urbanSTL

aprice wrote: ↑

Oct 09, 2017

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Oct 07, 2017

chriss752 wrote:Nice design for the Denver building. One day, we will have something taller than the arch.

Probably not.

Is there any truth to the height limit?

There is a 300' height limit east of Broadway that runs from PSB to Lumiere Place. Beyond that, there are density limits downtown but no actual height limit.

Yes. And no. Kinda.

I 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:

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.)

^ Now it mentions the Central Business District height regulations. Those are here:

From the CBD codes:

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.)

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:



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.

-RBB

Thanks for posting that again RBB.

It should be noted, too, that height regulations are every bit as negotiable as taxes. If Amazon comes in and says 'we want to locate 15,000 new high-paying jobs in a 700' tower in the CBD (not very likely at all, but not impossible), the mayor's office and board of alderman can absolutely grant exemptions to any height/volume regulations to land those jobs if they so desire.

-RBB

Doesn't the city have a height restriction of 500 feet?....Nothing higher than the Arch???

I believe I was told the other day that that height restriction only applies to east of Broadway. Maybe? It was something like that. It was on Twitter, but I'll have to see if I can find the response.

DahLee wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2017

Doesn't the city have a height restriction of 500 feet?....Nothing higher than the Arch???

The answer to this question is literally three posts before it.

The Arch is 630'.

Met Square 593'

One ATT 588'

Eagleton Courthouse 557'



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _St._Louis

Aesthetically, I like the vision of Saarinen's described by the previous poster of the Arch dominating a skyline of 200 foot max height bldgs, presumably all brick, which would give our city an architecturally homogenous old-world feel, if you will allow. But even hoping the remaining intact historic brick neigborhoods decay no further seems a bit of a stretch.

I see no reason to worry of upstaging the arch nowadays. The park itself and the river do a fair enough job of protecting its prominence, in my estimation.

Or maybe a 5 mile high gold obelisk in Clayton would be preferable. Blow Kingdom Tower skyhigh, that's the ticket. Happy New Year!

We're coming for, Michigan!