Aerial from Plaza to downtown

Royals Fan · Post by **Royals Fan** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:33 am

I just saw a cool aerial pic of STL's urban core. I have seen one aerial of KC taken from 1 mile south of the Plaza and it didn't include the whole Plaza, just the west side of it looking north toward downtown. I want to see a perfect aerial shot from Loose Park that captures all of the Plaza looking north and capturing midtown & downtown in the distance. I think KC looks bigger and better than STL from the River to the Plaza. All the STL gooks on skyscraperpage.com are oohing and ahhhing at the photo like STL is great. STL is just OK to me.

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthr ... adid=15260

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:15 am

RF...is this the one you've seen?

It would be much more impressive a little lower

Post by **chrizow** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:35 am

the pics of STL and the KC pic are both cool, but...i gotta disagree with you royalsfan...

i love KC and it's my hometown, but for sheer density (of buildings at least) and impressive vistas, i think STL wins. in KC, the only real dense, urban parts are in that one pic - downtown (incl. city market, bottoms, and northKC industrial stuff), parts of midtown, and the plaza.

with st. louis, you have (1) a bigger (though not taller) downtown, a much more expansive/old/cool urban core surrounding it, hundreds of blocks of rowhouses and brick buildings, lots and lots of industrial, PLUS the hotspots of the central west end, central clayton, the loop, etc.

let's face it, their city is older, and with older comes more density and old, urban parts. STL city may be in sad shape these days in terms of residents, but for sheer urban density and development, it wins. you can drive for miles and miles around STL and still be in a very urban area, whereas no matter where you are in KC, there is always a huge vacant parking lot, suburban style hood, or highway to take you out. STL cty is much more tight, dense, and european, while KC is almost as sprawling as its surrounding burbs, save for the CBD/Plaza/Midtown etc....

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:25 pm

chrizow wrote:the pics of STL and the KC pic are both cool, but...i gotta disagree with you royalsfan...

i love KC and it's my hometown, but for sheer density (of buildings at least) and impressive vistas, i think STL wins. in KC, the only real dense, urban parts are in that one pic - downtown (incl. city market, bottoms, and northKC industrial stuff), parts of midtown, and the plaza.

with st. louis, you have (1) a bigger (though not taller) downtown, a much more expansive/old/cool urban core surrounding it, hundreds of blocks of rowhouses and brick buildings, lots and lots of industrial, PLUS the hotspots of the central west end, central clayton, the loop, etc.

let's face it, their city is older, and with older comes more density and old, urban parts. STL city may be in sad shape these days in terms of residents, but for sheer urban density and development, it wins. you can drive for miles and miles around STL and still be in a very urban area, whereas no matter where you are in KC, there is always a huge vacant parking lot, suburban style hood, or highway to take you out. STL cty is much more tight, dense, and european, while KC is almost as sprawling as its surrounding burbs, save for the CBD/Plaza/Midtown etc....

I would have to agree, but at the same time, KC's core is pretty impressive. I am trying to get up and take some aerials myself this fall.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:21 pm

Doesn't STL city have a restriction that no building can be taller than the Arch?

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:23 pm

Royals Fan · Post by **Royals Fan** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:33 pm

STL was the nations 3rd largest largest city when they held the world's Fair in 1904 (?) - 3rd behind Chicago and NY. I understand STL is more dense as far as row houses and mid-rises, especially since it is far older and land-locked. My point is that KC looks better and has more diversity in the landscape and architecture in the core. KC has just as many midrises, they are just spread out more. If you drive down Armour, Linwood and Admiral Blvds, you'll see this. As far as surface parking, KC is the worst, but I am talking about views...views...views... aerial and from the streets. KC has beautiful hills and views, STL is flat and boring. Many dense neighborhoods in KC are never seen by people from Colombia, or Sedalia, or even OP KS. Take the North End, for example, most suburbanites have no clue what a dense neighborhood this is. They pass all of these great KC hoods because of all of the highways and have no clue about the density of KC.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:37 pm

I agree Royals FAn..

is that the pic you were talking about?

Royals Fan · Post by **Royals Fan** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:41 pm

Grid, I saw that photo and love it. I would like to see an aerial photo taken from just south of the Plaza highrises, from about 550 ft up looking due north. Similiar to the STL photo. The photo above is TOO overhead and doesnt catch all of the density of the East Plaza/Nelson/UMKC area, do you see what I mean? Anyone have a helicopter sitting around doing nothing? What do you think?

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:32 pm

550ft? you wouldnt see the top of the WDAF and KCTV Towers then, I think 1000ft is more reasonable

Post by **bahua** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:10 am

I can see the top of the towers from my old apartment, 60 feet up, 4 blocks away from the KCTV tower. I think 550 feet up would afford you an incredible view of everything.