Share
396
Full MemberFull Member
396

PostNov 08, 2009#436

look at this GEM from the comments section:



STL Hoosier- ride metrolink? WALK down Washington Avenue? I value my life and property too much to take such risks. You may feel comfortable in that environment, I asure you that the vast majority of citizens in this area would not feel safe riding the MetroLink or walking unprotected down Washington avenue. Why would anyone risk that when safe alternatives exist elsewhere? I have seen homeless people,ghetto thugs, beggars, I dont need to be reminded of such when I go shopping. Safety and convenience are my primary motivators when shopping, not exposing myself to the urban predators.
25
New MemberNew Member
25

PostNov 08, 2009#437

Safety and convenience are my primary motivators when shopping, not exposing myself to the urban predators.
Look at the two dudes in the lower right of the rendering. You can see right through them! Zombies--I'm sure of it!

What suburbanite would expose themselves to the urban undead when shopping?



I had a condo reserved at the Laurel and that picture just makes me sad. Let's hope something is done before too long.
396
Full MemberFull Member
396

PostNov 08, 2009#438

I am ok with the rendering. I read on one of the articles that the movie theater etc would be on floors one and 2 and that the parking will be on the south side of the building. Which leads me to beleive that the green glass will in fact be green glass and enclosed (not glassed in cars).



It could be better (original concord rendering) but I will be so happy when the green and white cladding is gone and some street life/retail.... Also the plus is the skybridge and the laurel.
39
New MemberNew Member
39

PostNov 08, 2009#439

MidcoastSTL wrote:look at this GEM from the comments section:



STL Hoosier- ride metrolink? WALK down Washington Avenue? I value my life and property too much to take such risks. You may feel comfortable in that environment, I asure you that the vast majority of citizens in this area would not feel safe riding the MetroLink or walking unprotected down Washington avenue. Why would anyone risk that when safe alternatives exist elsewhere? I have seen homeless people,ghetto thugs, beggars, I dont need to be reminded of such when I go shopping. Safety and convenience are my primary motivators when shopping, not exposing myself to the urban predators.


Haha...what a tool. Maybe in the future we will have protective bubbles that we can all walk around in. This dude needs to get a grip.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostNov 08, 2009#440

A more inspired design would be great, but this is going to be a huge boon for North downtown. IMO the redesign of this area makes this whole area of downtown infinitely more attractive for development. Very excited to see what this does for the area.



Anyone want to throw out odds on a Gucci store? (kidding)
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostNov 10, 2009#441

The top three floors will be parking.



Like the pathetic garage across from City Hall, I really hope this parking garage has an LCD television showcasing all of our politicians -- present and past -- which made this fiasco of a deal possible.



The rendering happens to be quite appalling. Looks to be like a contemporary version of Keiner Garages. When will we have architecture that rivals what we've torn down?



This was here before Vince had it torn down.







But the priority happens to be getting these TIF repayments off our balance sheet, not design. We're not even including residential.



In the short term St. Louis should cut services or salaries in order to repay the TIF -- then wait until we can actually get a project that promotes a Downtown community. This is basically yet another parking garage for Thompson Coburn with first floor retail in order to placate urbanists.



We should wait a few more years. St. Louis Centre has been a blight on Downtown for a long time so we shouldn't rush into this. But again its about coming through on the parking promises made for Thompson Coburn and political shirking by Slay and the Board of Aldermen regarding TIF repayments.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostNov 10, 2009#442

I haven't kept up with this project since it was announced awhile back. To come and find this was disappointing. All I really see is a parking garage with a few stores at the bottom. Bleh.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 11, 2009#443

Nothing that will be built will be as cool as the Equitable buildings so who gives a sh!t?







:wink:
2,845
Life MemberLife Member
2,845

PostNov 11, 2009#444

I for one am not going to b**** about the rendering at all - at this point I will take this project over what is there now and what could not be there.

I find it contemporary enough and I am just happy it will replace what is there. There is plenty of fill in space for other more progressive developments when the economy recovers.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 11, 2009#445

^ Actually couldn't agree more. I firmly believe that truly great projects will only come when land values rise, which means that lots need to be filled in and existing structures used first.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostNov 11, 2009#446

Parking garages increase land values more than what could be a condo development or apartments if we actually waited? Businesses will locate when a residential neighborhood exists...or not when we continue the proliferation of garages promoting freeriders who exodus downtown after 5PM. Suppose we have 12,000 residents downtown and that's highly doubtful. We need double that easily. Garages are the wrong direction. Why is thus up for debate?


Grover wrote:Nothing that will be built will be as cool as the Equitable buildings so who gives a sh!t?


Anna Louise Huxtable gave this argument promoting the demolition of the DeMenil Building which was next to the Wainwright. In essence she said other historic buildings fell so who cares. Under this argument we lose great buildings and as you say we will have nothing new rivaling the legacy of our previous great architects who made us the 4th City.



Taking any project over what exist happens to be accepting low standards when we could have something much better if we waited until the economy recovers supporting a better development. St. Louis Centre has been downtown 25 years. We could wait a few more for something possessing merit. Or we settle now for another garage -- a use which killed downtown streetlife.



This really happens to be a political decision. It's being done in order to resolve the TIF repayments. Ignoring the actual design, the use of the structure, and what was there before St. Louis Centre, we shouldn't allow our elected officials to make such egregious decisions then escape responsibility. How can we have any credibility when we settle for this outcome, especially given we were promised -- and put City money on the line -- for something much greater!



In 50 years will we seek to preserve any of the buildings constructed Downtown in our City during the past 20 years? Certainly not this parking garage. Maybe if it was a residential development with an actual innovative design.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 11, 2009#447

^ That question was meant as a joke.



Anyway, I don't believe that St. Louis benefits from waiting for a better project. Check out the unbelievably high number surface parking lots at prime sites across our city just waiting for the right project. Let's build, increase the rarity of buildable lots, increase their value and get better projects. I think expectations for the good-bad ratio in terms of architecture and development are ridiculously skewed for many in St. Louis. I'm sitting in Boston as I write this and there's a ton of really crap buildings downtown and through the Back Bay - but there are great buildings to. I'd guess that the ratio isn't any different than in STL.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostNov 11, 2009#448

Grover wrote:^ That question was meant as a joke.



Anyway, I don't believe that St. Louis benefits from waiting for a better project. Check out the unbelievably high number surface parking lots at prime sites across our city just waiting for the right project.


Surface lots aren't seen as a blight needing to redevelop. St. Louis Centre is and it does receive priority over many other projects Downtown. So if the economy was better we would see residential here like Pyramid planned. The only reason we aren't waiting for a condo development happens to be the political fallout of the TIF repayments. Everything else Downtown happens to be stalled so wait for the market to support a better project. I'm saying let heads roll and that City Hall should find a better solution -- but of course that won't occur. It could in part if people like those on this forum reject this project and promote a better outcome. City Hall isn't going to move on this if people say "oh it's better than before, we can take another garage, and I forgot that Slay and the Board of Aldermen and Estimate and Apportionment put us in this situation."
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostNov 11, 2009#449

I generally agree with Doug (minus the political intrigue). This really does suck. Come on guys, it's a HUGE freaking parking garage right in the heart of Downtown's business district. No amount of colored metal screening is going to change that. We should wait a couple of years if necessary and do it right. If we keep settling for anything, that's all we'll ever get.
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostNov 11, 2009#450

Framer wrote:I generally agree with Doug (minus the political intrigue). This really does suck. Come on guys, it's a HUGE freaking parking garage right in the heart of Downtown's business district. No amount of colored metal screening is going to change that. We should wait a couple of years if necessary and do it right. If we keep settling for anything, that's all we'll ever get.


The more I think about this, the more torn I become.



On one hand, I want to see something done with St. Louis Centre ASAP, as I have thought of it as downtown's biggest eyesore for years. I also think Grover has a valid point about our perception of architectural quality vis-a-vis other cities. I haven't been to Boston in ages, but I agree with his assessment. Indianapolis has its share of downtown garages, but they have done a better job of concealing their main purpose for existence. Still, most would agree that its downtown is quite vibrant.



OTOH, I'm inclined to agree with you and Doug (also, sans the political intrigue). Any talk of seeking the best and highest use of downtown real estate is just that- talk- when we resign ourselves to settling for another parking garage.



Forgive me for comparing renderings to renderings, but Pyramid's plans for St. Louis Centre as The Concord were much closer to the best and highest use of this structure than anything that I thought was possible. The glass facade would have given the dated structure a thoroughly modern appearance, the atrium could have made an appealing courtyard for residents, and the critical mass of residents would have provided a captive audience for the businesses below and on the surrounding blocks of what was once dubbed Mercantile Exchange.



I would have liked for the city to court a developer that would be willing to revisit that proposal when economic conditions improve. OTOH, a quick turnaround of St. Louis Centre might make the area more attractive for additional investment in buildings like the former Mercantile Library, and it might help the Railway Exchange Building's owners attract new tenants (not for the parking per se, but tidying up downtown's biggest eyesore can't hurt, either).



So I can really see and appreciate both sides of this issue. We cannot wait forever to do something with St. Louis Centre, and as Grover said, we need to realize that there are many other alternatives to push for the best and highest use of a particular parcel (IMHO, starting with the former Ambassador Theater site across the street). But then I think of all the times we've settled for less as a community, and our leaders' obliviousness to the glut of parking garages downtown and the ways in which they have limited downtown's potential, and it frustrates me.



Still, it looks like this development is finally moving forward, so I suppose I'll take a Show-Me State attitude: wait and see.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostNov 13, 2009#451

I spotted a survey crew out on Washington yesterday, checking out the Laurel and St. Louis Centre, looking through one of those thingies and doing whatever surveyors do. Hopefully this is a good sign.
2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostNov 13, 2009#452

DeBaliviere wrote:I spotted a survey crew out on Washington yesterday, checking out the Laurel and St. Louis Centre, looking through one of those thingies and doing whatever surveyors do. Hopefully this is a good sign.


I think the surveyors are probably just pretending. It's a racket. But this is good news!
8,922
Life MemberLife Member
8,922

PostNov 25, 2009#453

St. Louis sued over One City Centre development deal



In her suit, Sklarov claims there was “illegal and improper use of public funds and expenditures of public money” used for the redevelopment of One City Centre. By attracting 500 N. Broadway’s largest tenant, the building will be bankrupt, the suit contends.



http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... a=e_du_pub
3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostNov 25, 2009#454

They should also be sued for putting 750 parking spaces in the Centre.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostNov 25, 2009#455

Bet the suit get's dismissed after the first hearing.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 25, 2009#456

Downtown2007 wrote:They should also be sued for putting 750 parking spaces in the Centre.


True.



Of course the silver lining (how desperately I want there to be one) is that with so much parking downtown perhaps development opportunities are freed up elsewhere. Meaning, for example, the Kiener garages will never come down unless there is ample parking to replace them - I know, I know, St. Louis Center isn't going offer parking that would replace Kiener, but do you get the idea? The surface parking lots become more and more open for development when there are numerous garages nearby and older parking garages may be on the chopping block sooner than they otherwise would be..... just hoping.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostNov 25, 2009#457

^It's certainly possible. Not likely in the near term, but definitely so longer term. I generally look at the longer term at this point in my life, anyway.
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostNov 27, 2009#458

This isn't my blog, all credit for this goes to Paul Hohmann at Vanishing STL, but this particular post about pre-St. Louis Centre downtown retail deserves a read and a closer look.



Just as a teaser, I posted a couple of pictures below of the glorious days when downtown retail was still hanging in there, as recently as the 1970s. Perhaps this will make it clear why some of us have mixed feelings about St. Louis Centre as a parking garage.



The buildings that were sacrificed for St. Louis Centre may have been relatively nondescript when compared to other downtown structures that were lost, but they were part of a cohesive street wall. And sadly, their demise was for a building that was supposed to keep downtown retail intact, and it only drove retailers away.



Post-Thanksgiving shopping, late 1960s, in front of Stix Baer & Fuller (now The Laurel):





Mid-1970s picture of the Washington/Sixth intersection near SB&F:





Thanks, Paul!
2,938
Life MemberLife Member
2,938

PostDec 04, 2009#459

I agree with Doug’s contentions, in that I’d prefer to see the development being that of a pedestrian-friendly building rather than another craptastic garage. That said, I’m really just glad something is going there besides a blighted 1980s shopping mall, and especially as we’re not done with the Great Recession. That they have faith to build ANYTHING in the City right now is a good thing.



Most pertinent: None of us are the owners of the property. It is not public property. The building owners can do whatever they want to do with it. As taxpayers, we have interest in it, but mostly out of hope that the building will generate enough tax revenues to fund necessary services for the populace at large. Our being peeved at the design is nothing compared to the anger of so many professional firms and companies that had to vacate the building when Pyramid originally planned MX. We should be grateful that our only grievance is aesthetic.



Now, let’s build that thing, get that stupid Skybridge down, and be done with it.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostDec 04, 2009#460

Most pertinent: None of us are the owners of the property. It is not public property. The building owners can do whatever they want to do with it.


Most pertinent: Land use and zoning controls exist for the downtown area and therefore the property owner cannot "do whatever they want with it." Moreover, if a developer or owner seeks subsidy from the City for the proposal, then the City has every ability to comment on and influence the use of the building.
Read more posts (704 remaining)
Share