I took these after the snow a bit blustery out there but it’s still winter . ![]()
![]()
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow. This is really skyline altering. I've said it before. A dozen or so 300-500 ft. Skyscrapers would go a long way in giving the downtown Skyline some much needed density. I really don't think we even need anymore buildings taller than this. The way it frames the arch is amazing. Vancouver has one of the most impressive skylines I've seen and it's tallest building is only 30 ft taller than the arch. Most of the skyline is made up of buildings in the 300-500 ft. range.
It does help fill-in the southern portion of the skyline. Now if we could just get 300 S. Broadway re-booted.
If we could just get Hyatt and Mansion House Towers to update their external. Bleh.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- 10K
Knocking down the smaller portion of the old Millennium Hotel and building a new tower in its place would go a long way toward that end as well.framer wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2020It does help fill-in the southern portion of the skyline. Now if we could just get 300 S. Broadway re-booted.
No re-cladding talk *smacks wrist with ruler*addxb2 wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2020If we could just get Hyatt and Mansion House Towers to update their external. Bleh.
But seriously, I strongly disagree with any major Mansion House alterations. As for the Hyatt, I know we like to hate on the Adams Mark architecture and yes, the re-cladding of the Pierce Building was a crime, but I actually really like the Chestnut elevation of the Hyatt. The 3rd street elevation isn't perfect, a missed opportunity for sure, but I don't hate it.
The Mansion House towers are classic Mid-Century Modern. No re-cladding!
*points to mouth and speaks slowly*aprice wrote:No re-cladding talk *smacks wrist with ruler*addxb2 wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2020If we could just get Hyatt and Mansion House Towers to update their external. Bleh.
Re-clad them all
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm about to jump on the next Lincoln Service and beat you to the ground.
Come on; Mansion House is the very definition of cool. Don Draper would be all over this:
![]()
Again, no mention of the Davio's restaurant...sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2020The Lowes hotel is opening at BPV today. The PD has some pics:
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... op-story-1
And for those that might be curious...both Cordish and the Cardinals maintain an ownership stake in the hotel:
Artifacts from the St. Louis Cardinals museum greet visitors in the lobby — the team is a 25% owner of the hotel, as is Cordish. Past the lobby, the new restaurant, Clark & Bourbon, serves upscale steakhouse-style entrees and its bar has a window that can open onto Clark when it’s closed off during game days.
- 595
The mansion house towers are classic and a staple in our skyline view they’ll need updated sooner rather than later and as for the millennium tower if it can’t be saved then I wouldn’t mind seeing it replace by a new iconic high rise or 2 doesn’t have to be anything crazy tall but would love a studio gang or 4 type of high rises downtown. I’m hoping OCW is the first of several of many skyline altering buildings our downtown sure needs it. We need more apartments condos combinations etc if we’re ever going to get those it type of retail places we need more people living downtown and right now we don’t have that. That’s why I say they need to promote new construction of downtown apartments give people a reason to be downtown patronize also a reason to live there not everyone wants the old historic building option some want to be in a sleek new mid rise or high rise. I know St Louis can do it it’s all about give and take and confidence. Jobs will begin to funnel back. You have one of the worlds most iconic recognizable structures on this planet who wouldn’t want that in their back drop every day and night from their perspective home. If Cleveland Milwaukee Columbus Kansas City can do then we sure in the hell can too and I think we have far more better options and amenities than those places specially Columbus and Kansas City.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 595
With winter yesurbanitas wrote:^You must be exhausted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that Kansas City is growing how it is because they spent soo much time and focus on redeveloping exisiting structures. They were able to bring up the density and active uses across entire neighborhoods unlike STL which to me feels much more like activity within pockets of neighborhoods. KC started creating walkable and dense downtown neighborhoods through redevelopment and then started building towers. I don't think you can support towers without having first worked on building some sort of base. IMHO 4 more highrises could actually hurt more than it would help downtown STL by sucking away demand that could have gone into creating active neighborhoods into a handful of single, parking wrapped towers.PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2020The mansion house towers are classic and a staple in our skyline view they’ll need updated sooner rather than later and as for the millennium tower if it can’t be saved then I wouldn’t mind seeing it replace by a new iconic high rise or 2 doesn’t have to be anything crazy tall but would love a studio gang or 4 type of high rises downtown. I’m hoping OCW is the first of several of many skyline altering buildings our downtown sure needs it. We need more apartments condos combinations etc if we’re ever going to get those it type of retail places we need more people living downtown and right now we don’t have that. That’s why I say they need to promote new construction of downtown apartments give people a reason to be downtown patronize also a reason to live there not everyone wants the old historic building option some want to be in a sleek new mid rise or high rise. I know St Louis can do it it’s all about give and take and confidence. Jobs will begin to funnel back. You have one of the worlds most iconic recognizable structures on this planet who wouldn’t want that in their back drop every day and night from their perspective home. If Cleveland Milwaukee Columbus Kansas City can do then we sure in the hell can too and I think we have far more better options and amenities than those places specially Columbus and Kansas City.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As for amenities, I would honestly say that Downtown Kansas City probably has more to offer a resident than downtown STL. STL overall probably has more cultural amenities but you realistically have to drive to many of them if you live in downtown STL. Even day-day amenities seem much rarer in STL then downtown KC - this is coming from someone living in urban STL.
Looking forward to the BPV thread delving into another KC vs. STL argument...again.
Can’t you guys go argue about this on city-data.com or wherever people argue about crap like this?
Having said all that, I'm not sure if you're talking about St. Louis on the whole, or just downtown STL. Seems like downtown, but the first part of your comment leaves it a bit ambiguous. I think you've got a good argument for downtown STL...not at all if you're talking about the city as a whole though.
Can’t you guys go argue about this on city-data.com or wherever people argue about crap like this?
While I agree that downtown KC has made further strides than downtown STL, are you suggesting that St. Louis hasn't done this? St. Louis City on the whole is a national leader in historic preservation and reuse. The vitality and vibrancy of Lafayette Square, Soulard, the Central West End, Forest Park Southeast, the Loop, the Tower Grove (and South Grand) areas, even parts of downtown, and dozens of other neighborhoods are due to literally the preservation and reuse of their historic building stocks. I agree that 4 more towers downtown is a bit of a stretch (and isn't going to happen in the near future anyway) and that filling out the remaining existing buildings should be the focus, but the idea that St. Louis doesn't have a "base" to work with is a little ridiculous. Downtown STL needs a lot more work, but there's still a hell of a lot more city in STL than in KC. KCMO's population density is more on par with Joplin than St. Louis.they spent soo much time and focus on redeveloping exisiting structures. They were able to bring up the density and active uses across entire neighborhoods unlike STL...
Having said all that, I'm not sure if you're talking about St. Louis on the whole, or just downtown STL. Seems like downtown, but the first part of your comment leaves it a bit ambiguous. I think you've got a good argument for downtown STL...not at all if you're talking about the city as a whole though.
^Agreed. And while dialing back the KC-debates, let's give the overly self-deprecating and condescending "we're not as good as X,Y,Z mediocre cities" a rest as well.PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2020If Cleveland Milwaukee Columbus Kansas City can do then we sure in the hell can too and I think we have far more better options and amenities than those places specially Columbus and Kansas City.
Downtown Is still a place where people don’t really patronize. It’s a place I wouldn’t call abundantly vibrant though it’s much better than the early 2000s investment wise. We should be on par with Denver Minneapolis Austin Portland Ore Buffalo NY.
I just bring up KC because aside from STL it’s where most of my experiences and work are based. STL has great bones but I think it needs to work on creating density over blocks/neighborhoods and renovating what it has for 1-3 decades before it really starts pursuing a bunch of towers. Build walkable neighborhoods first and the demand for towers will follow.sc4mayor wrote:Looking forward to the BPV thread delving into another KC vs. STL argument...again.
Can’t you guys go argue about this on city-data.com or wherever people argue about crap like this?
^ I edited my above comment to add a bit more, but St. Louis population density is 4,800 people per square mile. KC's is 1,400. I would also argue that St. Louis has far more dense, urban and walkable neighborhoods than Kansas City. St. Louis's walk-score is 65, it's bike-score is 61, it's transit score is 45. KC is 35 for walk and bike and 29 for transit.
Like I said above, I think you've got a good argument if you're just talking about downtown and downtown west in STL. But St. Louis City is vastly more dense, urban and walkable than KC regardless of how one feels of their respective downtowns.
Like I said above, I think you've got a good argument if you're just talking about downtown and downtown west in STL. But St. Louis City is vastly more dense, urban and walkable than KC regardless of how one feels of their respective downtowns.
Yes, I am just talking about downtown and downtown adjacent neighborhoods for both. The discussion is about building a handful of tall towers and I am saying it would be better to spread that development around to create vibrant neighborhoods.sc4mayor wrote:^ I edited my above comment to add a bit more, but St. Louis population density is 4,800 people per square mile. KC's is 1,400. I would also argue that St. Louis has far more dense, urban and walkable neighborhoods than Kansas City. St. Louis's walk-score is 65, it's bike-score is 61, it's transit score is 45. KC is 35 for walk and bike and 29 for transit.
Like I said above, I think you've got a good argument if you're just talking about downtown and downtown west in STL. But St. Louis City is vastly more dense, urban and walkable than KC regardless of how one feels of their respective downtowns.
CWE built up a good amount of low-mid rise density and so I think that is where new towers should go if anywhere in STL. They have created the walkable neighborhood and now can fill in those few empty lots with something of size. I like CWE and I think it’s a good example of downtown STL should strive to do. This chain is an argument about downtown STL specifically.
Regardless, I think that KC probably would have been better off waiting to build anything bigger than Reverb until the mid-2020s. 1-3 Light sucked up enough demand to replace 3-4 entire blocks of mid rises in the Crossroads. That is a good example of where the trade off for a tower was a more vibrant neighborhood. KC’s published density is brought down significantly by the significant amounts of suburbs and literal farm fields that are within the city limits. I think that the urban cores and downtowns are close enough to compare to some degree.
100% agree with ya then. I'm all for new construction downtown if someone wants to take the risk, but yeah the RX, Jefferson Arms, Butler Bros, etc should be filled up first (and obviously the giant elephant in the room...AT&T), in addition to some low to mid-rise infill on some of the empty lots (projects like that proposed Moxy Hotel on 11th is a great size I think). CWE is definitely the strongest candidate for new towers in STL (along with Clayton) in my opinion. I do think there is a market for newer, up to date luxury high-rise housing downtown, but I would think 300 S Broadway OR another BPV tower (but not both) is pretty much the ceiling for that over the next 5 years or so.ldai_phs wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2020Yes, I am just talking about downtown and downtown adjacent neighborhoods for both. The discussion is about building a handful of tall towers and I am saying it would be better to spread that development around to create vibrant neighborhoods.sc4mayor wrote:^ I edited my above comment to add a bit more, but St. Louis population density is 4,800 people per square mile. KC's is 1,400. I would also argue that St. Louis has far more dense, urban and walkable neighborhoods than Kansas City. St. Louis's walk-score is 65, it's bike-score is 61, it's transit score is 45. KC is 35 for walk and bike and 29 for transit.
Like I said above, I think you've got a good argument if you're just talking about downtown and downtown west in STL. But St. Louis City is vastly more dense, urban and walkable than KC regardless of how one feels of their respective downtowns.
CWE built up a good amount of low-mid rise density and so I think that is where new towers should go if anywhere in STL. They have created the walkable neighborhood and now can fill in those few empty lots with some of size.
I think there will end up being another residential tower at BPV in the next few years. I'm not so sure 300 S Broadway is coming back though...
Quick edit to hit your addition there:
Pretty much agree with ya...but I do think it's worthwhile for cities like STL and KC to get a couple larger high-rises built built up. I think that perception of highly visible new construction is good, either for visitors to the city, or to just people from the suburbs. Obviously the effects aren't as large as a multi-block project, which is why we shouldn't over do it, but I think a couple of them clustered in a development like BPV or P&L is acceptable and probably worth it.
I really don't think Davio's is actually happening. There's no where to put it in the Live by Loew's with all of the stuff they've already got in there. Plus, does it actually make any sense to have TWO premium steakhouses in the same property. When doing any sort of Google News search for "Davio's + Ballpark Village" you get nothing other than the original news stories when it was announced last fall.urbanitas wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2020Again, no mention of the Davio's restaurant...sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2020The Lowes hotel is opening at BPV today. The PD has some pics:
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... op-story-1
And for those that might be curious...both Cordish and the Cardinals maintain an ownership stake in the hotel:
Artifacts from the St. Louis Cardinals museum greet visitors in the lobby — the team is a 25% owner of the hotel, as is Cordish. Past the lobby, the new restaurant, Clark & Bourbon, serves upscale steakhouse-style entrees and its bar has a window that can open onto Clark when it’s closed off during game days.
That's absolutely true, but that's entirely because Kansas City is darn near five times the size of St. Louis in terms of geographic land area. KC is the 23rd largest city in the country by land area, St. Louis isn't even in the top 150.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2020Downtown STL needs a lot more work, but there's still a hell of a lot more city in STL than in KC. KCMO's population density is more on par with Joplin than St. Louis.
Clark & Bourbon seems to be on the west side of the hotel, next to (and in) the lobby. The Bullock bar is on the second level, on the east terrace, and the Baseballism store is near the middle of the building opening onto Clark. So, that would seem to leave the ground floor space on the east side open, next to the "field of dreams"...DTGstl314 wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2020I really don't think Davio's is actually happening. There's no where to put it in the Live by Loew's with all of the stuff they've already got in there. Plus, does it actually make any sense to have TWO premium steakhouses in the same property. When doing any sort of Google News search for "Davio's + Ballpark Village" you get nothing other than the original news stories when it was announced last fall.urbanitas wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2020Again, no mention of the Davio's restaurant...
And no, it wouldn't make sense for two steakhouses side by side, but Davio's could come up with a new concept, or just lean heavily into the Italian and seafood sides of their menu. But it is very strange there has been no mention of it since that original announcement.