St. Louis: New Proposed 1000' McGowan/Walsh Tower

[STLguy1]

Back in the news... 

As rumored earlier last week in the media.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported this week that Kevin McGowan, head of St. Louis based Blue Urban LLC, has put the
proposed tower back in the news.  McGowan was close to closing on financing for the tower prior to the economic fallout
last year.  He now believes his financing will be back in place again soon.  He is also adding another 200' onto the top!

Interesting enough, the new 80-90 story tower will feature 500,000 square feet of class A office space - the same amount of
space Chinese officials are looking for in St. Louis with the Air China cargo/passenger hub at Lambert International Airport.

Kevin McGowan is very influential in St. Louis real estate, development and building boom and I can see this tower rising into
the skyline by 2011 if the economy contimues to rebound this year.  McGowan is known to get "what he wants".

You can read more about the tower here:

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/buildi ... ll-around/

[StL_Dan]

My first reaction is one based on mixed thoughts.  I really like McGowans state of mind - wanting to make StL a place to be talked about nationally and internationally as a result of the project.  However, I can't help but wonder what a 1,000 story tower on the southern edge of downtown would look like, or how it would complement the current skyline from the traditional viewing/photo angle with the Arch being the centerpiece.

There are a myriad of things to discuss...but those are two things that jump out at me.

[warwickland]

Obviously I'd prefer this in the core of downtown, or better yet, as one new 700' tower (or whatever would be taller than Minneapolis...) in the CBD and a smaller 300' building. Of course, it would be nice to straight away blow Minneapolis out of the water in building height for a while. St. Louis has its work cut out for it to take back the ground chipped away by the Twin Cities.

[im2kull]

What happened to the rule that nothing could be taller than the National Monument located next to the river there in STL? ..What do they call that thing..Oh yeah! The Arch!

[AllThingsKC]

What happened to the rule that nothing could be taller than the National Monument located next to the river there in STL? ..What do they call that thing..Oh yeah! The Arch!

I was under the impression that law was a myth.

[KCPowercat]

My first reaction is one based on mixed thoughts.  I really like McGowans state of mind - wanting to make StL a place to be talked about nationally and internationally as a result of the project.   However, I can't help but wonder what a 1,000 story tower on the southern edge of downtown would look like, or how it would complement the current skyline from the traditional viewing/photo angle with the Arch being the centerpiece.

There are a myriad of things to discuss...but those are two things that jump out at me.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[chrizow]

exceedingly unlikely.  bryan cave, anchor tenant of STL's tallest building, is bolting for clayton.  i highly doubt downtown STL's office space market warrants a 90-story tower.  if so, cool, but um...

[StL_Dan]

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

About what?

[KCPowercat]

Your myraid of reactions and things to discuss. Just saying I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, light rail in kc is closer to reality I am guessing.

[GRID]

Your myraid of reactions and things to discuss. Just saying I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, light rail in kc is closer to reality I am guessing.

Pretty much what I was thinking.  I think a building this tall would ruin the StL skyline if it did happen.  StL could use a couple of 500-600' buildings like KC, but a 1000+ foot tower would look horrible and out of place.  I hate it when a city has a single tower that dwarfs everything else in the city.

KC needs a couple more 600 footers too.  I would hate to see this project built in KC.

But again, I don't think this project has much of a chance of happening.

[warwickland]

I, for one, wish there were more moderate proposals floating around St. Louis...it seems like every big proposal involving downtown is some awkward mega project and nothing ever gets done. Propose an 800' tower in the smack dab of downtown...that would look quite decent. granted, mega projects arent the bread and butter of urbanity.

[ignatius]

Sounds to me like one of those market 'feeler' proposals.  They present it to see if there is any interest.  If it were a proposal for a specific tenant or a company-owned project, it would probably have more merit.  With downtown STL office space at ~20% vacancy, speculative office space probably won't get anywhere unless the developer/investors are an ultra risk taker.   Speculative development is usually considered less risky if vacancy is around/under 12%.

If they get commitments though for 75% of the office space and 50% commitment for the residential side, it could happen.  Like other said, a 700 footer would be a better proportion for the downtown skyline.

[missingkc]

I don't think developers set the heights of buildings by how they will look in the existing skyline.  I think they're interested in making the venture as profitable as possible.  In some instances they try to make a statement which tends to lead not to shorter, but to taller buildings.

[StL_Dan]

Your myraid of reactions and things to discuss. Just saying I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, light rail in kc is closer to reality I am guessing.

I don't have a myriad of things to discuss.  But, I'm sure there are more things to discuss than the two things I mentioned.

Regardless, I'm still not "worried about it".  But, thanks for your misplaced concern.

[KCPowercat]

I guess I misread the quote below to be of one of excitement and desire to talk about this...when you say "There are a myriad of things to discuss." I assume that meant you wanted to discuss.

My first reaction is one based on mixed thoughts.  I really like McGowans state of mind - wanting to make StL a place to be talked about nationally and internationally as a result of the project.   However, I can't help but wonder what a 1,000 story tower on the southern edge of downtown would look like, or how it would complement the current skyline from the traditional viewing/photo angle with the Arch being the centerpiece.

There are a myriad of things to discuss...but those are two things that jump out at me.

[STLguy1]

St. Louis Magazine has an article about the proposed tower:
http://www.stlmag.com/
From the print issue:

The article touched on McGowan's desire to build a signature skyscraper downtown, something that has been discussed in urbanist circles for some time now:

(McGowan) is even passionate about building a new skyscraper that symbolizes St. Louis to the world. McGowan was ready to announce the project a year and a half ago, but he's put it on hold until the economy rebounds. Still, he's adament that it will come to fruition.

"We built something that the world knows, but the Arch is a glass ceiling in development in St. Louis, in that we don't build anything higher," he says. "The shadow of the tower I propose will extend to Chicago, Dallas and beyond."


I wouldn't dismiss McGowan and the furture of this proposed tower.

[phuqueue]

It just sounds like a Chastainesque pipe dream: a huge, expensive project focused more on putting the city back on the map than on true functionality or necessity.  Seems from the article that was posted like this is his own pet project and he's done most/all of the legwork on it.  He only addresses the abundance of existing office space in downtown STL by claiming that the new building will automatically downgrade everything else.  Does St. Louis really need this building or is it just a superficial ego-building project?  If it's the latter more than the former then I wouldn't really hold my breath.  I mean anyone can propose a building, but it takes a lot more than a proposal to get it built.

[im2kull]

I mean anyone can propose a building, but it takes a lot more than a proposal to get it built.

You remember the proposed/envisioned tower here in KC a few years back that would've supposedly hit the 1,999ft mark.  They had the website going and everything for awhile.

[StL_Dan]

Actually, you assumed I was "worried about it".

But, that's ok.

[normalthings]

I mean anyone can propose a building, but it takes a lot more than a proposal to get it built.

You remember the proposed/envisioned tower here in KC a few years back that would've supposedly hit the 1,999ft mark.  They had the website going and everything for awhile.

The what