Ballpark Village v4.7 (st. louis)

Want to talk about your favorite places besides Kansas City? Post any development news or questions about other cities here.
kcjak
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: Ballpark Village v4.7 (st. louis)

Post by kcjak »

For a long time there was a height restriction stating that no building could be taller than the arch - is that still in place?

User avatar
StL_Dan
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3609
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:04 pm
Location: Olathe via St Louis

Re: Ballpark Village v4.7 (st. louis)

Post by StL_Dan »

I've not heard that that has changed.

User avatar
Critical_Mass
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Crossroads

Re: Ballpark Village v4.7 (st. louis)

Post by Critical_Mass »

I thought it was common knowledge that no such limitation exists. It's an urban myth.

User avatar
StL_Dan
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3609
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:04 pm
Location: Olathe via St Louis

Re: Ballpark Village v4.7 (st. louis)

Post by StL_Dan »

It's up to some interpretation:

https://urbanstl.com/what-is-st-louis-b ... -s125.html
Here (<- note - large PDF download) is a map of the building zones. The Gateway Tower is in the Jefferson Memorial District zone (in blue on the map that encompasses the JNEM/Archgrounds and portions of the city immediately surrounding it.

Here are the height regulations from the JMD zone:
26.64.040 Height regulations.

The height regulations are the same as those in the I central business district except that in no instance shall any portion of a building or structure including all appurtenances and super structures thereon, exceed a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet. It shall be unlawful to increase the height of an existing building or other structures located within this district unless it complies with the regulation of the district.
(Ord. 59979 § 17 (part), 1986.)
^ Now it mentions the Central Business District height regulations. Those are here:

From the CBD codes:
26.52.040 Height regulations.

Buildings may be erected to such height that the cubic contents of said building above the established grade shall not exceed the volume of a prism having a base equal to the projected horizontal area of the building and a height of two hundred (200) feet. In the case of buildings occupying a lot having frontage on intersecting streets and which buildings are so designed as to provide a setback or open space at one (1) corner or corners where such street intersections occur, or when such setback begins below the two hundred (200) foot height above the established grade, the volume determined by the above rule may be exceeded by an amount equal to the volume so taken out of the reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height; provided, however, that the total volume of the actual building shall not exceed by more than twenty-five percent (25%) the volume of said reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height.
(Ord. 59979 § 14 (part), 1986.)
Simple, no? In short, you take the property boundaries and draw an imaginary cube 200 feet tall. Take the volume of that cube, and that can be the volume of your building. So a perfectly square building built out to the edges of the property can only be 200 feet tall, but you can by code make the building taller by tapering the tower, hollowing out the center, or doing what the designers of the Gateway Tower did and have a shorter pedestal on one half of the property (a small-volume base) and a taller higher-volume tower on the other half. Here's a simple example of two cubes of the same volume but different heights:



Nowhere is there the arch specifically mentioned by name or by height in building codes. However, in the JMD zone only it does mention a specific hard height limit of "a mean sea level elevation of seven hundred fifty-one (751) feet". That's actually fairly limiting.

User avatar
warwickland
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4828
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: University City, MO

Re: Ballpark Village v4.7 (st. louis)

Post by warwickland »

i actually do wish st. louis had a dc-type height restriction, where the arch would loom over everything and the gaps would be more filled in at street level...that would have been great.

Post Reply