The Express Lanes are not going anywhere. MoDOT recently spent a pretty penny updating them if I'm not mistaken. I have heard talks of them becoming truck lanes down the line. Also, their removal would require the tear down of all North City overpasses, as they were constructed for them.dbInSouthCity wrote:No...thats not what the study is doing, there is no reason to expand those silly things...the traffic patterns in the region have changed since those were put in. if anything the I-70 Express Lanes will be gone. the study is a PEL https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/index.aspChalupas54 wrote:MoDOT is going to be studying the feasibility of extending the I-70 Express Lanes to Wentzville. Would be a massive waste, IMO. Would be more efficient to implement HOV lanes throughout the area, or at ban trucks on I-64.matguy70 wrote:I'm confused...
MoDOT is doing what exactly with the Wentzville to Downtown?
- 1,054
- 3,428
- 249
It's been proposed.gary kreie wrote:I drove on the New Jersey turnpike last month where they have cars only on a complete inner set of lanes with their own entry and exit. Trucks can only drive on totally separated outer highway lanes. Why don't we do that across MO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://modotblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/d ... -i-70.html
Interesting article about some of the challenges Syracuse is facing in trying to remove an interstate viaduct:
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/syracu ... akes+on+th
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/syracu ... akes+on+th
^ I shared this on the Urban Theory thread a few weeks ago. Not sure if you had a chance to read it, but it's a very deep dive into the history of that viaduct and the proposals to replace it. You might find it really interesting:
https://jalopnik.com/the-highway-was-su ... 1836529628
https://jalopnik.com/the-highway-was-su ... 1836529628
- 2,419
I've kind of become obsessed with the idea of St. Louis removing the highways from downtown, or at least between downtown and the Arch grounds.
It's absolutely bewildering that they were ever built there.
Anyway, I dream of this...
The highway is gone and is now at grade. Millennium Hotel has been razed and replaced with an urban mixed-use development that uses that space to its full potential. The Arch grounds have better connection to Chouteau's Landing. And, lastly, a retail and entertainment environment has been retrofitted into the other buildings facing the park. That, or they've been razed and replaced with something that will properly do the job.
It is unacceptable how little the buildings directly facing the Arch interact with people. Memorial Drive is a long, boring, unengaging walk. This needs to change.
There could easily be an incredible strip of restaurants, shops, and sidewalk cafes all along the edge of the park. It would also help if the national park service would help with creating new walkways and recreation along my vision of this retail strip.
Another important thing: I would advocate for no height limits. The Arch does not need to be seen all over the city. Let's draw our residents and visitors deeper into the city to see it.
It's absolutely bewildering that they were ever built there.
Anyway, I dream of this...
The highway is gone and is now at grade. Millennium Hotel has been razed and replaced with an urban mixed-use development that uses that space to its full potential. The Arch grounds have better connection to Chouteau's Landing. And, lastly, a retail and entertainment environment has been retrofitted into the other buildings facing the park. That, or they've been razed and replaced with something that will properly do the job.
It is unacceptable how little the buildings directly facing the Arch interact with people. Memorial Drive is a long, boring, unengaging walk. This needs to change.
There could easily be an incredible strip of restaurants, shops, and sidewalk cafes all along the edge of the park. It would also help if the national park service would help with creating new walkways and recreation along my vision of this retail strip.
Another important thing: I would advocate for no height limits. The Arch does not need to be seen all over the city. Let's draw our residents and visitors deeper into the city to see it.
Maybe Pete Buttigieg's efforts will create an opportunity (hope/pray etc)
- 2,419
That has certainly contributed to my obsession.
But I also just have a vision for something that I don't think many cities in the United States, and certainly in the Midwest, could offer - an upscale dining and retail district at the very edge of a national park with the nation's tallest monument.
Memorial Drive should be our Michigan Avenue, our 5th Avenue. It should be an absolutely special pedestrian experience. And it can be. We just need the highway to disappear, and then we need billions in investment east of Broadway.
Ha! Much easier said than done.
But I also just have a vision for something that I don't think many cities in the United States, and certainly in the Midwest, could offer - an upscale dining and retail district at the very edge of a national park with the nation's tallest monument.
Memorial Drive should be our Michigan Avenue, our 5th Avenue. It should be an absolutely special pedestrian experience. And it can be. We just need the highway to disappear, and then we need billions in investment east of Broadway.
Ha! Much easier said than done.
If BPV ever sees another phase get built, and the 300 S Broadway residential conversion (80 units) and 1014 Spruce Street new construction (146 units) are a success, it's not far fetched to see the Millennium Hotel property (or at least its southern 1/2 south of the Millennium Tower) razed and redeveloped as a large 350+ unit mid-rise project (kind of like a Chroma + Hue in scale), perhaps in a multi-phase format as Chroma and Hue have basically been.KansasCitian wrote: ↑Dec 29, 2020Millennium Hotel has been razed and replaced with an urban mixed-use development that uses that space to its full potential.
Of course the same goes for the huge surface lot on Broadway across from the Ballpark and the parking lot across Spruce form the Westin.
- 3,762
^ a mid-rise (really, low-rise) in the vein of Chroma/Hue would be a huge waste of space/disappointment for that site.
- 2,419
My pipe dream:
About four architecturally relevant towers with preferably no height limits.
At least one of them would be a hotel with an observation deck/restaurant/tourist trap on the top floor.
Ground floors would have retail on practically all sides.
I would hope for a stellar pedestrian experience, with multiple easy walking/biking routes straight into the national park.
I'd want that feeling of a married city and park to extend north and south. North to across the existing lid-over-highway entrance, which would be reconfigured, to the other side of Memorial Drive. South to Chouteau's Landing.
I'm typically a preservationist, but I'd go wrecking ball or reclad happy with several of the atrocities fronting the Arch grounds.
I think I'd start with that godawful Shipworks/KMOV building.
Pointe 400 and Deloitte buildings are in no way designed to interact with the public. Atrocious. Wouldn't miss 'em.
The Hyatt is a pedestrian abomination on all but one side. Goodbye.
There is only one business that fronts Market Street in any meaningful way as it currently stands, and that's an axe-throwing business.
I guess what I'm getting at is, the entire city's relationship with the national park is garbage and it needs to be completely redone from the ground up... with no height limits. With no stupid St. Louis rules.
I want St. Louis to make a statement.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
About four architecturally relevant towers with preferably no height limits.
At least one of them would be a hotel with an observation deck/restaurant/tourist trap on the top floor.
Ground floors would have retail on practically all sides.
I would hope for a stellar pedestrian experience, with multiple easy walking/biking routes straight into the national park.
I'd want that feeling of a married city and park to extend north and south. North to across the existing lid-over-highway entrance, which would be reconfigured, to the other side of Memorial Drive. South to Chouteau's Landing.
I'm typically a preservationist, but I'd go wrecking ball or reclad happy with several of the atrocities fronting the Arch grounds.
I think I'd start with that godawful Shipworks/KMOV building.
Pointe 400 and Deloitte buildings are in no way designed to interact with the public. Atrocious. Wouldn't miss 'em.
The Hyatt is a pedestrian abomination on all but one side. Goodbye.
There is only one business that fronts Market Street in any meaningful way as it currently stands, and that's an axe-throwing business.
I guess what I'm getting at is, the entire city's relationship with the national park is garbage and it needs to be completely redone from the ground up... with no height limits. With no stupid St. Louis rules.
I want St. Louis to make a statement.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
KansasCitian wrote: ↑Dec 30, 2020My pipe dream:
At least one of them would be a hotel with an observation deck/restaurant/tourist trap on the top floor.
We, we've already got one, and it's a landmark; it just needs a rehab (NOT a re-clad).
Ground floors would have retail on practically all sides.
Great idea, but not realistic at this point in time.
I would hope for a stellar pedestrian experience, with multiple easy walking/biking routes straight into the national park.
Me too.
I'm typically a preservationist, but I'd go wrecking ball or reclad happy with several of the atrocities fronting the Arch grounds.
I think I'd start with that godawful Shipworks/KMOV building.
Strongly disagree. It's important for a city to showcase architecture from all periods, and re-clads are always regretted later.
Pointe 400 and Deloitte buildings are in no way designed to interact with the public. Atrocious. Wouldn't miss 'em.
True, but the ground floors can be re-worked without destroying the whole building.
The Hyatt is a pedestrian abomination on all but one side. Goodbye.
Agreed.
I guess what I'm getting at is, the entire city's relationship with the national park is garbage and it needs to be completely redone from the ground up... with no height limits. With no stupid St. Louis rules.
Agreed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's work to improve what we've got. Organic growth is always better than silver bullets.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
Sorry about the mashup above. I can't figure out how to edit on my phone.
- 2,419
No worries.framer wrote:Sorry about the mashup above. I can't figure out how to edit on my phone.
None of what I said is feasible until that highway is torn out of downtown.
When that day comes, and I'm most certainly rooting for it, the absolute entirety of Memorial Drive will instantly become obsolete. If you could enter the park at every intersection facing Memorial Drive, there isn't a single building that wouldn't need a hefty renovation to become more engaging and halfway worthy of that space.
For now, with cars loudly zipping by on the highway, the blocklong walls of nothing - not even a mural - will stay.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
Demolishing 4 buildings that are currently in use, and will likely remain on use for quite some time, just doesn't make sense to me. Even with the highway gone, it doesn't make sense.
I do think that expanding the park over highway further South and North (where feasible) would help a lot more than it would hurt it. In some of these buildings cases, they can be renovated to include ground floor activation. It won't be 100% perfect if that were to happen, but it would be a bonus.
And the height limits established on this area are, I think, put in place Federally (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So if you want to build a skyscraper within the height limit zone, you'll have to get a variance from the Feds (again, if I'm wrong, please correct me). Personally, I don't want to see anything taller than what's already established in the area. It keeps the Arch center stage. I also don't think an architecturally significant building is needed there either. Let the Arch be the icon.
I do think that expanding the park over highway further South and North (where feasible) would help a lot more than it would hurt it. In some of these buildings cases, they can be renovated to include ground floor activation. It won't be 100% perfect if that were to happen, but it would be a bonus.
And the height limits established on this area are, I think, put in place Federally (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So if you want to build a skyscraper within the height limit zone, you'll have to get a variance from the Feds (again, if I'm wrong, please correct me). Personally, I don't want to see anything taller than what's already established in the area. It keeps the Arch center stage. I also don't think an architecturally significant building is needed there either. Let the Arch be the icon.
- 9,555
Yes, you are wrong. It’s established by the city’s zoning ordinance. The height limit only applies to the L zoning district aka the Jefferson memorial zoning district (blue in the map)
A variance can be granted by the Board of Adjustment
As for the height limit for the rest of downtown, there is a formula that nobody is exactly sure how it works but the basic concept is the wider the base the higher the building can be
L District language for height
“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.”
I- CBD height language
“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.“
A variance can be granted by the Board of Adjustment
As for the height limit for the rest of downtown, there is a formula that nobody is exactly sure how it works but the basic concept is the wider the base the higher the building can be
L District language for height
“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.”
I- CBD height language
“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.“
- 2,419
You gotta at least give me the Hyatt.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
I really just don't understand limiting building height there. I would think it'd be cool to have taller buildings closer to the Arch. To me, that would just enhance the view.dbInSouthCity wrote:Yes, you are wrong. It’s established by the city’s zoning ordinance. The height limit only applies to the L zoning district aka the Jefferson memorial zoning district (blue in the map)
A variance can be granted by the Board of Adjustment
As for the height limit for the rest of downtown, there is a formula that nobody is exactly sure how it works but the basic concept is the wider the base the higher the building can be
I don't need to be able to see the Arch as far out as Clayton. I'm okay with some buildings obscuring its view.
Id rather it be that residents and visitors had to go deep into our city to see it.
Also, I would think improving that view might eventually lead some crazy developer to go into East St. Louis with some money to create apartments and a district that faces the Arch and skyline.
It's strange to me that that doesn't already exist.
Rebuilding the Illinois portion of our core would be great for the region, but that's a whole different conversation.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
- 3,762
you can have the Hyatt, but you keep your filthy hands off the PET Milk Building. that thing is a f*cking masterpiece. might be my favorite building in STL.KansasCitian wrote: ↑Dec 30, 2020You gotta at least give me the Hyatt.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
- 1,291
^^ So for the CBD height limit, I take it that St. Louis has no equivalent to purchasing air rights like in NYC? So would all that would be needed to build taller buildings (that don't necessarily comply with the height 'rules') be a variance?
As DB said, it just takes a variance. If we stuck to zoning the Moonrise and the Everly would be 3 stories.
It's a political question then. I'd wager politicians would support a tall building downtown.
It's a political question then. I'd wager politicians would support a tall building downtown.
- 9,555
In the 2 years I served on the Board of adjustment I cannot recall us ever not approving a height variance and all were in non downtown/cbd areas where you’d think it would be a bigger issue. If someone wanted to build a 1000 foot tower in downtown it will be approved
- 2,419
I would love to see a building as tall as the Arch or taller where the Hyatt building is. And for that matter, where the Shipworks/KMOV building is. I want to see St. Louis begin to build things on the Gateway Mall that are worthy of being in that space. That Hyatt, Shipworks/KMOV building, UMB building, Kiener garages, former Mike Shannon's restaurant space, short KSDK building, parking garage at 11th/Chestnut, etc. are not worthy. Some would say the Peabody Coal building is not worthy. And The Hilton at the Ballpark definitely needs a major facelift.
Clearly, what I've presented is a pipedream - or at least a dream that is probably 20 years or more from potentially being realized.
I wouldn't want every building on Memorial Drive or the Gateway Mall to be immediately torn down. I'd want it to happen organically. I just firmly believe that once that highway is gone, the buildings there on Memorial Drive will become functionally obsolete and will need to be replaced or heavily renovated and retrofitted to match the new needs of the city.
As for the Gateway Mall, I don't believe in a city creating a big green space like this if it is not going to honor that space with structures that deserve to be along it.
Clearly, what I've presented is a pipedream - or at least a dream that is probably 20 years or more from potentially being realized.
I wouldn't want every building on Memorial Drive or the Gateway Mall to be immediately torn down. I'd want it to happen organically. I just firmly believe that once that highway is gone, the buildings there on Memorial Drive will become functionally obsolete and will need to be replaced or heavily renovated and retrofitted to match the new needs of the city.
As for the Gateway Mall, I don't believe in a city creating a big green space like this if it is not going to honor that space with structures that deserve to be along it.