Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPsy
What on earth is the source of that photo? It combines a downscaled St. Louis skyline in front of an inflated Kansas City skyline, plus a rendering of an awkward, charmless building that hopefully isn't this "McGowan" proposal.
If the Gateway Arch is going to be usurped in downtown St. Louis (a very bad idea imo), the new height champ had better be spectacular. If this is McGowan's proposal, he would in fact "get the rest of the country talking about St. Louis" -- but for all the wrong reasons.
|
The rendering came from the developer's website. McGowan has made his monies on historic rehab in the two Missouri cities shown in the rendering ( St. Louis and Kansas City.) Building taller than the arch is certainly a split issue among the nearly 3 million locals, however, most progressive thinkers see the importance of building tall. What St. Louis needs more than anything is large contiguous tracks of class A office space, not only to compete within the metro area with other central business districts like Clayton, but to attract new buisiness downtown from the within the metro as well as internationally. I feel that once this global economy starts to pick up, downtown St. Louis could be on the cusp of a new construction building boom.
I've yet to hear a strong arguement as to why to not build higher than the arch. In fact, I don't even see why there is a debate.