Totally agree. A centerfield scoreboard is pretty standard. Also, the revenue from the outward/streetfacing billboard advertising was probably a bigger consideration than any fiendish attempt to block views (from what were offices for a community college) into the stadium.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2021^ Oh come on lol. I doubt very much the Cardinals were thinking about intentionally blocking views into the stadium for other developers. The scoreboards were placed were they were to maximize views of the Arch and skyline from inside the park. Nothing more.
And if you’re the Cardinals wouldn’t you want more development around the stadium...whether or not it was your own? That would build in a larger customer base for BPV in addition to bringing more people downtown in general...
^^ I’m not buying that either. Busch Stadium is not, never has been, and never will be surrounded by the urban density like that around Wrigley that lends itself to that kind of development and stadium like seating on adjacent buildings.
The Cardinals haven’t been land-banking the Tums buildings or the Cupples buildings or any of the other surface lots around the park in a seeming effort to control development around Busch. 300 S was purchased by an outside party...not the DeWitts. They don’t seem to be going out of their way at all to try and control anything outside the existing BPV project.
I’m sure the DeWitts are just as shrewd as the Ricketts...but St. Louis isn’t Chicago and Busch isn’t Wrigley.
The Cardinals haven’t been land-banking the Tums buildings or the Cupples buildings or any of the other surface lots around the park in a seeming effort to control development around Busch. 300 S was purchased by an outside party...not the DeWitts. They don’t seem to be going out of their way at all to try and control anything outside the existing BPV project.
I’m sure the DeWitts are just as shrewd as the Ricketts...but St. Louis isn’t Chicago and Busch isn’t Wrigley.
- 9,529
Not really, if they were to place Two in the way of 360, One would be blocking the view for a lot of the Two units, the most optimal place for TWO would be hereKansasCitian wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2021
Two Cardinal Way should spell the end of 360's view into the stadium.
- 2,419
I really think there is a good chance that the Cardinals and Cordish will just announce Two, Three, and Four Cardinal Way at the same time, just like they did with Two, Three, and Four Light in Kansas City.
The Cardinals seem to want office really badly, though.
The Cardinals seem to want office really badly, though.
Ballpark Village renderings were being published before Busch 3 broke ground. And while I won't say the scoreboards intentionally block the view from the Tums block, you can't seriously deny that they left the view open to Ballpark Village for the bars and apartment tower to have views of home plate.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2021Busch Stadium is not, never has been, and never will be surrounded by the urban density like that around Wrigley that lends itself to that kind of development and stadium like seating on adjacent buildings.
^ I wasn't denying that...
It makes much more sense to put two large center field scoreboards in front of the antacid factory and (now former) community college office instead of the Arch, the skyline...and yes their prime real estate.
It makes much more sense to put two large center field scoreboards in front of the antacid factory and (now former) community college office instead of the Arch, the skyline...and yes their prime real estate.
- 6,118
^They engineered the sightlines. They got the views they wanted both into the stadium and out of it. They didn't want to block views from the properties they did land bank, but there's no reason to give someone else a free pass. I fully expect they thought about that. They're not fools. It's not complicated. And any architect worth discussing, any stagehand, any sports marketing whizz kid . . . everyone thinks about the sightlines anytime you make a change. Building a new stadium is a pretty big change. They thought long and hard about the sightlines. From everywhere. And sure, they made some compromises. For instance, the sightlines to that board are terrible from nearly half the stadium. It's just about useless. But for some reason it doesn't have a twin over the left field wall. Because maybe that would have blocked something.
^ Kinda feel like this was just a long winded way of repeating exactly what I said right above you:
Obviously the Cardinals are favoring the view of their real estate, which also happens to favor the city's existing skyline and national monument, no one is arguing that.
There isn't a twin on the left field wall because three center field scoreboards would be ridiculously overkill lol.
Obviously the stadium was designed with sight-lines in mind, come on, give me a little more credit than that lol. I was taking issue with the original claim that the Cardinals were doing everything they could to keep anyone else except BPV from seeing inside the park...a claim that also included a comment about the Cardinals intention to block 360's view. Still not buying that. If that was the case, why didn't the Cardinals pick up 300 S Broadway? Had we ended up with the original plan for a skyscraper there...gasp!...a non-Cardinal property would have been able to see into the ballpark!It makes much more sense to put two large center field scoreboards in front of the antacid factory and (now former) community college office instead of the Arch, the skyline...and yes their prime real estate.
Obviously the Cardinals are favoring the view of their real estate, which also happens to favor the city's existing skyline and national monument, no one is arguing that.
There isn't a twin on the left field wall because three center field scoreboards would be ridiculously overkill lol.
Attempting to change the topic and also genuinely interested: Is this office and residential? Or just residential? If a split, anyone know the split?
Also, I'm really not feeling those roof units. Fingers crossed they don't go "Full-Hayden" on those.
Also, I'm really not feeling those roof units. Fingers crossed they don't go "Full-Hayden" on those.
- 9,529
- 6,118
Yeah, sorry. The carat was probably misplaced. I think we agree. Should have made it about a quintuple carat or so. I just get annoyed at the suggestion that the sightlines weren't important when they are of absolutely paramount importance in entertainment. And baseball is entertainment first, last, and always. (And the folks in the seats pay a higher percentage of the bill than in more modern made for TV sports.)sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jan 05, 2021^ Kinda feel like this was just a long winded way of repeating exactly what I said right above you:
Huh?symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jan 06, 2021The carat was probably misplaced. I think we agree. Should have made it about a quintuple carat or so.
- 6,118
I no longer recall to whom I was precisely responding, but it wasn't sc4mayor. Don't mind me. Just a bit of overspeed on my post derailing the thread. Back to 300 S Broadway and how it will be great to see it redeveloped.
Penthouse addition with apartments and bleachers scrapped per plans posted on the SLDC planroom. Club room and terrace remains. Also interesting to note, the first floor will feature apartments facing Broadway.
https://www.sldcplanroom.com/jobs/3151/ ... 0-broadway
https://www.sldcplanroom.com/jobs/3151/ ... 0-broadway
A sign of pandemic induced retail fear? I'd think retail in that location would generate far more revenue per sq. ft. on the first floor and would rent fairly easily.chriss752 wrote: ↑Mar 03, 2021Penthouse addition with apartments and bleachers scrapped per plans posted on the SLDC planroom. Club room and terrace remains. Also interesting to note, the first floor will feature apartments facing Broadway.
https://www.sldcplanroom.com/jobs/3151/ ... 0-broadway
Could be. The whole first floor is now apartments or amenity space (great room, bike storage, fitness center, leasing office, conference rooms, pool).STLinCHI wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2021A sign of pandemic induced retail fear? I'd think retail in that location would generate far more revenue per sq. ft. on the first floor and would rent fairly easily.chriss752 wrote: ↑Mar 03, 2021Penthouse addition with apartments and bleachers scrapped per plans posted on the SLDC planroom. Club room and terrace remains. Also interesting to note, the first floor will feature apartments facing Broadway.
https://www.sldcplanroom.com/jobs/3151/ ... 0-broadway
^ That’s disappointing. Still good to see this one renovated but no retail or restaurant space across from Busch or BPV? Seems like a huge swing and a miss (no pun intended).
Agreed. Seems like a missed opportunity to extend the BPV experience beyond the BPV confines. Goes to show how residential is the only thing happening right now, with office, retail and hotel all struggling.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2021^ That’s disappointing. Still good to see this one renovated but no retail or restaurant space across from Busch or BPV? Seems like a huge swing and a miss (no pun intended).
I find it interesting that they ditched retail here when, as you two pointed out, it could've worked to extend Ballpark Village some. Meanwhile, 1500 South Grand has two retail spaces with one already close to having a tenant signed on.wabash wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2021Agreed. Seems like a missed opportunity to extend the BPV experience beyond the BPV confines. Goes to show how residential is the only thing happening right now, with office, retail and hotel all struggling.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2021^ That’s disappointing. Still good to see this one renovated but no retail or restaurant space across from Busch or BPV? Seems like a huge swing and a miss (no pun intended).
I'm sure covid played a part in the decision to eliminate retail at 300 South Broadway, but I wonder why this development won't include it and 1500 South Grand will. 300 South Broadway seems to be in an area of great activity with activity to grow over time, but 1500 is in a strange location. No real retail space nearby.
It is such a great location for retail, it makes one wonder if someone with the city isn't discouraging new retail space around BPV...chriss752 wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2021I find it interesting that they ditched retail here when, as you two pointed out, it could've worked to extend Ballpark Village some. Meanwhile, 1500 South Grand has two retail spaces with one already close to having a tenant signed on.
I'm sure covid played a part in the decision to eliminate retail at 300 South Broadway, but I wonder why this development won't include it and 1500 South Grand will. 300 South Broadway seems to be in an area of great activity with activity to grow over time, but 1500 is in a strange location. No real retail space nearby.
Who exactly wants to live ground floor on Broadway?
Bummer retail got ditched. At that point I'd just leave it raw until tenants could be secured. Frost the windows. The Downtown way.
Bummer retail got ditched. At that point I'd just leave it raw until tenants could be secured. Frost the windows. The Downtown way.
^ & ^^ I think the hard cold reality going forward is that a lot of people like their delivery service for a lot of things from Amazon to Uber Eats to local businesses savy enough to maintain their own forms of online order and delivery. Or another way to put, their is simply more brick and mortar/commercial space then demand for the foreseeable future. Nothing new to this group. Just preaching.
The bigger question, How do you plan for the future when a owner needs revenues or maybe a better way to put it, rate of return but you want that space reserved for specific uses? A lot of ideas can go out there but what you see S. Broadway will probably be the norm going forward for smaller projects unless some type or form of tax revenues/grants are used to preserve existing space for specific use in the near term and or the project is large enough that the owner can sit on some non generating revenue space, or a larger percentage of non generating revenue space outside of utilities, fire codes requirements and so on. Certainly constrain new construction with zoning and pass on the cost.
The bigger question, How do you plan for the future when a owner needs revenues or maybe a better way to put it, rate of return but you want that space reserved for specific uses? A lot of ideas can go out there but what you see S. Broadway will probably be the norm going forward for smaller projects unless some type or form of tax revenues/grants are used to preserve existing space for specific use in the near term and or the project is large enough that the owner can sit on some non generating revenue space, or a larger percentage of non generating revenue space outside of utilities, fire codes requirements and so on. Certainly constrain new construction with zoning and pass on the cost.
While eCommerce definitely hurts brick & mortar retail, I think experiential spaces - including bars and restaurants - are going to recover significantly. Zoom calls and Uber Eats can't compete with going out with your friends or family.dredger wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2021^ & ^^ I think the hard cold reality going forward is that a lot of people like their delivery service for a lot of things from Amazon to Uber Eats to local businesses savy enough to maintain their own forms of online order and delivery. Or another way to put, their is simply more brick and mortar/commercial space then demand for the foreseeable future. Nothing new to this group. Just preaching.
BPV seems perfectly poised for that since it is almost entirely food, beverage, and experiential (although it is nice to see Arch Apparel going in). A slightly more downhome, less corporate bar at 300 Broadway would be a great alternative for BPV visitors and could help to lure them down to BB's or Broadway Oyster. Maybe, hopefully there will be more developer appetite and market demand for retail space to the west of BPV (e.g. the 1014 Spruce project) as it more easily captures Enterprise Center visitors (thinking of all the out of town Missouri Valley basketball fans that would normally be in Jack Patrick's today and through this weekend).