urbanSTL

I would think you want a certain height to achieve the density necessary to feel sufficiently urban, but beyond that you'd rather have a bunch of occupied buildings than one superstructure surrounded by derelicts and parking lots. Besides, six-story buildings can be cool and fun, too.

Thinking regionally.....

300 ft - 212 Meramec u/c
328ft - Centene subd4 TBD
419ft - Centene Subd 1
455ft - Centene Subd 3

imo the important thing is to get the right project for the right site.... height should definitely be an aspiration in BPV, for example, but infill that fits the scale of surrounding buildings would be appropriate for infill on Wash Ave vacant lots. I do think BPV could handle a quite tall mixed-use building.

It'll always feel like you're sacrificing density for height when there isn't any demand for new buildings. Going along with the idea of a megadowntown, I just want infill of a certain height. Furthermore, If the design is striking, I think you can get away with a 600 footer. There are some ugly supertalls.

I suppose you do need some height for density, but that height needn't be more than about four stories if it's spread far enough. Ho Chi Minh City is more dense than any city in the US, yet there are only three buildings in town taller than the Arch. Sure, there's a skyline, but it doesn't compare to New York or Chicago . . . and yet, it's far far denser. (The city proper has nearly the same population as the whole of the Chicago metro area, but shoved into an area less than one tenth of the size.) So you may need height . . . buy you really don't need very much. Cities in India or Bangladesh are far denser still with almost no height at all. What you need is to have a continuous smear of buildings, cheek by jowl, with no gaps between them: all buildings built to the sidewalk line. All buildings sharing a common wall with the adjacent building. Narrow sidewalks. Small or no yards. You want density? That's how you do it. You have to leave cars (and parking) out of it. People walk. People use public transit. People use motorcycles. Most people don't even own cars. Height as we see it here has virtually nothing to do with it. Height is strictly a vanity project. And honestly, I'd like to see vibrancy and density more than height. Height would be nice enough, but there really are more important things. HCM has a heck of a lot more vibrancy than even New York, and it's not remotely the largest, densest, hippest, or sexiest city in East Asia. It's . . . a run of the mill Asian town, really. Top twenty, but not much better than that. (Why does that sound familiar?)

arch city wrote:Keep in mind, however, the new tallest in St. Louis would be less than the 630 feet (or 193 meters) of the Gateway Arch, but more than 593 feet (or 181 meters), which is the height of the Metropolitan Square building.

A new tower needn't be capped at 630'. Certain blocks of downtown are height-restricted to where the pinnacle of buildings can be no higher above sea level than the pinnacle of the Arch, but not all. And a pre-recession blog entry from Mayor Slay stated that he was open to working with developers to allow an exception to height restriction codes where it made sense; I'd assume that still stands.

Demand and/or a forward-thinking developer will drive height in St. Louis.

-RBB

Wasn't there a proposal about 10 years ago for a tower that was around 1,000 feet tall? I think the biggest misconception is thinking there is a hard height restriction rule in St. Louis like there is in Washington D.C. Also wouldn't be fully surprised if a new tallest building is not downtown.

Also it might be you see more 10 or so story buildings instead filling in a corridor between downtown and Clayton which in some ways a more unique skyline as a corridor setup.

imperialmog wrote:Wasn't there a proposal about 10 years ago for a tower that was around 1,000 feet tall? I think the biggest misconception is thinking there is a hard height restriction rule in St. Louis like there is in Washington D.C. Also wouldn't be fully surprised if a new tallest building is not downtown.

Also it might be you see more 10 or so story buildings instead filling in a corridor between downtown and Clayton which in some ways a more unique skyline as a corridor setup.

Washington DC is an incredibly vibrant and urban city by American standards. If we had their type of centralized planning, we would be a much more attractive and urban city today.

It helps that the federal government has expanded immensely over the past decade. Not all cities get that benefit.

imperialmog wrote:Wasn't there a proposal about 10 years ago for a tower that was around 1,000 feet tall? I think the biggest misconception is thinking there is a hard height restriction rule in St. Louis like there is in Washington D.C. Also wouldn't be fully surprised if a new tallest building is not downtown.

Also it might be you see more 10 or so story buildings instead filling in a corridor between downtown and Clayton which in some ways a more unique skyline as a corridor setup.

That was the McGowan Walsh Tower (aside: sheesh, that was ten years ago already. I'm old) that may or may not have looked like this:



Back in 2009 the P-D said the tower wasn't dead yet. I would assume it's dead now, but ^ that image is still live on the http://www.blueurban.com/ homepage, so I suppose there might still be a faint glimmer of a chance at a resurrected proposal.

-RBB

^That tower was never more than a fantasy by McGowan. Never a serious proposal.

chaifetz10 wrote:As a current DC resident, it's absolutely amazing what the city is like without any skyscrapers. You still get that urban, downtown feel and by limiting height (with the insane demand here) it's helping push redevelopment out to new sections of the city. If you haven't googled 'Navy Yard' or 'Waterfront' to see all the action in the SE and SW quadrants, you'll be amazed with what you see. Dozens upon dozens of new mid rises going up and altering the skyline and density of the areas.

DC is a good American example of where you can get decent density w/o a lot of height. But it can only do that with a much more efficient/extensive public transit system than we can ever dream of. (Also, to get to something like Manhattan or even City Center Philly density levels, your're going to need towers.) I think we need to see a much denser Central Corridor and more towers in downtown CBD if we're going to reach our city's potential.

A Forum Topic based on whether or not Downtown Saint Louis will ever go SkyHigh again

Nashville also has a growing population. Ours is still shrinking.

ImprovSTL wrote:Nashville also has a growing population. Ours is still shrinking.

Nashville has 1300 people per square mile....we have 5100 per sq mile....extend our sq mile to match Nashville and we have doubled their population and growing at a faster rate.

Aside from hopefully BPV I don't think we'll see much in the way of legit towers downtown for the foreseeable future -- maybe one or two modest ones (Drury maybe) announced by the end of the decade if we're lucky. Demand and rents just aren't there yet.

Also, you may be interested in the What is St. Louis' Beef with Building Height? thread which touches on similar discussion.
https://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 9&start=75

I think the proposed BPV2 Tower - and really anything BPV related - has unique marketing and demand characteristics that don't really apply to the market as a whole. From its financial backers, public support, story they can tell, and pre-existing population of fanatical and relatively affluent consumers, I'm not sure even if a BPV2 gets built that it would usher in a new era of high rise development Downtown. Some midrises on proximate lots (Shannon's, Cupples, the lot in front of .400) and continued historic renovations further from the Ballpark seems more likely.

Clayton, Cortex & the CWE all have more potential for high-rise activity, in that order, before Downtown. I think, at this point, we have to keep building momentum, even if it takes way longer than we'd like. Baby steps... get BPV Phase II built, Cupples X and completion of most of the major vacant buildings Downtown. Then I'd hope to see some major momentum around Union Station, with the redo and hopefully an MLS stadium. Those would be huge. On top of that, the SSM project and redo of South Grand (44-campus) and the Foundry/Armory. All of the major projects proposed and in the works need to get done first. I think all of those projects, if they get done, will only increase the desirability of the City, Downtown to Midtown. If all of these projects increase foot traffic, population and perception, we can them talk about moving into the next phase of construction and development. That next phase would include hopefully a BPV Phase III and the North Riverfront. Those projects could get us something with height. Unfortunately, we have a LOT to accomplish before we can get to the next level. We may have to get past a few levels before a significant high-rise building would be in the works. Again, we have to take baby steps.

^ One way to look at it is that if downtown completed the following by 2020...

Rehabs
Jefferson-Arms (500k sq.ft.)
Mercantile Library (275k)
Railway Exchange (1.2M)

New Construction
BPV phase 2 (550K)
Cupples X (100k)

that would deliver over 2.5 million square feet of "new" space downtown (and that's not counting smaller projects like Chemical, LaSalle, International Shoe, 921 Locust, Monogram, etc.). That'd be huge; it'd dwarf Cortex and CWE plans and I think exceed Clayton's. Even if RR/X didn't get done but the rest did, that would still provide a dramatic boost for downtown, and with only one new tower in those plans.