St. Louis buildings can't be taller than the Arch

[snopes]

Comment: I have heard it oft repeated that there is a law stating that no
building in St. Louis may be taller than the Gateway Arch. However, I
cannot find any reference to the actual law. Is this true, or just an
urban legend?

[RealityChuck]

Here is the St. Louis Zoning code. There are height restrictions, but no specific mention of the arch. Height for commercial buildings is governed by the size of the block their on. Without knowing the size of a particular block, it's hard to determine whether a building could be built bigger than the Arch under the law.

However, there is this rule for the Jefferson District:

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.

The Gateway Arch is 630 feet, with a city elevation of 465 feet. That would mean this restriction would keep building smaller than the arch.

[DawnStorm]

It's said that no building in Washington DC can be higher than the Washington Monument, but I think that's a UL, and that many of the buildings in DC are shorter simply because of the technology of the time they were built.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

Here is the St. Louis Zoning code. There are height restrictions, but no specific mention of the arch. Height for commercial buildings is governed by the size of the block their on. Without knowing the size of a particular block, it's hard to determine whether a building could be built bigger than the Arch under the law.
...

The Gateway Arch is 630 feet, with a city elevation of 465 feet. That would mean this restriction would keep building smaller than the arch.

There are a couple of building in St. Louis almost as high as the Arch, although not exceeding it. I've heard the UL before as well, but never seen a source.

Originally Posted by DawnStorm

It's said that no building in Washington DC can be higher than the Washington Monument, but I think that's a UL, and that many of the buildings in DC are shorter simply because of the technology of the time they were built.

We might have talked about this before. IIRC, there is nothing in the code specifically mentioning the height as compared to the Washington Monument, but the conditions of the code make it unlikely.

Ah, here we go:

A revised height law in 1910 did away with that fixed maximum [height of the Capitol building]. The newer legislation, still in effect today, states that no new building may be more than 20 feet taller than the width of the street in front of it.

Nick