Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kerr, 183m. isn't very short at all. Plus, I would take the (percieved) short, brick downtown of Saint Louis over the facade of Houston anyday. Saint Louis' downtown isn't run down at all. Maybe you are confusing it iwth East Saint Louis.
Chicago - undebatable
Detroit - Amazing deco skyline, unsurpassed bar New York and Chicago. Renaissance looks like a blemish on it, IMO.
Minneapolis - Prob. most modern skyline for a city that size, even outside the Midwest. Hey, we paid dearly for it.
Saint Paul - I don't think has ever torn a building down. They paid dearly for that also.
Milwaukee - What the hell? Two towers, four? It is actually one of the nicest downtowns from street level.
Saint Louis - I think tha arch makes the rest of the skyline look pathetic. Oh well.
Kansas City - Not as tall, but modern. A shot from the War Memorial is pretty impressive.
I agree that St. Louis' skyline without the Arch would not look nearly as impressive...so I thank god that we have it.
I guess you can read that two ways, on second thought. I meant that the Saint Louis skyline of buildings itself would be much more impressive if it wasn't dwarfed by the Arch. Think Mpls. could pull off a Northward Arch?
Excuse me, when did it become your job to attack St. Louis. And Houston is Houston...of course you can get a building with an average height like that...Houston is one of the largest cities in the United States. That's all you think St. Louis is...a city of short and run-down buildings. The comparison you just made between Houston and St. Louis is like Babe Ruth and Ken Griffey, jr. Just because St. Louis doesn't have buildings that measure up to ones in Houston, that makes the buildings short, just like Griffey can't hit home runs because Babe Ruth hit 200 more. You are clearly somebody who is hard to please period. FYI, most Midwestern cities have one or two buildings just over 200 meters tall, or slightly taller than this. The only places in which the average height of a building is anywhere close to 183 meters have to be in the biggest cities in the U.S. THe Midwest only has one of these...Chicago. 183 meters is not short at all for most cities. The Arch is 192 meters tall. And while the Metropolitan is 183 meters tall, it has 42 floors. Cincinnati does not have a building as tall as 183 meters. Columbus' tallest is 192 meters. Cincy's tallest is 175. KC's tallest is just over 192 meters. Indy and Cleveland only have two which are much taller than this, and those heights are achieved rather cheaply while adding on a small number of floors. Very short? No...very short is more like 50 meters tall. We've got plenty of buildings well beyond that. the only reason Cleveland's Key Tower is as tall as it is is because it has a 100 foot roof on top of it complete with a spire and they decided to make the ceiling and floor far apart for each story...all-in-all, Cleveland's tallest building has just 57 floors. Compare it to St. Louis' 44. Not a huge difference really. You can call our buildings short if you want. Just don't call our city small or rundown like your opinions, or our metro, that would be quite naive of you. 183 meters is very short compared to bigger cities like Chicago, Atlanta, and Dallas, but actually rather standard for other cities sized like St. Louis. Cleveland's tall towers are achieved rather cheaply. Terminal Tower is like a freakin' church steeple...it is so thin that by the time it reaches its 734 foot height or whatever it is merely an observation deck. Put the pieces together, and Cleveland is not that impressive. I personally never found its skyline to be any more impressive than that of St. Louis, and if I did, it was by a small amount. Detroit and Chicago and the Twin Cities are the top skylines in the Midwest. I would put St. Louis and Cleveland as the runner-ups behind these two. Indy has one truly tower, the Chase Tower...to make its downtown look nice. ONE. And it is only 49 floors. I don't care about the height per se. I'm simply trying to point out that what looks like a duck doesn't necessarily quack like one. An ideal building of Key Tower's height would have at least 75 floors to it and MUCH more office space. Most Midwestern cities if they have extremely tall buildings, they dress them up for looks, not for actual capacity. Key Tower does not measure up to its height, nor does Terminal Tower or even the Chase Tower. Ever been to the top floor of the Metropolitan Square? it sure as hell didn't seem short to me when i was up there...and i've been to all the towers in Chicago...yes it wasn't on the scale of the sears tower but it is far from "Short." Your opinions are "short" IMO. If you feel the need to put down St. Louis, please give supporting evidence why it is such an "inferior" city. So far you haven't done a great job. 183 meters is a relatively tall building for most cities in the United States. St. Louis is a big city. Houston is a giant city. You essentially just proved my point. Only the very biggest cities in the United States can make 183 meters look unimpressive. Other than that, 183 meters is a fairly impressive height. Next you'll be saying that Louisville and Nashville and Flint have more impressive skylines than St. Louis, to which I would respond with a large LOL.
Hmm STL only has 12 buildings over 95 m, the SAME as Louisville after Museum Plaza. Also, why do you choose to exaggerate some of the stats? The tallest building in STL is 181 m, not 183. Again, you have brought up Louisville and Nashville unprovoked. Don't be so insecure about your town. STL is a fine place. Skyscrapers do not make a city. That said, by 2010, both Louisville AND Nashville will have much taller buildings than STL. So let's compare:
Saint Louis
01. Gateway Arch
192 m 1965
02. Metropolitan Square
181 m 1989
03. One AT&T Center
179 m 1986
04. Thomas F. Eagleton Co..
170 m 2000
05. One US Bank Plaza
148 m 1976
06. Laclede Gas Building
122 m 1969
07. Southwestern Bell Bui..
122 m 1926
08. Civil Courts Building
118 m 1929
09. Bank of America Plaza
117 m 1981
10. One City Center
114 m 1986
11. Park East Tower
101 m 2007
12. Queeny Tower
98 m 1965
Louisville
U/C Museum Plaza 214 m 62 stories
01. Aegon Center
167 m 1993
02. National City Tower
156 m 1972
03. PNC Plaza
128 m 1971
04. Humana Building
127 m 1985
05. B & W Tower
111 m 1982
06. Meidinger Tower
111 m 1982
07. Waterfront Plaza II
104 m 1993
08. Waterfront Plaza I
104 m 1991
09. E.ON U.S. Center
100 m 1989
10. Galt House
99 m 1972
11. BB&T Building
95 m 1972
Kerr, 183m. isn't very short at all. Plus, I would take the (percieved) short, brick downtown of Saint Louis over the facade of Houston anyday. Saint Louis' downtown isn't run down at all. Maybe you are confusing it iwth East Saint Louis.
Chicago - undebatable
Detroit - Amazing deco skyline, unsurpassed bar New York and Chicago. Renaissance looks like a blemish on it, IMO.
Minneapolis - Prob. most modern skyline for a city that size, even outside the Midwest. Hey, we paid dearly for it.
Saint Paul - I don't think has ever torn a building down. They paid dearly for that also.
Milwaukee - What the hell? Two towers, four? It is actually one of the nicest downtowns from street level.
Saint Louis - I think tha arch makes the rest of the skyline look pathetic. Oh well.
Kansas City - Not as tall, but modern. A shot from the War Memorial is pretty impressive.
Kansas City has some modern buildings, but not as many as other cities. Also, their are many abandoned ugly brick buildings in the Downtown area, and vacant parking lots everywhere. Some redevelopment is going on in parts of Downtown Kansas City, MO, but many of the buildings look like eyesores in my opinion. (I am not a fan of old deteriorating brick buildings)
Hmm STL only has 12 buildings over 95 m, the SAME as Louisville after Museum Plaza. Also, why do you choose to exaggerate some of the stats? The tallest building in STL is 181 m, not 183. Again, you have brought up Louisville and Nashville unprovoked. Don't be so insecure about your town. STL is a fine place. Skyscrapers do not make a city. That said, by 2010, both Louisville AND Nashville will have much taller buildings than STL. So let's compare:
Saint Louis
01. Gateway Arch
192 m 1965
02. Metropolitan Square
181 m 1989
03. One AT&T Center
179 m 1986
04. Thomas F. Eagleton Co..
170 m 2000
05. One US Bank Plaza
148 m 1976
06. Laclede Gas Building
122 m 1969
07. Southwestern Bell Bui..
122 m 1926
08. Civil Courts Building
118 m 1929
09. Bank of America Plaza
117 m 1981
10. One City Center
114 m 1986
11. Park East Tower
101 m 2007
12. Queeny Tower
98 m 1965
Louisville
U/C Museum Plaza 214 m 62 stories
01. Aegon Center
167 m 1993
02. National City Tower
156 m 1972
03. PNC Plaza
128 m 1971
04. Humana Building
127 m 1985
05. B & W Tower
111 m 1982
06. Meidinger Tower
111 m 1982
07. Waterfront Plaza II
104 m 1993
08. Waterfront Plaza I
104 m 1991
09. E.ON U.S. Center
100 m 1989
10. Galt House
99 m 1972
11. BB&T Building
95 m 1972
I got it wrong by just about 1%, oh dear god, whoop-de-f***in' doo, you win. please. Still not a short height at all. And did you forget about the Central West End and Midtown...YES!!!!! Did you forget about Clayton? YES!!! Somebody is obviously against St. Louis and determined to get me. Your list is far from finished about Louisville. Louisville has just 14 buildings that are above 80 meters in height. St. Louis has nearly double that amount. Louisville has 20 buildings over 55 meters in its city limits. St. Louis has nearly 60. When you add in the metro areas, St. Louis gets an additional 3 to 5 buildings over 90 meters tall, and likely 20 more that are at least 50 meters tall. And of course, you get a population of 2.86-2.87 million...with Louisville you get what? Less than 1.5 million? Maybe between 1.5 million and 2.0 million. Nashville is a more reasonable comparison to St. Louis, but even Nashville has half as many as 50 meter buildings as St. Louis. And i guarantee you that this gap widens tremendously once you get into comparing metros. also, Nashville's tallest building is 188 meters. 188 meters is not that significant of a difference in height from 181 meters. Nashville's metro is 1.5 million btw...compared to STL's 2.86-2.87 million. I'm not trying to promote that bigger is better...but I am trying to clearly establish which is bigger. Most people lean towards the metro areas for populations these days anyways. the city limits are by no means the proper definition anymore. Have a nice day. Also, height of a building matters not....it's how many tall ones there are that matter. You want to play ball there, the Bottle District, which is unconstructed, is supposed to consist of a 60 story condo tower possibly surpassing or equating the height of the Arch, in addition to two more towers in excess of 100 meters, and the Ballpark Village is going to add several more office towers and condiminiums likely in excess of 100 meters in height. In addition, if the MW Tower is constructed, and don't necessarily rule it out because this city has been dying to tear down the implicit clause of the Arch being how high you can build, St. Louis will wind up with a building near 300 meters tall on Chouteau Avenue on the southwestern edge of downtown with at least 71 floors. Louisville and Nashville are real cities, but if you are trying to compare them to St. Louis, emporis.com is not really going to help your case. And Louisville and Nashville aren't part of the Midwest, so I guess you are right, I did bring them up unprovoked.
I like St. Louis's skyline the way it is now and I think the Arch adds some flavor to St. Louis's main skyline. Without the Arch St. Louis would have a bland skyline and it would looks similar to Birmingham, AL or St. Paul
I got it wrong by just about 1%, oh dear god, whoop-de-f***in' doo, you win. please. Still not a short height at all. And did you forget about the Central West End and Midtown...YES!!!!! Did you forget about Clayton? YES!!! Somebody is obviously against St. Louis and determined to get me. Your list is far from finished about Louisville. Louisville has just 14 buildings that are above 80 meters in height. St. Louis has nearly double that amount. Louisville has 20 buildings over 55 meters in its city limits. St. Louis has nearly 60. When you add in the metro areas, St. Louis gets an additional 3 to 5 buildings over 90 meters tall, and likely 20 more that are at least 50 meters tall. And of course, you get a population of 2.86-2.87 million...with Louisville you get what? Less than 1.5 million? Maybe between 1.5 million and 2.0 million. Nashville is a more reasonable comparison to St. Louis, but even Nashville has half as many as 50 meter buildings as St. Louis. And i guarantee you that this gap widens tremendously once you get into comparing metros. also, Nashville's tallest building is 188 meters. 188 meters is not that significant of a difference in height from 181 meters. Nashville's metro is 1.5 million btw...compared to STL's 2.86-2.87 million. I'm not trying to promote that bigger is better...but I am trying to clearly establish which is bigger. Most people lean towards the metro areas for populations these days anyways. the city limits are by no means the proper definition anymore. Have a nice day. Also, height of a building matters not....it's how many tall ones there are that matter. You want to play ball there, the Bottle District, which is unconstructed, is supposed to consist of a 60 story condo tower possibly surpassing or equating the height of the Arch, in addition to two more towers in excess of 100 meters, and the Ballpark Village is going to add several more office towers and condiminiums likely in excess of 100 meters in height. In addition, if the MW Tower is constructed, and don't necessarily rule it out because this city has been dying to tear down the implicit clause of the Arch being how high you can build, St. Louis will wind up with a building near 300 meters tall on Chouteau Avenue on the southwestern edge of downtown with at least 71 floors. Louisville and Nashville are real cities, but if you are trying to compare them to St. Louis, emporis.com is not really going to help your case. And Louisville and Nashville aren't part of the Midwest, so I guess you are right, I did bring them up unprovoked.
It would have be Chicago and Detroit...St.Louis is beatiful,too, but I think that without the Arch it would look kind of plain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you forget about Clayton? YES!!! Somebody is obviously against St. Louis and determined to get me. Your list is far from finished about Louisville. Louisville has just 14 buildings that are above 80 meters in height. St. Louis has nearly double that amount. Louisville has 20 buildings over 55 meters in its city limits. St. Louis has nearly 60. When you add in the metro areas, St. Louis gets an additional 3 to 5 buildings over 90 meters tall, and likely 20 more that are at least 50 meters tall. And of course, you get a population of 2.86-2.87 million...with Louisville you get what? Less than 1.5 million? Maybe between 1.5 million and 2.0 million. Nashville is a more reasonable comparison to St. Louis, but even Nashville has half as many as 50 meter buildings as St. Louis. And i guarantee you that this gap widens tremendously once you get into comparing metros. also, Nashville's tallest building is 188 meters. 188 meters is not that significant of a difference in height from 181 meters. Nashville's metro is 1.5 million btw...compared to STL's 2.86-2.87 million. I'm not trying to promote that bigger is better...but I am trying to clearly establish which is bigger. Most people lean towards the metro areas for populations these days anyways. the city limits are by no means the proper definition anymore. Have a nice day. Also, height of a building matters not....it's how many tall ones there are that matter. You want to play ball there, the Bottle District, which is unconstructed, is supposed to consist of a 60 story condo tower possibly surpassing or equating the height of the Arch, in addition to two more towers in excess of 100 meters, and the Ballpark Village is going to add several more office towers and condiminiums likely in excess of 100 meters in height. In addition, if the MW Tower is constructed, and don't necessarily rule it out because this city has been dying to tear down the implicit clause of the Arch being how high you can build, St. Louis will wind up with a building near 300 meters tall on Chouteau Avenue on the southwestern edge of downtown with at least 71 floors. Louisville and Nashville are real cities, but if you are trying to compare them to St. Louis, emporis.com is not really going to help your case. And Louisville and Nashville aren't part of the Midwest, so I guess you are right, I did bring them up unprovoked.