Not surprised there's criticism. And some of the points are valid. But it's the wave of heavy negativity that's disheartening.whitherSTL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022You’re surprised there’s criticism?
Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period. Do you always just shrug and go, " well, at least it's something." We're talking about something that will exist as a piece of the face of this city for at least the next 80 years or more. Damn right it deserves to be critiqued and criticized. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to more. Rather than what it seems many are ready to settle for, which is in fact just more of the same. Do we really want the new elements of this city to resemble what is going in in literally every other major city?? Perhaps some of you are ok with St Louis just being average. I'm not. I think it should be great. Because this isn't just any city. This is a legacy city that fell on hard times. That at one point was on par with the Londons, Romes and Paris's of the world. Why can't and why shouldn't St Louis be one of the most distinct, aesthetically rich cities of the United States?dweebe wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022So a parking lot at a key intersection that has sat empty for decades upon decades is getting a 30 story tower and the majority of this thread involves complaints?
*bleep*
Euclid & Lindell is my vote. That lot was always so painful to walk by knowing what could be.pdm_ad wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022I think the expectations were probably a bit too high for this lot, we've been salivating over what could be for years.
I'm happy with the design, not a stunner but still a nice looking tower.
Now that this lot will apparently be built upon, where do you all think the next vertical development will be proposed in the CWE?
The surface lots on either side of The Montclair are no-go as they're almost half the parking for the entire building.
That's fine. But the problem isSRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period. Do you always just shrug and go, " well, at least it's something." We're talking about something that will exist as a piece of the face of this city for at least the next 80 years or more. Damn right it deserves to be critiqued and criticized. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to more. Rather than what it seems many are ready to settle for, which is in fact just more of the same. Do we really want the new elements of this city to resemble what is going in in literally every other major city?? Perhaps some of you are ok with St Louis just being average. I'm not. I think it should be great. Because this isn't just any city. This is a legacy city that fell on hard times. That at one point was on par with the Londons, Romes and Paris's of the world. Why can't and why shouldn't St Louis be one of the most distinct, aesthetically rich cities of the United States?dweebe wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022So a parking lot at a key intersection that has sat empty for decades upon decades is getting a 30 story tower and the majority of this thread involves complaints?
*bleep*
-this sucks
-that sucks
-another thing sucks
-it should be so much taller
-it should be so much better
-even more things suck
Maybe your attitude makes you better than me, fine. You win.
I'm sorry the narrative you chose is of the more juvenile, pouty variety. Your projection comes across as a complex. I don't think anyone here is trying to be better than anyone. But then again..I suppose that would require having a demeanor that can handle hearty debate and intelligent rhetoric around a shared passion for our built environment, without the kneejerk reactionary childish devolvement.dweebe wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022That's fine. But the problem isSRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period. Do you always just shrug and go, " well, at least it's something." We're talking about something that will exist as a piece of the face of this city for at least the next 80 years or more. Damn right it deserves to be critiqued and criticized. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to more. Rather than what it seems many are ready to settle for, which is in fact just more of the same. Do we really want the new elements of this city to resemble what is going in in literally every other major city?? Perhaps some of you are ok with St Louis just being average. I'm not. I think it should be great. Because this isn't just any city. This is a legacy city that fell on hard times. That at one point was on par with the Londons, Romes and Paris's of the world. Why can't and why shouldn't St Louis be one of the most distinct, aesthetically rich cities of the United States?dweebe wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022So a parking lot at a key intersection that has sat empty for decades upon decades is getting a 30 story tower and the majority of this thread involves complaints?
*bleep*
-this sucks
-that sucks
-another thing sucks
-it should be so much taller
-it should be so much better
-even more things suck
Maybe your attitude makes you better than me, fine. You win.
- 2,056
Since we're looking at the next lots in CWE... that 5005 Lindell Blvd is kind of interesting... owned by the house next door. Assuming you wouldn't be able to get a zoning change on that one?
My dude, this quote of yours is a reactionary personality. "Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022I'm sorry the narrative you chose is of the more juvenile, pouty variety. Your projection comes across as a complex. I don't think anyone here is trying to be better than anyone. But then again..I suppose that would require having a demeanor that can handle hearty debate and intelligent rhetoric around a shared passion for our built environment, without the kneejerk reactionary childish devolvement.dweebe wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022That's fine. But the problem isSRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period. Do you always just shrug and go, " well, at least it's something." We're talking about something that will exist as a piece of the face of this city for at least the next 80 years or more. Damn right it deserves to be critiqued and criticized. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to more. Rather than what it seems many are ready to settle for, which is in fact just more of the same. Do we really want the new elements of this city to resemble what is going in in literally every other major city?? Perhaps some of you are ok with St Louis just being average. I'm not. I think it should be great. Because this isn't just any city. This is a legacy city that fell on hard times. That at one point was on par with the Londons, Romes and Paris's of the world. Why can't and why shouldn't St Louis be one of the most distinct, aesthetically rich cities of the United States?
-this sucks
-that sucks
-another thing sucks
-it should be so much taller
-it should be so much better
-even more things suck
Maybe your attitude makes you better than me, fine. You win.
Show us an example of what you think would've been more adequate for this site. Could it be better, probably so, but I think it's a pretty great design but my biggest sticking point is street-level activation.
- 595
I give it a thumbs up there’s no reason for me complaining I’m not the one paying for it. I always say people that complain are natural born complainers if they aren’t complaining then they aren’t happy it’s natural for them and trust me I complain but not to the point where I knit pick or feel dissatisfied or my entire day is in ruins.
If majority of this high rise is being privately financed I don’t see why the city can’t give a little tax incentive
Oh by the way Chris did say this building wasn’t going to be taller than 100 but close enough to compliment it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If majority of this high rise is being privately financed I don’t see why the city can’t give a little tax incentive
Oh by the way Chris did say this building wasn’t going to be taller than 100 but close enough to compliment it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 2,419
If the lot behind 100 gets developed with something with some significant height, it really will create such a nice cluster of density.Mapguy wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Hopefully the lot at Euclid and Lindell. Also the lots behind 100.pdm_ad wrote:^ I think the expectations were probably a bit too high for this lot, we've been salivating over what could be for years.
I'm happy with the design, not a stunner but still a nice looking tower.
Now that this lot will apparently be built upon, where do you all think the next vertical development will be proposed in the CWE?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks great. I also like the contrast sitting between the Chase and 100 bldgs. South side will facilitate a unique reflection of 100 in the glass. If this had been proposed for Clayton I suspect the feedback would be quite different. Along with 1CW and 100, have we ever seen this level of high rise residential development in the city within a ten-year period? Outstanding!
- 2,419
And I still think we could get a Two Cardinal Way proposal in 2022 or 2023.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Looks great. I also like the contrast sitting between the Chase and 100 bldgs. South side will facilitate a unique reflection of 100 in the glass. If this had been proposed for Clayton I suspect the feedback would be quite different. Along with 1CW and 100, have we ever seen this level of high rise residential development in the city within a ten-year period? Outstanding!
Due to optics, I don't believe DeWitt can - or, perhaps, rather will - propose a new tower while he and the other twenty-nine owners have the players locked out.
- 2,929
Great looking proposal. Looking forward to seeing it advance.
Quick observation: I think it makes sense to consider that this proposal was not the first one created, that it evolved after multiple considerations and revisions - taking into account design aesthetics but more importantly how much could be built at what reasonable financing was & is available. This looks like they're building a 300'+ residential, which looks pretty damn good, that'll cost $135MM, all while inflation's return has raw material costs rising as well as a finite demand for residences at their anticipated price points. We may all have our opinions on what we see, but I'm sure that this version is the best final iteration of what was possible to build, i.e. the best & biggest that could be designed and makes sense for the developers.
As a CWE resident, I'm quite happy with this proposal so far and look forward to seeing a reasonable version of it come into being, and promptly so.
Quick observation: I think it makes sense to consider that this proposal was not the first one created, that it evolved after multiple considerations and revisions - taking into account design aesthetics but more importantly how much could be built at what reasonable financing was & is available. This looks like they're building a 300'+ residential, which looks pretty damn good, that'll cost $135MM, all while inflation's return has raw material costs rising as well as a finite demand for residences at their anticipated price points. We may all have our opinions on what we see, but I'm sure that this version is the best final iteration of what was possible to build, i.e. the best & biggest that could be designed and makes sense for the developers.
As a CWE resident, I'm quite happy with this proposal so far and look forward to seeing a reasonable version of it come into being, and promptly so.
Ok, with pleasure. Here are various examples, ranging in inspiration, for what I feel would be a more adequate direction for the site:reednavy wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022My dude, this quote of yours is a reactionary personality. "Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022I'm sorry the narrative you chose is of the more juvenile, pouty variety. Your projection comes across as a complex. I don't think anyone here is trying to be better than anyone. But then again..I suppose that would require having a demeanor that can handle hearty debate and intelligent rhetoric around a shared passion for our built environment, without the kneejerk reactionary childish devolvement.dweebe wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022That's fine. But the problem is
-this sucks
-that sucks
-another thing sucks
-it should be so much taller
-it should be so much better
-even more things suck
Maybe your attitude makes you better than me, fine. You win.
Show us an example of what you think would've been more adequate for this site. Could it be better, probably so, but I think it's a pretty great design but my biggest sticking point is street-level activation.
+4
You think a Studio Gang building would be good there? "Literally nothing original about th[at]."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Ok, with pleasure. Here are various examples, ranging in inspiration, for what I feel would be a more adequate direction for the site:reednavy wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022My dude, this quote of yours is a reactionary personality. "Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022I'm sorry the narrative you chose is of the more juvenile, pouty variety. Your projection comes across as a complex. I don't think anyone here is trying to be better than anyone. But then again..I suppose that would require having a demeanor that can handle hearty debate and intelligent rhetoric around a shared passion for our built environment, without the kneejerk reactionary childish devolvement.
Show us an example of what you think would've been more adequate for this site. Could it be better, probably so, but I think it's a pretty great design but my biggest sticking point is street-level activation.
I would entrust Studio Gang to build something that compliments the area, yes. However, the focus was not on Studio Gang as a firm, but the form of the building I presented as an idea solely.wabash wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022You think a Studio Gang building would be good there? "Literally nothing original about th[at]."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Ok, with pleasure. Here are various examples, ranging in inspiration, for what I feel would be a more adequate direction for the site:reednavy wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022My dude, this quote of yours is a reactionary personality. "Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period."
Show us an example of what you think would've been more adequate for this site. Could it be better, probably so, but I think it's a pretty great design but my biggest sticking point is street-level activation.
So you don't think these concepts would work on that corner, or you do?wabash wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022You think a Studio Gang building would be good there? "Literally nothing original about th[at]."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Ok, with pleasure. Here are various examples, ranging in inspiration, for what I feel would be a more adequate direction for the site:reednavy wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022My dude, this quote of yours is a reactionary personality. "Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period."
Show us an example of what you think would've been more adequate for this site. Could it be better, probably so, but I think it's a pretty great design but my biggest sticking point is street-level activation.
Guess who's back. Mr. Trouble himself.
This is definitely shorter than the plans I've seen before, but there are many reasons for that. I won't reveal what the height was previously, the previous architect, or what the previous design was like, but it was completely different than this one. In many ways, I prefer this plan over that plan.
As I said previously, this is in the top 12 tallest in the city and it relates to its neighbors well (not being overly obnoxious, having a step towards the top, nice ground floor activation, etc). It's a building worthy of this corner even if we wish it were taller. It's a simple yet humble building.
The single rendering we have is likely not the only one showing the building. It might also help if we had a larger rendering to look at. My rough observations have me wondering if the building will clad in glass with some bronze accents (look at the portions of the facade without a sun reflection). Also based on this rendering, I'd imagine the height to the tip will be 360ft (as it looks like the taller portion lines up with the 35th floor of 100). Koplar/Albion's building will also be a higher quality product than One Hundred (higher ceilings, better finishes, better amenities, etc).
On the likely rough debate on tax incentives, there's more to the story on that for sure. There are things I know there from the previous design, that likely apply to this one, that I won't dive into.
For now though, this is great. There will likely be revisions, but I certainly wouldn't have done this any other way. Stay tuned for more information.
This is definitely shorter than the plans I've seen before, but there are many reasons for that. I won't reveal what the height was previously, the previous architect, or what the previous design was like, but it was completely different than this one. In many ways, I prefer this plan over that plan.
As I said previously, this is in the top 12 tallest in the city and it relates to its neighbors well (not being overly obnoxious, having a step towards the top, nice ground floor activation, etc). It's a building worthy of this corner even if we wish it were taller. It's a simple yet humble building.
The single rendering we have is likely not the only one showing the building. It might also help if we had a larger rendering to look at. My rough observations have me wondering if the building will clad in glass with some bronze accents (look at the portions of the facade without a sun reflection). Also based on this rendering, I'd imagine the height to the tip will be 360ft (as it looks like the taller portion lines up with the 35th floor of 100). Koplar/Albion's building will also be a higher quality product than One Hundred (higher ceilings, better finishes, better amenities, etc).
On the likely rough debate on tax incentives, there's more to the story on that for sure. There are things I know there from the previous design, that likely apply to this one, that I won't dive into.
For now though, this is great. There will likely be revisions, but I certainly wouldn't have done this any other way. Stay tuned for more information.
Good start. Looking forward to more renderings. Are balconies really expensive to make though?
Those are great renderings/lovely buildings that would be great at that corner. I would love for any of those to be built. They're also in more expensive markets and quick Google searches show those buildings costing $300 million to $400 million+ The cheapest condo in that Toronto building is nearly $1 million. How do we do that in St. Louis?SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Ok, with pleasure. Here are various examples, ranging in inspiration, for what I feel would be a more adequate direction for the site:reednavy wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022My dude, this quote of yours is a reactionary personality. "Never accept a first offer. With anything in life. Period."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022I'm sorry the narrative you chose is of the more juvenile, pouty variety. Your projection comes across as a complex. I don't think anyone here is trying to be better than anyone. But then again..I suppose that would require having a demeanor that can handle hearty debate and intelligent rhetoric around a shared passion for our built environment, without the kneejerk reactionary childish devolvement.
Show us an example of what you think would've been more adequate for this site. Could it be better, probably so, but I think it's a pretty great design but my biggest sticking point is street-level activation.
- 3,762
^ there were a total of 2 or 3 criticisms and like three pages of praise. settle down. all i'm asking for is standard decent urbanism. i think the style and height are great. i wouldn't even mind the garage if it didn't occupy an entire face of the street wall. that's not acceptable at this location and if we don't nip this trend in the bud we're going to end up with an even shittier pedestrian environment.
addendum: if they would just wrap the lobby + first few floors around to the rest of the Lindell facade to hide the garage this could be absolutely brilliant. i think the design provides a really nice contrast to the jaggedy-ness of 100 next door. as bwcrow1s said: it's a good start.
addendum: if they would just wrap the lobby + first few floors around to the rest of the Lindell facade to hide the garage this could be absolutely brilliant. i think the design provides a really nice contrast to the jaggedy-ness of 100 next door. as bwcrow1s said: it's a good start.
Welcome back. I'm sure I speak for most on here. Your insights have been missed. Hoping you can stay connected after the move to TN.
I appreciate the nice words but lets keep the discussion to Albion West End. There's a whole lot here to talk about and unpack.
^ Cool. I noticed your comments on KCRag about how rents are higher per sq ft in Four Light compared to One Hundred, I was surprised by that.
No offense to DT KC but these towers will sit in a dense, diverse and walkable neighborhood bordered by one of the best parks in the Unites States packed with a ton of amenities. There really isn't anything like it over there or in many other cities.
No offense to DT KC but these towers will sit in a dense, diverse and walkable neighborhood bordered by one of the best parks in the Unites States packed with a ton of amenities. There really isn't anything like it over there or in many other cities.