I like the massing of the building in comparison with its surroundings. IMO going taller would've overwhelmed the Chase and had the 100 and this building visually competing. This blends nicely. I will say that I hope they do more of a decorative cover for the garage portions, like the Centene garage in Clayton. What they're showing now reminds me of the parking garages downtown by the stadium.
Rent at 3 Light ranges from $2.56-$5.89 per square root (or an overall average of $4.225 per square foot). One Hundred's current offerings range from $2.32 to $3.50 per square foot (averages to $2.91 per square foot). I'm not sure about the draw of the Light Towers beyond they're connected to an entertainment district and KC's Downtown. The most mind-boggling apartment rent at 3 Light is a 3-bedroom penthouse that's 2302sf in size and will rent at $13,561 per month. That's about $5000 more, if I recall correctly, than the 3 Bedroom 36th floor corner penthouse at One Hundred. 2/3 Light and 100/Albion sit next to busy and noisy roads (KC: Highway, STL: Kingshighway) and all offer similar amenity packages for residents.pdm_ad wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022^ 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.
So just looking at this and throwing in other people's opinions/observations of Downtown KC, your dollar and rent stretches farther in the Central West End than it does in our neighbor to the west.
What colossal idiot would spend $13,500 a month on rent anywhere in Missouri?
And I say that as someone who enjoys living in Missouri (most of the time). If your city has rents like this you’re doing it f*cking wrong lol.
That’s over $162,000 in just housing costs in one year.
And I say that as someone who enjoys living in Missouri (most of the time). If your city has rents like this you’re doing it f*cking wrong lol.
That’s over $162,000 in just housing costs in one year.
The biggest issue with most people on this forum is that they do not have the slightest clue how difficult it is to get a project off the ground, the risk the developer and partners take on, and the trade offs made along the way to get shovels in the ground. Criticisms are too often taken from an academic perspective and not based in reality.
Every time the debate over the debate comes up on here, I think of sports talk radio.
Studio Gang again is unimaginative. Same for RAMSA as it'd essentially be a less authentic Park Plaza. The random grey brick residential building on 6th Ave is nice, for a random grey brick residential building on 6th Ave. The jenga tower is a solid derivative of a current fad. The ground floors of the Incheon building are reminiscent of the Burlington Coat Factory on Union Square. Telus Sky compares well, as I'm sure most 60-story $450 million projects would. Some of those firms, RAMSA, FXCollaborative, HOK, etc... design "what is going in in literally every other major city."SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022So you don't think these concepts would work on that corner, or you do?
So yeah, any of those concepts "deserving of critique and criticism" would work on that corner. Same as the actual proposal.
Looks alright to me. I don't mind the relatively simple, circular nature of it. It's different than anything else we've got going on around the city. Like others have pointed out, as long as they don't totally botch it on the street level, I'm good.
I think this is ideal. It complements Chase and contrasts nicely with 100. It's going to be a great addition to the CWE skyline from Forest Park.
A building taller than this or with a more "groundbreaking" appearance would have been a mistake. St. Louis just isn't there yet, and that's ok. If a bigger, more unique building was feasible, it would have been built by some other developer already instead of being a parking lot for decades. We're not just going to jump up in the ranks of world cities by building something we have no actual need for. It's a non-issue anyways—everyone who is from out of town or doesn't keep up with development news will just think "oh that's a huge beautiful building, I'm glad that's there."
A building taller than this or with a more "groundbreaking" appearance would have been a mistake. St. Louis just isn't there yet, and that's ok. If a bigger, more unique building was feasible, it would have been built by some other developer already instead of being a parking lot for decades. We're not just going to jump up in the ranks of world cities by building something we have no actual need for. It's a non-issue anyways—everyone who is from out of town or doesn't keep up with development news will just think "oh that's a huge beautiful building, I'm glad that's there."
A tower in either lot immediately to the East of the One Hundred would sure obstruct views.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Can probably move this to the CWE density thread or something like that but, let's start the speculation!pdm_ad wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Now that this lot will apparently be built upon, where do you all think the next vertical development will be proposed in the CWE?
Plenty of good lots in the immediate vicinity. I don't think we'll see something ever proposed on the red lots...too small when you take parking into consideration. But the block between Forest Park, Euclid, Lindell and West Pine could house multiple towers. I'd like to see the Lindell/Euclid corner see something bold next.
I think it’s gorgeous. It compliments both the Chase Park Plaza Tower and One Hundred Tower.
If this tower was taller... it would really make 100 and the Chase towers look shrunk IMO. I also think that this tower is making use of the entire space and from the street will look amazing. I am also happy with the modern and glass features... it is very modern but stylish and classy.
I think the complainers here poopoo on everything (look at their threads). An *almost* fully privately funded tower is not up "for polls" or "changes"... it is Koplar's tower... they choose.
If this tower was taller... it would really make 100 and the Chase towers look shrunk IMO. I also think that this tower is making use of the entire space and from the street will look amazing. I am also happy with the modern and glass features... it is very modern but stylish and classy.
I think the complainers here poopoo on everything (look at their threads). An *almost* fully privately funded tower is not up "for polls" or "changes"... it is Koplar's tower... they choose.
What an unfortunate perspective. The applicability of economic theories of perfect market efficiency to real estate is misguided. This property has been in the same family for at least three generations, who have had a longstanding intention to develop it. Someone looking to build a taller building with a more "groundbreaking" appearance, even if it was financially feasible, would have had to find a different property - look no further than next door.Suds wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022A building taller than this or with a more "groundbreaking" appearance would have been a mistake. St. Louis just isn't there yet, and that's ok. If a bigger, more unique building was feasible, it would have been built by some other developer already instead of being a parking lot for decades. We're not just to jump up in the ranks of world cities by building something we have no actual need for.
Also, "need" really has nothing to do with it. But, for the sake of argument, at its current rate the CWE will add 2,500 residents this decade. All of them will need shelter. Many of them will want luxury new construction shelter.
I can't really see the garage on Lindell in the rendering, though I do share that concern. At first glance, that's what looks better than the 100 is that on Kingshighway there are windows on the lower floors rather than ugly garage parking.
I think this subject also speaks to a larger issue that, when a high rise includes a lot of parking, the lower floors typically look like crap. Another reason to be a fan of mid-rises imo.
I think this subject also speaks to a larger issue that, when a high rise includes a lot of parking, the lower floors typically look like crap. Another reason to be a fan of mid-rises imo.
I'll say another way then: this is groundbreaking and unique for St. Louis. We have very, very few modern high-rise buildings in the city, and none quite like this. We need to take this step before taking the next. I also personally just think this type of building looks the best for that spot. It falls nicely in between its neighbors in Chase and 100 without outdoing them.wabash wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022What an unfortunate perspective. The applicability of economic theories of perfect market efficiency to real estate is misguided. This property has been in the same family for at least three generations, who have had a longstanding intention to develop it. Someone looking to build a taller building with a more "groundbreaking" appearance, even if it was financially feasible, would have had to find a different property - look no further than next door.
Also, "need" really has nothing to do with it. But, for the sake of argument, at its current rate the CWE will add 2,500 residents this decade. All of them will need shelter. Many of them will want luxury new construction shelter.
- 99
As much as I like this building, I think the only thing that makes me wish for maybe a little more "flair" is the fact that this is one of the last lots fronting the park left to develop. We have one of the largest and most diverse urban parks in the country. Based on all the luxury high rises surrounding Central Park in New York it would seem like a no brainer to capitalize on Forest Park's status likewise. Yet unlike NYC, we have more of a "millionaire's row" of single family mansions along the north side. You have a few mid century mid-rise building along the southwest end but mostly squat condo buildings and single families with cultural institutions making up entirety of the northwest half. In a perfect world the south side of the park would have been the next best place for a row of modern high rises but that went out the door when they decided to build "farty" through the park creating a wedge between the park and the neighborhoods directly to the south. Then of course BJC takes up pretty much two thirds of the frontage on the east leaving this lot pretty much as the last remaining opportunity to create something to get the architectural worlds attention the same way 100 did. The only other option would be to tear down (Montclair anyone?) and rebuild. If this were New York, it'd be a done deal but with the abundance of lots still available throughout our central core I doubt that would happen anytime soon.
Edit: I'm sure those mid rise buildings along the southwest end aren't considered mid century. I'm sure someone on here will graciously point that out.
The point is still the same. I just thought it would sound cool if I made an architectural reference .
Edit: I'm sure those mid rise buildings along the southwest end aren't considered mid century. I'm sure someone on here will graciously point that out.
The point is still the same. I just thought it would sound cool if I made an architectural reference .- 6,120
Well, architecture is our sport, so this forum IS our talk radio.quincunx wrote:Every time the debate over the debate comes up on here, I think of sports talk radio.
I think I understand what you're getting at, but both the parking lots next to Montclair and 5005 Lindell could take a high rise. And the Zoo's vacant lot could probably take three. And as time passes all those single families, maybe even some of the ones on "Millionaire's Row," could have a date with the wrecking ball to make space for spite towers. (Most of them west of Union are pretty hum-drum anyway. Anything new will have to pass review, of course. And that is always an issue. But the "high merit" properties are probably mostly the ones between Union and Kingshighway. Probably.)FrankRider wrote:As much as I like this building, I think the only thing that makes me wish for maybe a little more "flair" is the fact that this is one of the last lots fronting the park left to develop.
But to get to the apartment tower itself, I honestly like it a lot. It looks like it fills the lot well and, the parking podium doesn't appear too obtrusive from either the Lindell or Kingshighway sides in the rendering. It looks like it might have actual street activation. The base/shaft/capital rhythm is fairly classic and well delineated. It's a good size for the site. And I'm a sucker for a nice round tower. And as has been said previously, even if this isn't so different from other towns it's different than anything else here. It's a nice example of something we don't yet have. I like it. I hope it goes through.
If the view's great and I can walk to a grocery store, some restaurants, and maybe even work, then the colossal idiot would be me. Only thing holding me back is money and my general cheapness/unwillingness to spend money on really anything but the necessities.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022What colossal idiot would spend $13,500 a month on rent anywhere in Missouri?
And I say that as someone who enjoys living in Missouri (most of the time). If your city has rents like this you’re doing it f*cking wrong lol.
That’s over $162,000 in just housing costs in one year.
But in all seriousness, with rent like that, I'd rather spend $13,500 a month on a mortgage for a multi-million-dollar condo with the same benefits I mentioned.
That's my point. I don't listen to it much, but I don't think listeners who call in to share their opinions get told by the hosts, an expert guest, or another caller that they can't have an opinion because they aren't wealthy enough to own a team or are not an expert.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022Well, architecture is our sport, so this forum IS our talk radio.quincunx wrote:Every time the debate over the debate comes up on here, I think of sports talk radio.
- 1,609
At the time 100 was rising wasn't there already a plan for a low to midrise on this lot? perhaps in the 7-9 floor range? Has that been scuttled?STLAPTS wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022A tower in either lot immediately to the East of the One Hundred would sure obstruct views.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Can probably move this to the CWE density thread or something like that but, let's start the speculation!pdm_ad wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2022Now that this lot will apparently be built upon, where do you all think the next vertical development will be proposed in the CWE?
Plenty of good lots in the immediate vicinity. I don't think we'll see something ever proposed on the red lots...too small when you take parking into consideration. But the block between Forest Park, Euclid, Lindell and West Pine could house multiple towers. I'd like to see the Lindell/Euclid corner see something bold next.
I concur. Rather than pick it apart, I would say given the dialogue here that lead up to the announcement the form factor is a bit unexpected. And I like that.tztag wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022I really dig it
Yeah, I’ve found myself coming to the same conclusion. In the current environment of lending regulations/ parking minimums /conventional wisdom of developers and traffic engineers, it seems impossible to build a high capacity tower in St Louis without a deserted blankness at the base.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022I can't really see the garage on Lindell in the rendering, though I do share that concern. At first glance, that's what looks better than the 100 is that on Kingshighway there are windows on the lower floors rather than ugly garage parking.
I think this subject also speaks to a larger issue that, when a high rise includes a lot of parking, the lower floors typically look like crap. Another reason to be a fan of mid-rises imo.
There is a square footage threshold above which the street experience becomes inhumane.
On the other hand Park East Tower was able to find a reasonable balance. So I don’t understand where exactly the fault lies.
- 1,609
Not that we can take everything in the rendering for fact, but interesting to see 2 levels of balconies and then the rooftop space.
I think this answers the questions if the rooftop is open to public. With not unit specific balconies I think the rooftop is a shared amenities deck. Hopefully an infinity pool with views into the park...
I'd be interested to know if the other balconied floors are shared use spaces as well or premium units.
I think this answers the questions if the rooftop is open to public. With not unit specific balconies I think the rooftop is a shared amenities deck. Hopefully an infinity pool with views into the park...
I'd be interested to know if the other balconied floors are shared use spaces as well or premium units.
- 805
High rises don’t all have to be directly across the street from the park. We could build 50 stories at Euclid and Lindell (not that we will) and it would add nicely to the skyline. Not putting our tallest buildings along the park may in some cases incentivize later developers to maximize height to get some Forest Park views for upper units on lots a block or two back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,609
Answering my own questions through reading comprehension...
"and a rooftop deck including a sports lounge and "stargazing room."...Units on the 24th floor are to have walk-out terraces."
"and a rooftop deck including a sports lounge and "stargazing room."...Units on the 24th floor are to have walk-out terraces."
The house next door is the carriage house for the original 2 Westmoreland Pl. 2 Westmoreland had two lots facing Lindell and 2 facing Westmoreland. When the main house was torn down the carriage house became a separate residence. Really doubt that lot would ever be developed into anything but a single family or multi unit with a similar massing to the houses on Lindell.pattimagee wrote: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?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is exactly how things have played out on Michigan Ave facing Grant and Millennium Parks in Chicago.SeattleNative wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2022High rises don’t all have to be directly across the street from the park. We could build 50 stories at Euclid and Lindell (not that we will) and it would add nicely to the skyline. Not putting our tallest buildings along the park may in some cases incentivize later developers to maximize height to get some Forest Park views for upper units on lots a block or two back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk