑

Jan 13, 2018

I think the plan is to just use the Kiener garages for the Arch, which makes sense to me.

They need a face lift

My vision is for these to be replace by the tallest apartment high-rise in the state but that'll never happen

Could you build on top of them? I thought I remember reading that they were built specifically for that purpose..

A couple of tall buildings (or even 8-10 stories more) along Kiener and City Garden would be game changing and change the feel of Downtown immensely, especially if they can find a way to get some retail there. There's a missed opportunity in retail in both garages that would really activate some of the crowds who go to Kiener and City Garden and make it more vibrant.

I digress, though, once again.

Op Ed piece. "Aim for Progress, But Not at Any Cost"

http://www.stlblog.constructforstl.org/ ... t-any-cost

^Interesting. I don't think this is quite an Old Post Office grade question, but the comparison is quite informative. As is the transformation in tastes so clearly illustrated.

I’ve been here long enough to remember folks advocating for the razing of Cupples and even Union Station. And we lost the Ambassador Theater for an patch of grass. Too bad they can’t nudge the tower across the street to the parking garage site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk