urbanSTL

debaliviere wrote:No one should be surprised about the parking lots. Until more tenants sign on and new buildings are constructed, the remaining lots might as well be used for parking. The only parking lot I'm not wild about is the one adjacent to the Budweiser Beer Garden, which I guess will go all the way to Broadway.

That's what it seems like at first, but I'm worried that people will get so used to parking there that there will be resistance to get rid of any of it for future buildings. And who knows how long that will be?

thefuturepassed wrote: Although I despise KC P&L, the street facing retail there looks much, much better than this. Add the H&R Block headquarters and the Sprint Center and P&L blows this out of the water. There is rumored high rise residential coming too.

P&L is about 50% crappy metal siding, it looks like a collection of Butler building barns, there is no detailing on any of the brick, about half the storefronts have graphics all over them when you get off of 14th st. P&L looks like garbage and the only thing saving it actually is the many signs that Cordish plastered all over it

PBV is not great architecture, but it will look better than P&L.

Anglophile wrote:I'm worried that people will get so used to parking there that there will be resistance to get rid of any of it for future buildings.

I wouldn't worry about public resistance. If there's tenant interest and the numbers work for Cordish, they'll build on the lots.

Alex Ihnen wrote:I wouldn't care nearly as much if the city streets were put in and each parcel then used for parking. This is just one massive surface parking lot.

That's my #1 objection. To me it suggests the Cardinals couldn't care less about the best and highest use of the land, or the original Ballpark Village concept for that matter. I hope I'm wrong.

In other words, it gives the impression that the lots are here to stay, and the Cardinals are fine with that. Not only would city blocks give the impression that the lots may be developed one by one over time, it would also create a safer and more pleasing environment for those walking to the game. Yes, I know pedestrians would still traipse through traffic, but at least they'd have crosswalks and perhaps some more trees for shade along the way. As it is, there will still be lighting and landscaping, but not enough to diminish the 'sea of asphalt' feeling in my opinion.

And I still think the sponsor signs are awful. They don't bother me on Busch Stadium per se- even Sportsman's Park was covered in advertising. And I'm not bothered by downtown buildings that have signage advertising tenants like Hilton, at&t, Macy's (for now at least), or US Bank. I just think the signage should be restricted to Ballpark Village tenants, but I know aesthetics take a back seat to money to be made.

Also, if they'd built out the grid as planned they could have included the small park they were/are planning to the north of what is been built now. That small grassy park/plaza wouldn't have cost that much to build out, would make crossing the whole property that much safer and easier for pedestrians, and would have made the whole concept seem that much more complete and coherent.

On Kmov and Ksdk face book pages a lot of people did not realize constitution on ballpark village has all ready started. It shows that a lot of the region has no idea how much downtown is changing. The cardinals and the city should find a way get people more informed about downtown and it progress.

Maybe they will finally build this.

Probably not.

^ Thats already being built in the fictional city of Kasas Louis, silly.

I saw these plans at the Business Journal:









Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ge_gallery

Shouldn't the seating above Cardinal's Nation be over the top of the Budweiser Brew House? It seems they will be limited view seats with the part of the stadium tower in the way.

Too bad the part labelled Busch II infield isn't right on top of and aligned with what was actually the Busch II infield. I don't think it is looking at the top-down view.

Wonder how Mike Shannon feels about having the pretty good view from his restaurant completely blocked?

gary kreie wrote:Too bad the part labelled Busch II infield isn't right on top of and aligned with what was actually the Busch II infield. I don't think it is looking at the top-down view.

There's a video "tour" of the build site on the Cardinal website narrated by Bill Dewitt III. He says in the video that the Busch II infield is in fact in the exact same spot as the actual Busch II infield. (EDIT: Link)

It's also mentioned on the description of Ballpark Village on their site:

WHERE BASEBALL PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE COME TOGETHER



Laid out along the same lines as the old ballpark's diamond, the Busch 2 Infield will give fans a chance to walk the sacred ground once tread upon by legends. Complemented by food booths and a videoboard, the site will offer a prime gathering space for pregame ceremonies and activities, as well as movie nights and other events when baseball takes a break.

-RBB

dweebe wrote:

leeharveyawesome wrote:Wonder how Mike Shannon feels about having the pretty good view from his restaurant completely blocked?

Not happy at all. I'd say Shannon's and Paddy O's have the most to lose.

I don't know, a lot of parks have much more bars around it then Busch. Example Wrigleyville has tons of bars around it and they all seem to be ok. I'm sure he's not happy about losing line of sight to the ballpark but it's not going to break other bars in the area.

^ Right. If anything he should be thanking them for taking this long to block his view.

The current site of Shannon's would make a great site for an office tower.

Gosh that all looks like tacky junk bordering on kitsch