Transformation in St. Louis! (Chesterfield, Washington: real estate, lease, to buy)

[1greatcity]

^I agree with everything you said.
To be fair, McGowan's vision of a 1000-foot tower preceded the onset of The Great Recession. Before around 2007 or 2008, St Louis City (and many cities around the nation) were in the midst of a building and restoration boom.
Given the momentum in STL at the time, McGowan apparently envisioned an eventual need for additional residential and office space downtown. At the same time, he recognized the psychological need for a city to grow taller in order to appear healthy and progressive. (This point is very arguable, of course.)
Once the economy turned sour, the idea of erecting a 1000-foot tower in STL seemed somewhat ridiculous to most. In fact, plans and proposals for many supertalls around the nation were stalled or shelved (see the Chicago Spire.)
Now that there are a few signs of economic recovery, some previous plans have resumed, and some new ones have been announced. My initial post lists several of the more prominent local projects.
When the economy comes full-swing and rebounds, (and history tells us it eventually will), more of the shelved plans will be dusted off. Maybe then STL will have a need for development of high-rise condos like Skyhouse or Roberts Tower-- or even a 1000-foot office tower.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

Now that there are a few signs of economic recovery, some previous plans have resumed, and some new ones have been announced. My initial post lists several of the more prominent local projects.
When the economy comes full-swing and rebounds, (and history tells us it eventually will), more of the shelved plans will be dusted off. Maybe then STL will have a need for development of high-rise condos like Skyhouse or Roberts Tower-- or even a 1000-foot office tower.

I hate to say never, but there will "never" be a need for a 1000 ft office tower in downtown St. Louis not in my expected lifetime at least. 1) Too much available land in DT and DTW St. Louis. 2) Not enough demand as the commercial office market is fragmented between Clayton, 270 and DT to a very high degree, and 3) the only reason to build something that tall is due to land scarcity/prices, and even then, it is usually much more economical to build 60 to 80 storey buildings. There are only a half dozen markets in the US with any sort of economic justification to build a tower that tall, and half of those probably have no real reason to do so.

[pdm_ad]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

I hate to say never, but there will "never" be a need for a 1000 ft office tower in downtown St. Louis not in my expected lifetime at least. 1) Too much available land in DT and DTW St. Louis. 2) Not enough demand as the commercial office market is fragmented between Clayton, 270 and DT to a very high degree, and 3) the only reason to build something that tall is due to land scarcity/prices, and even then, it is usually much more economical to build 60 to 80 storey buildings. There are only a half dozen markets in the US with any sort of economic justification to build a tower that tall, and half of those probably have no real reason to do so.

Personally I would rather see a couple of 700 ft towers go up than one giant tower. I think that would create a better skyline and, depending on the placement, help balance out the 2 tall towers we currently have and expand the footprint of downtown itself. I used to drive thru Atlanta back in the 80s and 90s and the change was dramatic once they added a few new buildings. I would love to see the same thing here but obviously some demand for office space downtown would need to take place before anything happens.

[1greatcity]

You have to admit, the mere idea of being in the same category as NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Atlanta and Vegas (the six US cities with a 1000-foot building) is pretty enticing. But you're right, it probably is nothing more than a fantasy.
I actually agree that building a 1000+ foot tower in STL makes little sense. Building three 400-footers instead, for example, would do a lot more to fill in our skyline. The south end of downtown is lacking in height. Then there's the empty gap in the skyline between Tucker and the City View Apartments (formerly Plaza Square) that needs to be filled in. Then another one between the Wells Fargo complex and Midtown.

[bitko]

Y'all forget - New Madrid seismic area. As much risk of releasing, and causing good ol' St. Louis to crumble into old brick and mortar piles, as the Cascadia Subduction Zone and the Juan de Fuca plate have on Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver.

Unlike those much cooler temperature and cleaner air PacNW spaces, MO-state nor St. Louis mandate much in the way of seismic codes for new or retrofitting old construction.

Risks you live with.

[Old Trafford]

Originally Posted by bitko

Y'all forget - New Madrid seismic area. As much risk of releasing, and causing good ol' St. Louis to crumble into old brick and mortar piles, as the Cascadia Subduction Zone and the Juan de Fuca plate have on Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver.

Unlike those much cooler temperature and cleaner air PacNW spaces, MO-state nor St. Louis mandate much in the way of seismic codes for new or retrofitting old construction.

Risks you live with.

Actually recent data on the New Madrid fault say it may not be very active.

St. Louis mandates that buidings built here meet IBC requirements for zone 2A, the same as Portland, Seattle is in a zone 3 area.

Older construction does take seismic into account, not as much in St. Louis because the risk is less, but in Cape there is extensive tie ins for diaphragm construction. On larger projects that have extensive structural refit there is often seismic procedures put into place as the code requires, per IBC.

My guess is you have never actually been part of a renovation project, and it is evident that you have never worked with IBC.

[Old Trafford]

Originally Posted by bitko

Y'all forget - New Madrid seismic area. As much risk of releasing, and causing good ol' St. Louis to crumble into old brick and mortar piles, as the Cascadia Subduction Zone and the Juan de Fuca plate have on Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver.

Unlike those much cooler temperature and cleaner air PacNW spaces, MO-state nor St. Louis mandate much in the way of seismic codes for new or retrofitting old construction.

Risks you live with.

you know its funny, St Louis has shortcomings some sre real, some are small things amplified by peoples bias or prejudice to being much larger then they actually are. I guess my point is why bring this up as an issue, without getting in to it too much I work close the engineering field, and as expressed above my reasons why your assessment is faulty, so why make something like this up? Why not offer something as a positive contribution? I guess the anonymity of the internet breeds the courage for people to speak in this manner, everyone is an expert, no one is accountable, opinions are facts, and personal will reigns supreme. I reasoned response would be nice, I am not betting on getting one. Prove me wrong.

[rcjhku]

Lol

[aragx6]

^As usual, your contributions to the thread at hand are so on-topic and appreciated.

[Old Trafford]

Originally Posted by rcjhku

Lol

don't you mean ROTFLOL surely a pithy, intelligent person as yourself is rolling on the floor.