I don’t think the cardinals are as involved as they are in BPV
- 595
44 isn’t going to ever be removed in our lifetime but definitely think capping 44 needs to be included in with this developmentpdm_ad wrote:^ Something absolutely must be done to cap or remove I-44
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it was more the Cardinals are willing to be one of many investors as opposed to the Cardinals owning the land and being the primary investor at BPV.Ebsy wrote: ↑Feb 21, 2025I understand that but just above there is discussion of the Cardinals being involved in this, so it is not so clearly separated. Obviously it is too early to say what role they would play but couldn't they easily end up as part of the financing, putting them in a position to put the brakes on things when it suits their whims?
- 502
My guess is 11ft between the floor of one floor to the floor of the next (gives enough room for electrical, plumbing, and air ducts and 9-10ft ceilings). That puts us around 484ft. If they have that overrun at the top, we could be looking at just over 500ft.pdm_ad wrote: ↑Feb 21, 2025Any indication on height? 450ish?
^ That would be the about the same as the old Mercantile Tower, we don't have many buildings DT in the 400' range and a handful would go a long way towards filling out our skyline.
This would create a really attractive vista with at least a partial cap. It would knock it out of the park, no pun intended.PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑Feb 21, 202544 isn’t going to ever be removed in our lifetime but definitely think capping 44 needs to be included in with this developmentpdm_ad wrote:^ Something absolutely must be done to cap or remove I-44
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agreed.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 21, 2025The cardinals muscled their way into being involved in this. I don’t see the necessity of them being involved
- 6,118
I confess, I've been a little lukewarm on this. The aesthetics of yet another glass tower don't really do it for me. And I was nervous about Cordish. But you're winning me over on this thread. Let me hesitantly say . . . okay. Maybe this isn't a bad idea.
- 732
This is the best downtown project since Met Square. What it will do for the Chouteau Landing project is immeasurable. Land around the old Eat Rite just got a lot more expensive.
- 502
BizJournal has a story on this group’s vision. Hard to see how they weren’t taken seriously.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 20, 2025https://www.schickassociates.com/about
This firm was one of the 3 proposals
The proposal, called King Louie Commons, would pay homage to the city’s German heritage and brewery pedigree; it entailed a luxury apartment tower overlooking a town square-like layout with multiple entertainment venues, restaurants, beer halls and other amenities.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... g-bid.html
- 595
Looks like country hotel meets church that’s beyond hideous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 951
6yo got a hold of the simscity game?
or one asks regarding the BizJournal "what they b smokin??"
or one asks regarding the BizJournal "what they b smokin??"
Let’s not be too hard. We were all 23 at one point. You swing big. I wish we had more young people swung big.
A German village concept (if not done very cheesy) may actually be cool as an infill project connecting downtown to Soulard.
Wild speculation, but I wonder if Cordish would have some potential liability to the Cardinals here? Depends on the terms of their "partnership," but they are broadly "partners" with the Cardinals. Cordish are supposed to be the real estate development experts. BPV has not been built out in 19 years. Wouldn't the Cardinals have some beef with their "partner" working on a competing development one block away?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 21, 2025The cardinals muscled their way into being involved in this. I don’t see the necessity of them being involved
Cardinals literally said they want to invest. I don't think there's any bad blood there.
Are there actually height restrictions in Downtown? My impression has been that everybody thinks you can't build higher than the arch but that there's nothing actually in the zoning saying so, except the lots directly adjacent to the Arch grounds.
- 1,044
I was involved in the Gateway Arch Foundation some years back. They wanted to extend the length of the highway cap but doing so would designate it as a tunnel which would have greatly increased the cost due to the venting equipment required.