But they're not proposing a new building behind the old facade. It will just be gone. Literally.symphonic poet wrote:[Lots of words...] You can say "when it's gone it's gone," but we really can build a new building behind an old facade. [Lots of words...]
- 3,762
- 6,157
They're saving the old facade. Which means that in the future that facade will still be there. So . . . it's not gone. Literally.
- 3,762
except there's a 0% chance of that happening. okay, a (1e-9*100)% chance.symphonicpoet wrote:They're saving the old facade. Which means that in the future that facade will still be there. So . . . it's not gone. Literally.
- 3,762
well, if we're still talking about the part of the facade that will no longer have a building behind it then there is no plan for a new building behind said facade and there never will be.symphonicpoet wrote:The plan is a fiction?
- 11K
Point being that a new small building that could be home to a variety of uses, for cheap, will be gone and we don't seem to be able to build those anymore.
I mean how much are they actually saving removing that building and leaving the facade? Just seems like an awful idea. I'm sure they could easily find some sort of retailer to go there. It's a busy intersection that would receive plenty of traffic with the walgreens and the bank
At the meeting, many residents brought up very good points in favor of preservation. The Board however ended up approving the proposal conditional on a few things like approval of the curb cut by Streets.
- 3,762
of course they approved it. and BMO knew they would ahead of time. otherwise this iteration would have been substantially different from the last one.imran wrote:At the meeting, many residents brought up very good points in favor of preservation. The Board however ended up approving the proposal conditional on a few things like approval of the curb cut by Streets.
- 3,804
Now that they plan on moving the Walgreens across the street, where does that leave the empty former Walgreens building? Do they have a plan for that "obsolete" building or are they basically robbing Peter to pay Paul, leaving that building vacant? Unless they have a plan for that building, they are not only destroying historic structures, but also creating a future eyesore across the street. We've all discussed at length that there is a Walgreen's 3 min. up the road at Arsenal. Baffles me that the City continues to sell it's soul to Walgreens and QT, at the expense of historic buildings. Not only that, they approve the destruction of viable buildings, when there are plenty of vacant 'non-historic' properties available, throughout the City.
- 249
At the last Hill neighborhood meeting I attended, there was a mention of a possible Waterway carwash interested in the BP property on the corner. Their footprint is fairly large at their other properties, so perhaps they would use the current Walgreens property (or part of it) as well?DogtownBnR wrote:Now that they plan on moving the Walgreens across the street, where does that leave the empty former Walgreens building? Do they have a plan for that "obsolete" building or are they basically robbing Peter to pay Paul, leaving that building vacant? Unless they have a plan for that building, they are not only destroying historic structures, but also creating a future eyesore across the street. We've all discussed at length that there is a Walgreen's 3 min. up the road at Arsenal. Baffles me that the City continues to sell it's soul to Walgreens and QT, at the expense of historic buildings. Not only that, they approve the destruction of viable buildings, when there are plenty of vacant 'non-historic' properties available, throughout the City.
- 3,804
^ To me, a car wash would be a terrible use for that property. With the new bridge, lots of new residential at the old Magic Chef factory site, I think there are many better uses for that site. I'd like to see the gas station gone and some new retail go in on that corner, extending to the old Walgreens property.
- 249
^I agree. If there is one thing I've learned at the few Hill meetings I've attended, it's that it doesn't really matter what the best and highest use of the property is; as long as the Alderman and the Monsignor sign off on it, you're golden.
If the new outbuilding (on the west) had right-angled trapezoid footprint so its face was parallel to Southwest and were two-stories tall, I'd be pleased with this compromise.
- 289
Anyone know the status of this project? It's been very quiet for a while now. Is it dead?
- 9,672
No but there is a huge car washing coming across the street, the BP gas station will be demolished
So we'll have a huge carwash there, and one at the former QT down the street? HooraydbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2017No but there is a huge car washing coming across the street, the BP gas station will be demolished
Just remembered that. I thought someone had mentioned Garcia was going to build condos or something there a while ago? Maybe the environmental cleanup was too much.MattnSTL wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2017So we'll have a huge carwash there, and one at the former QT down the street? HooraydbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2017No but there is a huge car washing coming across the street, the BP gas station will be demolished
- 9,672
Correct- Waterway on Kingshighway and Southwest and Blue Iguana at QT site.MattnSTL wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2017So we'll have a huge carwash there, and one at the former QT down the street? HooraydbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2017No but there is a huge car washing coming across the street, the BP gas station will be demolished
- 2,430
Tower Grove CDC is going into the building at the southern end of the property... SW Bank previously said it would donate that space to a non-profit.
And my understanding is that the Walgreen's plan is in play still but was delayed because some kind of deadline was missed on a permit application or something with the city process and that they had to then wait till this year; Anyway, the renderings are still up inside the lobby.
And my understanding is that the Walgreen's plan is in play still but was delayed because some kind of deadline was missed on a permit application or something with the city process and that they had to then wait till this year; Anyway, the renderings are still up inside the lobby.
I still cannot believe this is happening.
Three Walgreens, one each on each short side of the park. Sheesh.
Three Walgreens, one each on each short side of the park. Sheesh.
This would replace the one on Southwest.
Still absurdly unnecessary though. If Walgreens wants a new building, that's their right, but this provides nothing of new value to the city or neighborhood(s). We shouldn't let them cut any corners or do anything to tear at the urban fabric further.
But we will. Because we always do.
This plan should be completely blocked.
Yeah I know, and we're left with a vacant, unattractive building next to a horrible take out chinese restaurant, and a car wash.jstriebel wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2018This would replace the one on Southwest.
Still absurdly unnecessary though. If Walgreens wants a new building, that's their right, but this provides nothing of new value to the city or neighborhood(s). We shouldn't let them cut any corners or do anything to tear at the urban fabric further.
But we will. Because we always do.
This plan should be completely blocked.
To be fair, the whole section right there of Kingshighway is never going to support an urban fabric until it gets a road diet, which will never happen. For both Tower Grove Park and Forest Park, I will never understand why we surround our major parks with 4 to 6 lane freeways -- I've almost been killed crossing Skinker. It's just horrible.
For one thing, both parks are right by actual interstate entrances and exits, which sadly seems to demand the extra lanes for moving people. So frustrating.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Feb 01, 2018Yeah I know, and we're left with a vacant, unattractive building next to a horrible take out chinese restaurant, and a car wash.jstriebel wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2018This would replace the one on Southwest.
Still absurdly unnecessary though. If Walgreens wants a new building, that's their right, but this provides nothing of new value to the city or neighborhood(s). We shouldn't let them cut any corners or do anything to tear at the urban fabric further.
But we will. Because we always do.
This plan should be completely blocked.
To be fair, the whole section right there of Kingshighway is never going to support an urban fabric until it gets a road diet, which will never happen. For both Tower Grove Park and Forest Park, I will never understand why we surround our major parks with 4 to 6 lane freeways -- I've almost been killed crossing Skinker. It's just horrible.
One thing I've noticed in St. Louis is that we don't have a lot of grid lock. Not that much on the highways, and not that much on city roads.
But when we do have it on city roads, it is ALWAYS by the interstate ramps. Nothing like tearing apart your city to create traffic movers that create lots of traffic, right?
Went to this Walgreens for the first time this week. Have to say its the saddest brand new retail around. All-white interior with almost inhumane lighting. Plus the obscured windows and the scooped out remains of the building next door......
I thought I was biased because I didn't like this proposal from the get-go but then a friend I was with, later mentioned (un-prompted) that they couldn't wait to get out of there and didn't know why.
I thought I was biased because I didn't like this proposal from the get-go but then a friend I was with, later mentioned (un-prompted) that they couldn't wait to get out of there and didn't know why.