I further think that if they tear it all down should be 3 buildings, one at max height, 2 others in that 16-25 story. Call it the Triton, an homage to the three regional rivers, buildings 1, 2 and 3. Build a wall of retail to the street and include a ped bridge to the Arch grounds. My work here is done.
- 1,792
The only crossing to the arch is at Walnut and there is nothing of note fronting memorial drive so while i think restoring the grid by extending Clark through the site could be a good move it is not a good in and of itself. Serious consideration regarding how the site interacts with Memorial drive would have to be a big part of the equation. its not a slam dunk either because while vies of the arch are stunning the views of I44 and the accompanying noises and smells are not. Its not a forgone conclusion that cafes fronting Memorial drive there are a no brainer.
- 1,614
^I was thinking about 4th, not the memorial side.
- 1,792
then why extend clark...?TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2024^I was thinking about 4th, not the memorial side.
- 2,419
I don't know that outdoor cafes would work along Memorial Dr., either.
I tend to think that they wouldn't.
But with a pedestrian walkway over the highway, I think you could have indoor retail or dining. With Clark St. going through the site again, it would mean a direct walk from Busch and BPV into the national park. And isn't Clark St. slated to get pedestrian improvements, too? Maybe DB could update us on that.
I also think you could have retail or dining on higher floors, which the site used to already have. And, like at 360, there could be an outdoor component on one of the upper floors. The views of the Arch, river, and park could be pretty nice.
I tend to think that they wouldn't.
But with a pedestrian walkway over the highway, I think you could have indoor retail or dining. With Clark St. going through the site again, it would mean a direct walk from Busch and BPV into the national park. And isn't Clark St. slated to get pedestrian improvements, too? Maybe DB could update us on that.
I also think you could have retail or dining on higher floors, which the site used to already have. And, like at 360, there could be an outdoor component on one of the upper floors. The views of the Arch, river, and park could be pretty nice.
- 1,792
so why not a pedestrian only mall cutting from Clark and 4th to Walnut and Memorial Lined with retail/restaurants all with a decent view of the arch.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2024I don't know that outdoor cafes would work along Memorial Dr., either.
I tend to think that they wouldn't.
But with a pedestrian walkway over the highway, I think you could have indoor retail or dining. With Clark St. going through the site again, it would mean a direct walk from Busch and BPV into the national park. And isn't Clark St. slated to get pedestrian improvements, too? Maybe DB could update us on that.
I also think you could have retail or dining on higher floors, which the site used to already have. And, like at 360, there could be an outdoor component on one of the upper floors. The views of the Arch, river, and park could be pretty nice.
I mean alternatively we could completely redo memorial/ i 44 with a boulevard but if not why bother reconnecting Clark to a glorified on ramp.
- 1,614
Not sure where this "cafe" concept is coming from but I simply stated retail. and i think there should be some street engagement, even if inside retail bays along 4th. nothing against clark getting some love too, and think if you pedestrianized it, it could feed directly into the ped bridge that could look like the Chicago millennium park walkway (zing!)
https://www.hydrotechusa.com/sites/defa ... k=P3HY6APt
![]()
https://www.hydrotechusa.com/sites/defa ... k=P3HY6APt
- 925
Making I44 a boulevard between 40 and MLK bridge was seriously considered back when the Arch grounds were reconstructed. It should have been done. I am hoping it will eventually be brought back up as a plan under the current administration who have seemed to made streets and connectivity being their top prioritySTLEnginerd wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2024The only crossing to the arch is at Walnut and there is nothing of note fronting memorial drive so while i think restoring the grid by extending Clark through the site could be a good move it is not a good in and of itself. Serious consideration regarding how the site interacts with Memorial drive would have to be a big part of the equation. its not a slam dunk either because while vies of the arch are stunning the views of I44 and the accompanying noises and smells are not. Its not a forgone conclusion that cafes fronting Memorial drive there are a no brainer.
I think because of 44, Memorial Drive would never be viable for street activity
4th street is to receive a “great streets” treatment with protected two way cycle lane.
Clark is a great candidate for a pedestrian street. It already is on game days and weekend nights adjacent to Busch
Maybe because the Gateway Foundation purchased it and there is interest in better connecting the park, a boulevard for 44 could be at least mentioned. I think in today’s StL city climate, it would be heavily supported
Bring back the Gondola idea! This would be a great location for the Missouri side and would provide insane views and tourism activity to an area that gets pretty quiet.
- 925
On RWX - Good to see immediate demolition of the parking garage when the property is acquired. That garage really is the most obvious blight on downtown. I do hope they are able to save the Gill Building at the corner in doing that. I am hoping that the parking garage site is redeveloped for mixed uses and not just another parking garage.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2024https://greaterstlinc.com/sites/default ... 0FINAL.pdf
GSLs report on railway and millennium and few other things
I actually did a redevelopment proposal for RWX and parking garage property for a class recently, so I am excited to see what comes of this process
- 2,419
I finally read through that 'Plan of Action' document and think they already have a vision for what they want for the Millennium Hotel site.
Under the 'Strategic Principles for Redeveloping Specific Properties' section of the document, it says the following about Millennium Hotel:
We will not be getting anything super tall on the site, as they do not want the development to "compete" with the Arch.
Under the 'Strategic Principles for Redeveloping Specific Properties' section of the document, it says the following about Millennium Hotel:
- Complements the Gateway Arch but does not compete with it.
- Serves as a beacon for the metro.
- Prioritizes job creation.
- Reknits the connections between Busch Stadium/Ballpark Village and the Arch Grounds and between Laclede’s Landing and Gateway South.
- Development that is innovative, iconic, distinctive, world-class, aspirational, and dynamic.
We will not be getting anything super tall on the site, as they do not want the development to "compete" with the Arch.
Time to dust off this old post:Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2024There is an established height limit south of Carr, North of Chouteau and East of Broadway of, I think, 340ft. That’s why when HDA proposed 300 South Broadway, it was limited to 33-stories. For the Millennium site, and the northern edge of Gateway South, I think upping the limit to 500ft would be appropriate.
-RBBI wrote up a post in 2014 around height restrictions around the Arch Grounds (here). As some of the links have changed, I'm going to presume upon this thread and repost the content with updated links. As you can see the answer is a bit complicated.
Here (<- note - large PDF download) is a map of the building zones. The Gateway Tower is in the Jefferson Memorial District zone (in blue on the map that encompasses the JNEM/Archgrounds and portions of the city immediately surrounding it.
Here are the height regulations from the JMD zone:^ Now it mentions the Central Business District height regulations. Those are here:26.64.040 Height regulations.
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.
(Ord. 59979 § 17 (part), 1986.)
From the CBD codes:Simple, no? In short, you take the property boundaries and draw an imaginary cube 200 feet tall. Take the volume of that cube, and that can be the volume of your building. So a perfectly square building built out to the edges of the property can only be 200 feet tall, but you can by code make the building taller by tapering the tower, hollowing out the center, or doing what the designers of the Gateway Tower did and have a shorter pedestal on one half of the property (a small-volume base) and a taller higher-volume tower on the other half. Here's a simple example of two cubes of the same volume but different heights:26.52.040 Height regulations.
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.
(Ord. 59979 § 14 (part), 1986.)
Nowhere is there the arch specifically mentioned by name or by height in building codes. However, in the JMD zone only it does mention a specific hard height limit of "a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet". That's actually fairly limiting.
The arch grounds are 478' above sea level (reference, page 2), giving the 630'-tall arch a height above sea level of 1,108'. That means by code buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Archgrounds must be '357 shorter than the pinnacle of the Arch itself measuring from sea level.
So if you're building on ground at the same elevation above sea level as the Arch (an important qualification), that would limit a tower in the JMD zone to 273' in height. Buildings that are uphill from the Arch would need to be shorter to fit under the 751' mean sea level elevation limit. The Gateway Tower, for reference, is 260' tall.
- 2,419
Convoluted and dumb.
I hope they just allow a solid building without requiring the developers to jump through hoops and possibly sacrifice urbanism or creating a true impact on the St. Louis skyline and downtown experience, because some code dictates how much mass their building can have.
I hope they just allow a solid building without requiring the developers to jump through hoops and possibly sacrifice urbanism or creating a true impact on the St. Louis skyline and downtown experience, because some code dictates how much mass their building can have.
- 9,561
every zoning code rule can be adjusted via the board of adjustment
its a non-issue if someone wants to go beyond but given who's reportedly the new owner(gateway arch park foundation), i don't think they'll want to anyway
its a non-issue if someone wants to go beyond but given who's reportedly the new owner(gateway arch park foundation), i don't think they'll want to anyway
Agreed.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024Convoluted and dumb.
Yep, builders can always get a variance if they have sufficient support. Still, doing so adds a layer of complexity and an opportunity to kill what might otherwise be a beneficial development. It would be nice if things were a bit less abstruse.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024every zoning code rule can be adjusted via the board of adjustment
its a non-issue if someone wants to go beyond but given who's reportedly the new owner(gateway arch park foundation), i don't think they'll want to anyway
Thanks for the clue as to the new owner - first I've heard of a name. I assume it's a bit to early to know whether they have any grand plans?
-RBB
- 9,561
Its been in all the news reports yesterday as them but nobody has confirmed anything.rbb wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024Agreed.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024Convoluted and dumb.
Yep, builders can always get a variance if they have sufficient support. Still, doing so adds a layer of complexity and an opportunity to kill what might otherwise be a beneficial development. It would be nice if things were a bit less abstruse.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024every zoning code rule can be adjusted via the board of adjustment
its a non-issue if someone wants to go beyond but given who's reportedly the new owner(gateway arch park foundation), i don't think they'll want to anyway
Thanks for the clue as to the new owner - first I've heard of a name. I assume it's a bit to early to know whether they have any grand plans?
-RBB
Id assume they'd follow these guidelines that the City/GSL set
- Complements the Gateway Arch but does not compete with it.
- Serves as a beacon for the metro.
- Prioritizes job creation.
- Reknits the connections between Busch Stadium/Ballpark Village and the Arch Grounds and between Laclede’s Landing and Gateway South.
- Development that is innovative, iconic, distinctive, world-class, aspirational, and dynamic.
- 2,631
If they go the ped bridge route, the reopened Clark should bend south along with the ped bridge to direct people towards Choutaeu's Landing. Would make the walk faster and much less hostile than taking 4th or Broadway.
- 953
Empty Downtowns Are Still Depleting Local Coffers
https://www.governing.com/finance/empty-downtowns-are-still-depleting-local-coffer
https://www.governing.com/finance/empty-downtowns-are-still-depleting-local-coffer
- 2,631
Well fortunately for us 
our downtown was already pretty depleted pre-covid so the hole in our property taxes probably isn't as big as other cities
our downtown was already pretty depleted pre-covid so the hole in our property taxes probably isn't as big as other cities- 9,561
Probably values in the City reached its highest total ever last year.
Downtown related: HOK has a letter of intent for its new long term Downtown office space.
Downtown related: HOK has a letter of intent for its new long term Downtown office space.
- 977
Great news on HOK. Wouldn’t basically everywhere have had their highest total property values in 2023? Other than COVID area boom markets regressing back towards their norm?dbInSouthCity wrote:Probably values in the City reached its highest total ever last year.
Downtown related: HOK has a letter of intent for its new long term Downtown office space.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,797
Ugh bullets #1 and #5 are in open conflict with each otherdbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024Its been in all the news reports yesterday as them but nobody has confirmed anything.rbb wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024Agreed.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024Convoluted and dumb.
Yep, builders can always get a variance if they have sufficient support. Still, doing so adds a layer of complexity and an opportunity to kill what might otherwise be a beneficial development. It would be nice if things were a bit less abstruse.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2024every zoning code rule can be adjusted via the board of adjustment
its a non-issue if someone wants to go beyond but given who's reportedly the new owner(gateway arch park foundation), i don't think they'll want to anyway
Thanks for the clue as to the new owner - first I've heard of a name. I assume it's a bit to early to know whether they have any grand plans?
-RBB
Id assume they'd follow these guidelines that the City/GSL set
- Complements the Gateway Arch but does not compete with it.
- Serves as a beacon for the metro.
- Prioritizes job creation.
- Reknits the connections between Busch Stadium/Ballpark Village and the Arch Grounds and between Laclede’s Landing and Gateway South.
- Development that is innovative, iconic, distinctive, world-class, aspirational, and dynamic.
- 474
are they changing locations within downtown? are they going to be anchor tenants for new BPV as you predicted?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 15, 2024Probably values in the City reached its highest total ever last year.
Downtown related: HOK has a letter of intent for its new long term Downtown office space.
- 9,561
New location at an existing building few blocks away. I think Thompson Coburn is in discussion for Ballpark village but if they falls through they may head to Clayton.