urbanSTL

LArchitecture wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2020

I think the intention of the design is better. I would challenge you to somehow calculate the hardscape vs softscape. It just seems overly hardscaped to me which being next to a river would increase flow speed during flood events. I would break up maybe ever 2-3 stair sections down to the water with more natural grass and vegetation or a natural setting of stone instead of the direct stairs. Possibly think about hor your tree areas become basins to hold water as well and how that may change the vegetation type within them. your photoshop skills are getting better for sure though. 

For this particular iteration I drew a lot of inspiration from the riverfronts of Köln in Germany and Savannah, Georgia. Both of those riverfront areas are equally as "hardscaped" if not more. I agree that it could use more grassy areas, but I like the concept of it generally being paved. I think I could sacrifice the pier supports and build a concrete wall with native plants and grasses at the base to hide it and add more green. I'll look into more concepts of the firms you recommended.

The new tower is awfully close to the existing Hilton towers.  I think they would raise a stink about blocking them in and obstruction their views. 

Interesting question about the Spanish Pavilion. I seriously doubt there would be much opposition to it's demo; hardly anybody knows it's even there. 

I’m a fan of anything the improves the atrocious southern streetscape of that complex

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Jul 13, 2020

I think it would look better on the Mike Shannon’s parcel.

The point is to add density to this block as well as street level activation. A similar tower would be built on Mike Shannons before something like this was ever taken into consideration!

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Jul 14, 2020

Well you hadn’t mentioned that the Shannon’s lot would already be filled in in your scenario.  Honestly I think there are plenty of other better places to add density downtown than shoehorning a large building into the Ballpark Hilton’s lobby.

From an architectural standpoint I just think it looks weird having a glassy tower sandwiched so closely between these two mid-century buildings.  If it was skinnier maybe...but I think there are better ways to improve the street level elevations without completely reconstructing the base.

Now that you’ve got me thinking about it...I think a tower on the Shannon’s lot and then reconfiguring the roof of the Spanish Pavilion to become a large green roof between the bases of the towers would be a really cool renovation to this property.  That could still include the needed changes to the pedestrian realm around it, especially on the south side of the complex.

I do believe I mentioned the proper scenario for this to be built in my first post. That being said, the eastern Hilton is already next to a hulking glassy high-rise (KPMG building) and will be "sandwiched", in effect, when Two Cardinals Way is constructed. I personally like the contrast, but I could see how some would disagree; It's like how some believe that One Hundred is out of place due to its proximity to the chase. I do like your idea of a green roof and I think it could be added to my plan, but my belief is that the original podium is already severely altered enough to the extent that any further modifications, whether that is adding additional retail space or a complete interior renovation, would be futile. If your goal is to preserve the mid century façade, I think that an atrium could be built encompassing the original exterior while acting as a lobby for the hotel. The street level retail space would be stretched to a more urban feeling position and the product would be pretty unique: curb cuts would be eliminated, there would be better use of the existing space, and it would help stitch together the south of downtown to the north.

Maybe the scale or the perspective is off, but yeah, the buildings look much too close to each other. As the Mayor says, it's normal for high rises to go up across the street from each other, but these appear to be much closer than that. 

It'd be about 30 feet on either side of the new building. I don't think the Spanish pavilion is going anywhere either, Downtown has about 3 to 4 more cycles to go until something like that is even considered. At the end of the day, everything is completely conceptual and this thread is a look into the fantasy land of my hopes and dreams for this city. 

^Hey, even when I might choose to defend your demo targets I do like your dreams. They're good dreams of a healthy and prosperous city. And I like your ambition and what you're doing to learn your art. I hope we can find a way to get to the city you dream of.  We can fight about the particulars of demo and massing then.

^ Yes! Let's all hope that we'll see some of the more unsightly lots and garages disappear in this decade or the next. I appreciate it!

Thanks for sharing these Elek - I genuinely enjoy seeing these and the discussion it provokes.

STL City's somewhat arcane height restrictions would come into play in a real-world proposal like this - though I fully realize this is mere what-if speculation (and though those restrictions can be waived) it's good to have an idea what ordinances could affect your design on that site.

I put this post together a couple of years ago describing it in more detail, but in short the way the city manages building height/mass is to impose a 'volume restriction' for a property - so buildings on a property can be taller if they have platforms with skinnier towers on top. Replace a low platform base with a taller, thicker tower and you increase the building's volume for a specific property - and that can run you afoul of the height ordinances.  

Your proposal may not exactly be legal, though were this a real thing you could petition the city to grant a waiver.

-RBB

^ Thank you for that source, RBB. The current iteration of the plan above would go around 2,000,000 cubic feet above the maximum density. The tower could be slimmer and shorter to account for this, but that is a venture for a later date. I have saved the sources you linked and will take them into consideration during future projects.

^What, no Arch? 

^ I have a digital copy of Downtown on the program I use. It started off as just blocks, but I've slowly been adding more detail. The buildings there look super realistic! Here is 300 S. Broadway: 

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Jul 15, 2020

Ain't no Arch in Vancouver

Yeah, I'm just razzing you. Every city I've ever built I've always started by placing the Arch in the most prominent spot, and working out from there.  

^Hey, it worked for Paris. And Rome. And now us. You cannot argue with a good arch, and ours is the best!