urbanSTL

No, Met Square is 593 ft. If 12 per floor this would be 492 ft. 

NJB1981 wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2025

If this were built today per the proposal, would this be the tallest building in STL or MO?  I really would like to have the tallest building in MO be in STL at some point.

No, this would be around 500ft. 

I'd love to see a handful of new 500ft towers over having the tallest building in MO. 

It'll likely be a top 10 tallest in the state which would make STL's share of tallest buildings a bit more than KC. 

As of now, STL has tallest structure (Arch), 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th tallest buildings in the state. (Met, AT&T, Eagleton, US Bank Tower). Our skyline goes from 500s to 300s very fast. Whereas KC has more in the 400s range. 

This new one could be at around the same height as US Bank Tower. 

pdm_ad wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2025

NJB1981 wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2025

If this were built today per the proposal, would this be the tallest building in STL or MO?  I really would like to have the tallest building in MO be in STL at some point.

No, this would be around 500ft. 

I'd love to see a handful of new 500ft towers over having the tallest building in MO. 

Yes, places like Nashville (I believe Nashville's talest is only 617ft), Austin, and Denver are prime examples of how a bunch of 300-500 ft. high rises can transform a skyline. Maybe 10 more buildings in that range and our skyline would be unrecognizable. I can definitely see development go vertical as the last few remaining vacant buildings get rehabbed. 

Keep in mind that residential buildings typically have shorter floor-to-floor heights than office buildings.

dylank wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2025

It'll likely be a top 10 tallest in the state which would make STL's share of tallest buildings a bit more than KC. 

As of now, STL has tallest structure (Arch), 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th tallest buildings in the state. (Met, AT&T, Eagleton, US Bank Tower). Our skyline goes from 500s to 300s very fast. Whereas KC has more in the 400s range. 

This new one could be at around the same height as US Bank Tower. 

City of StL does have a lot of 300-400 buildings vs 400-500 buildings. We are going to get 2 more high 300s in Albion and Two Cardinal Way at some point.

If you add Clayton, “St. Louis” has many more tall buildings than KC.

Clayton has 2 buildings over 400 ft, 3 over 300 ft, numerous 200+.

I one time saw a graph of metros with over “200 ft” buildings and St. Louis was actually very high. I think because we have a lot of 19th century “skyscrapers”. But because of our slow development from the 60s on, we also didn’t tear down as many to replace with much taller modern buildings (which I think is positive in some ways). We also had a more conservative approach to building up than other cities it seems in the post depression era.

I think we end up surpassing the 630’ mark at the Lindell/Euclid site. The keiner garages, stadium west and Railway parking garage would be the perfect parcels for new tall towers. North, south riverfronts and bottle district will always be there with their proposals of the past. Time will tell

From Cordish presentation at LCRA Board meeting

-

-

-

-

So, what does it take to get conversation between State and City surrounding the highway here? I find it hilarious them dropping the ironic mention of 'biophilic' and 'healthful environment' while tractor trailers rip by on a loud ass engine brake.

Get orgs like GAPF, Great Stl Inc, etc, downtown businesses, and city politicians on board. Also Rep Bell and USDOT since some of the highway work for CityArchRiver was a TIGER grant.

No mention of phases at the LCRA meeting, afaik. Both GAPF and Cordish said they wouldn't want to besmirch their reputations by not following through quickly. Also said this isn't an either or for the next phase of BPV.

stlgasm wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2025

This may have been answered already, but will this be built in phases?  If so, in what order will it be built. If the tower isn't part of Phase 1, I have little confidence that it will happen, at least not in the next 10 years. We all know how phased developments tend to go in this city.

You would think residential would be first anyway as fast as 1CW filled up.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2025

Get orgs like GAPF, Great Stl Inc, etc, downtown businesses, and city politicians on board. Also Rep Bell and USDOT since some of the highway work for CityArchRiver was a TIGER grant.

I think if the big players get on board, it could push MODOT.

Residential is a must & I’m willing to bet that this high-rise if constructed as shown in the illustrations will lease out very quickly. The views of the arch are unbeatable among being by a national park & so many more amenities. I’m glad that this may not be a phased development or else it’ll likely never get built as is & if happens to be phased the high-rise is must build first. I’m curious if TC will end up here at the new planned office building.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑

Feb 26, 2025

Residential is a must & I’m willing to bet that this high-rise if constructed as shown in the illustrations will lease out very quickly. The views of the arch are unbeatable among being by a national park & so many more amenities. I’m glad that this may not be a phased development or else it’ll likely never get built as is & if happens to be phased the high-rise is must build first. I’m curious if TC will end up here at the new planned office building.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Renderings look amazing.

I agree on the Multi-Family front. 1CW is 92% occupied.

Grouchy man doesn't like the height of the new tower:

"PERSPECTIVE: Millennium Project Poses Design Questions for Our Region"

https://www.constructforstl.org/perspec ... ur-region/

quincunx wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2025

No mention of phases at the LCRA meeting, afaik. Both GAPF and Cordish said they wouldn't want to besmirch their reputations by not following through quickly. Also said this isn't an either or for the next phase of BPV.

So I would think so too, but to this point I'm seeing that renderings are 'preliminary'. Likely it's just subject to minor revision as they progress through. But despite the support of heavy hitters and a responsible developer I've not seen anything stating definitively that the sexy renderings are funded and design-locked and definitely happening - is that something I've overlooked? At minimum, demolition of the Millennium Hotel must be contingent on 100% commitment to build what's promised.

Aside: I'm curious about what's happening to the portion of the Millennium under the Deloitte building? It's not clear from the renderings I've seen so far. Are they reusing/remodeling that bit or demoing under the building and building new? 

-RBB

They were just selected, so I wouldn't expect investors to have signed things instantly. Plus they have more City boards to get through, Preservation Board and Board of Adjustment at least. Then there's a board bill for the tax abatement.

I would expect the Pres Board to make demo contingent upon a building permit.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Feb 26, 2025

They were just selected, so I wouldn't expect investors to have signed things instantly. Plus they have more City boards to get through, Preservation Board and Board of Adjustment at least. Then there's a board bill for the tax abatement.

I would expect the Pres Board to make demo contingent upon a building permit.

I'm sure, just feeling gun shy seeing the 'proposal' and 'preliminary' qualifiers attached but not really discussed much, and remembering past proposals in for large towers in downtown/DT West that never came to be. This probably has the best chance of getting built of any tower proposal in downtown in a long time, but I'll be holding my breath a bit until shovels are in the ground.

-RBB

In 1998, my architect brother in Boston took me to view a new courthouse being constructed on a vacant site on the bay near downtown Boston, surrounded by parking lots. Several years later, a contemporary art museum and a hotel were built nearby. Every few years, there was more and more construction, and the area was designated as the Seaport Innovation District. The district experienced rapid growth and, within a decade, became the most desirable place to live, work, and play in Boston. Major Boston companies relocated their headquarters to the district from the suburbs.   See video: https://youtu.be/d41m_zbg2r4?si=IM2hGopX6mOwWjVV

I would like to see this St. Louis development serve as the catalyst that initiates a similar movement of companies, people, and restaurants back to this exceptional site and surrounding area over the next decade. The city must generate momentum by identifying a company willing to relocate its headquarters and workforce to a new downtown building. Alternatively, it could attract Purina or Ameren to build a new headquarters building in that area. Just as Emerson was eager to relocate to the most desirable site in Clayton, other companies may be motivated to transform downtown Arch grounds south into the next hottest district.

If this district gains traction, what name should it be given? In a nod to Boston’s Seaport and its proximity to our Gateway Arch and the river, how about the “G-Port District”?  Or...

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Feb 26, 2025

In 1998, my architect brother in Boston took me to view a new courthouse being constructed on a vacant site on the bay near downtown Boston, surrounded by parking lots. Several years later, a contemporary art museum and a hotel were built nearby. Every few years, there was more and more construction, and the area was designated as the Seaport Innovation District. The district experienced rapid growth and, within a decade, became the most desirable place to live, work, and play in Boston. Major Boston companies relocated their headquarters to the district from the suburbs.   See video: https://youtu.be/d41m_zbg2r4?si=IM2hGopX6mOwWjVV

I would like to see this St. Louis development serve as the catalyst that initiates a similar movement of companies, people, and restaurants back to this exceptional site and surrounding area over the next decade. The city must generate momentum by identifying a company willing to relocate its headquarters and workforce to a new downtown building. Alternatively, it could attract Purina or Ameren to build a new headquarters building in that area. Just as Emerson was eager to relocate to the most desirable site in Clayton, other companies may be motivated to transform downtown Arch grounds south into the next hottest district.

If this district gains traction, what name should it be given? In a nod to Boston’s Seaport and its proximity to our Gateway Arch and the river, how about the “G-Port District”?  Or...

I'd love to see that happen to St. Louis on the North Riverfront. It could definitely happen (look at Cortex for a local example). I think the main difference between Boston and St. Louis is that 1) Mass. is a progressive state that invests heavily in education and infrastructure. Missouri does the exact opposite and 2) Boston is an international city with a positive reputation and urban inclinations, St. Louis is a regional hub, known for crime and polarization, regional dialogue is still very suburban oriented and anti-urban. 

An article from Architectural  Forum, July, 1960. Eero Saarinen talks about his feelings on building heights near the Arch. Also, an article (editorial?) from the Post Dispatch in the same year. 

Interesting to note that the Mansion House was originally planned to be a pair of 40 story, 450' towers. A competing plan for the same site would have included a 7 story, S-shaped structure.

Shared by  Landmarks Association on Facebook.

Getting Purina and or Ameren to move from their suburban style offices into something downtown would be a win, converting their current parking deserts into missing middle housing to bridge the gap between the neighborhoods and downtown would be a major win