urbanSTL

Time will tell how true infill downtown St. Louis will receive. In my opinion, we haven't seen much new infill in downtown St. Louis, because we had over 100 vacant warehouses the size of city blocks to fill. How many midsized cities in the country can make that claim? I just think downtown hasn't reached its critical mass yet. I think there is a lot of missed placed anger in general about development in Downtown St. Louis. St. Louis for a myriad of reasons is just no a fast growing region and therefore development comes slower. I also find it odd how many people are in complete ignorance of the current Downtown TOD and form based code planning taking place, which holds promise for development going forward.
With all that said I remain optimistic about the future of downtown and the BPV site in particular. I think once we fill up the rest of the historic stock we will likely see a mini hi-rise/infill boom in downtown.

goat314 wrote: With all that said I remain optimistic about the future of downtown and the BPV site in particular. I think once we fill up the rest of the historic stock we will likely see a mini hi-rise/infill boom in downtown.

Couldn't agree more!

goat314 wrote:Time will tell how true infill downtown St. Louis will receive. In my opinion, we haven't seen much new infill in downtown St. Louis, because we had over 100 vacant warehouses the size of city blocks to fill. How many midsized cities in the country can make that claim? I just think downtown hasn't reached its critical mass yet. I think there is a lot of missed placed anger in general about development in Downtown St. Louis. St. Louis for a myriad of reasons is just no a fast growing region and therefore development comes slower. I also find it odd how many people are in complete ignorance of the current Downtown TOD and form based code planning taking place, which holds promise for development going forward.
With all that said I remain optimistic about the future of downtown and the BPV site in particular. I think once we fill up the rest of the historic stock we will likely see a mini hi-rise/infill boom in downtown.

One of the things that I really like about the renderings in that TOD plan is that most of the infill depicted is in the 4-6 story range. I gotta think smaller scale projects like that have a much better chance of getting built. Filling in vacant lots would certainly go a long way toward tying downtown together and creating an active, vibrant streetscape.

debaliviere wrote:

goat314 wrote:Time will tell how true infill downtown St. Louis will receive. In my opinion, we haven't seen much new infill in downtown St. Louis, because we had over 100 vacant warehouses the size of city blocks to fill. How many midsized cities in the country can make that claim? I just think downtown hasn't reached its critical mass yet. I think there is a lot of missed placed anger in general about development in Downtown St. Louis. St. Louis for a myriad of reasons is just no a fast growing region and therefore development comes slower. I also find it odd how many people are in complete ignorance of the current Downtown TOD and form based code planning taking place, which holds promise for development going forward.
With all that said I remain optimistic about the future of downtown and the BPV site in particular. I think once we fill up the rest of the historic stock we will likely see a mini hi-rise/infill boom in downtown.

One of the things that I really like about the renderings in that TOD plan is that most of the infill depicted is in the 4-6 story range. I gotta think smaller scale projects like that have a much better chance of getting built. Filling in vacant lots would certainly go a long way toward tying downtown together and creating an active, vibrant streetscape.

exactly, give me 5-10 story infill buildings on all of our vacant parking lots (like Portland) over a few 20 story hi rise and dead zones any day. I honestly think Downtown St. Louis has the potential to be the best neighborhood in the region if it gets the scale right. Narrow the streets and provide an intimate street wall with street trees. St. Louis will never be Chicago or New York with 30+ story canyons, but we can sure give Portland a run for its money. Hell I wouldn't mind seeing BPV filled with buildings in the 5-10 story range if it has a true mixed use feel. I also think feeling the empty lots with buildings of a modest height will push development outward to the Chouteau District, North Broadway and of course vertical.

Sorry to interupt this trilling conversation about parking envy in our great city but I had a quick question about the building itself.

I seem to recall early renderings of the Live building showing terraced seating at the Cardinal Nation restaurant as well as the Budweiser restaurant. But what's being built looks like there will only be a standing room deck at the Bud spot. When did this change or am I making this up? Seems like a no brainer. That could have been an additonal stream of revenue. I tried looking through earlier post in the tread but most of those images have been taken down. Can anyone confirm or refute?

("We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...")

...so with 400 parking spaces and 82 home games a year, the Cardinals are looking at over $600,000 a year plus whatever they may charge other nights. I think as the owner of this lot, Dewitt is probably aware that he can make that in spades with a new mixed use building incorporating significant lease ageements, retail and hopefully residential. Me no worry.

I'm not sure any TOD plans can be fully effective until the City does something about its regressive parking requirements for new construction. As long as those are in place, we will continue to get more ugly parking garages and more private, fenced in lots.

Fix that, then we can start building up the City through transit-oriented development.

roger wyoming II wrote:On the subject of subsidizing crap downtown design, here is a classic from Philadelphia:
http://www.philly.com/philly/home/20130 ... _City.html

Broken link

Chalupas54 wrote:

roger wyoming II wrote:On the subject of subsidizing crap downtown design, here is a classic from Philadelphia:
http://www.philly.com/philly/home/20130 ... _City.html

Broken link

http://www.philly.com/philly/living/201 ... _City.html

Sad that it's better than we get in STL. It replaced a surface lot: http://goo.gl/maps/CNkTj

StL2003 wrote:Serious question: when was the last time a surface parking lot in downtown was replaced by a building development? (And don't say the current BPV building.)

Not a big issue to me. There's been lots of empty buildings that have needed rehabbed. Also, office space has been underutilized. It's all about supply and demand.

Presbyterian wrote:

StL2003 wrote: Serious question: when was the last time a surface parking lot in downtown was replaced by a building development? (And don't say the current BPV building.)"

Wasn't Roberts Tower a parking lot? Same for Old Post Office Plaza.

I remember it being a vacant lot, with a newstand near the 8th Street corner, but I don't remember if cars parked there or not. For a while there was a skinny building practically in the middle of the lot.

EDIT: Looks like it was a parking lot - http://builtstlouis.net/opos/819locust.html

Kevin B wrote:I'm not sure any TOD plans can be fully effective until the City does something about its regressive parking requirements for new construction. As long as those are in place, we will continue to get more ugly parking garages and more private, fenced in lots.

Fix that, then we can start building up the City through transit-oriented development.

When you get some time, thoroughly read the TOD proposal. Much of downtown will be under new form based code that will address this concern, once the city adopts these plans of course.

With that said. I'm even more excited about the proposal for form based code south of I-64 to Chouteau. I think this area could be marketed as a cool new mixed use district and tie in Soulard with Downtown in a real way. There is a lot of potential for new construction in this area that can actually be affordable to young people and have great access and views of downtown.

debaliviere wrote:I remember it being a vacant lot, with a newstand near the 8th Street corner, but I don't remember if cars parked there or not. For a while there was a skinny building practically in the middle of the lot.

EDIT: Looks like it was a parking lot - http://builtstlouis.net/opos/819locust.html

Wow...looks like there was actually an interesting row of smaller buildings there at one point. As much as people are impressed by skylines, I'm just as impressed by smaller buildings that fill the streetscape more completely. It's been ages since I've been to Cleveland or Pittsburgh, but I seem to recall more of those buildings in their downtown areas. Here so many were demolished for one reason or another- St. Louis Centre claimed two full blocks of buildings like that.

Going back further into history, there was also a surface lot where Metropolitan Square is today. I don't know what preceded it, but I remember that the lot faced Boyd's at Sixth and Olive streets (which was, of course, demolished for a parking lot after it closed).

And if you want to go back even further in downtown history, the Gateway Arch, Gateway Mall, and Spanish Pavilion (now the Ballpark Hilton) sites were all used as surface parking at one point or another. It's important to note, however, that there were not nearly as many garages downtown then either.

innov8ion wrote:

StL2003 wrote:Serious question: when was the last time a surface parking lot in downtown was replaced by a building development? (And don't say the current BPV building.)

Not a big issue to me. There's been lots of empty buildings that have needed rehabbed. Also, office space has been underutilized. It's all about supply and demand.

This is how I feel. Parking lots are usually ugly and take away from the urban environment, but at least they are a productive and profitable use of land. From an income perspective, it's better for the city to be collecting property taxes and sales taxes on parking rather than have a vacant building sitting around smelling of dry rot and not generating any tax revenue.

I don't want any beautiful historic buildings destroyed, but at the same time, parking lots generate some of the revenues required to revitalize other areas of the city.

The sea of surface parking in downtown St. Louis will take care of itself when demand requires it. Demand isn't there yet. There's still a dozen or so vacant buildings that can be turned into residential space, and until those fill up, it's unlikely that new construction goes up. Once the Chemical Building, Roberts Tower, and Arcade-Wright are rented out and something is done with the Jefferson Arms, there might actually be enough of a shortage of already-existing space to build a new tower or two on the site of some parking. But this alone may take 5 years or so. As for office space...there's already a glut of it, and I don't think new towers for offices will be necessary until at least 10 years from now. Given the Met Square vacancy rate, and the looming vacancies involving the buildings occupied by AT&T, it may be a long time before we see the kind of supply/demand balance that requires a new office tower built on a surface parking site.

Some perspective so that you might understand why I think this is such a spectacular failure:

Downtown is zoned separately from the rest of the city. There is no parking requirement for any use or building downtown. You can build new with no parking, completely permissible with current zoning. (Granted, there is no parking maximum)

"Phase 1" has changed substantially (for the worse) since it was presented to the Board of Aldermen over a year ago when the subsidy was approved (which I voted against)

Regardless of what zoning says, subsidies, redevelopment bills, TIF's etc., all basically wipe the slate clean as far as rules are concerned (excepting the building code). Any requirement can be written into those bills. An entire form based code could be overlaid on the "Ballpark Village" area. Or, for instance: You can't use the whole site for surface parking on an "interim basis"

This isn't even a "nice" parking lot. It would be completely reasonable to use some best practices / innovative designs in a SUBSIDIZED, DOWNTOWN, MARQUEE project.

Competent policy subsidizes things we want, that grow the pie, create quality jobs, etc. Its reasonable to subsidize development practices that are more expensive but desirable. Here, something UNDESIRABLE and LESS EXPENSIVE is being subsidized: a giant, treeless, downtown surface parking lot. When CRAP is subsidized, it makes it impossible to legislate better development practices (like the aforementioned parking maximums) for unsubsidized projects.

Subsidy for retail / restaurant has been PROVEN in the St. Louis region to REDUCE tax revenue. For the sake of argument, if $1 in local tax revenue is collected for a burger sold at O'Reilly's, less than $.50 will be collected at "PBR" - the rest goes to the Cardinals/Cordish. This development is likely to DECREASE local tax collection.

The market: Office is soft. fine. Residential is doing very well. There are unoccupied buildings downtown, but they do not have rentable residential units. Good development MAKES THE MARKET. Quality new residential, which wouldn't be online for a minimum of another year anyway, would have little competition downtown. Now, its at least 5 years away (if you're optimistic) Except, now residential construction will be adjacent to a fake cowboy bar... which probably doesn't help.

The City has now lost ALL leverage / influence on this project. Current subsidy is approved. Future subsidy is already approved as well. (One of my criticisms a year ago) Stadium is built. Parking lot is open. Cross your fingers and hope.

We should have held the line and gotten SOMETHING quality out of phase I. Not schlocky crap, which this is. Just visit a thriving downtown - parking lots aren't driving that vitality. YOU LEARN FROM OTHER'S SUCCESS.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

What Alderman Ogilvie said (so passionately and intelligently). And thanks for saying it, Scott.

St. Louis' leaders are so convinced that the City is a charity case (most leaders...not you and a very small handful of your cohorts, Scott ) that they'll take any proposal sold to them as long as there's that elusive illusion of "revenue" and "jobs." Well, the revenue's a wash due to tax breaks and the jobs are either one-off construction, low-pay-part/time or significantly decreased from projections.

The City -- and especially downtown -- is an unbelievable asset. The Mayor, the 29 person Board of Aldermen and the various committees, departments and councils of the City of St. Louis are in a position through which they could...scratch that, should...be bullheaded in their efforts to advance the City resolutely toward what it should and can be.

If you're sitting at the table from a position of weakness, you really shouldn't be sitting at the table at all. The City is a strength and our leaders should be demanding exceptionalism (or, at the very least, "pretty good"). If a developer walks away because they don't get exactly what they want...so be it. At least our City is standing firmly, showing its value and pride, and presumably gaining some future respect -- both inside and out -- by doing so.

Time to start calling bluffs and forcing the issue. No more after-the-fact threats of leaving the City, Biondi. And no more delayed penalties and retained entertainment taxes, DeWitt. Sure, the City should be happy you're in it -- but you're a part, not the whole.

As an aside, I'm watching the WGN Cubs broadcast of the game -- they're showing Ballpark Village. Sure, while that one little square past the outfield gates will probably look great on TV, but it doesn't change the fact that the remainder is disgustingly unimpressive...and will likely continue to be so for the next 3-5 years at least.

Hmm. So why no trees on the BV parking lot?

I agree with a lot of what Mr. Olgivie has said, but the points he makes regarding this particular project are moot now. Unless he plans to introduce a bill next session proposing TIF reform or development standards in the city, or is interested building grassroots coalition to change certain draconian laws, i really dont see the value of his twitter rant. I can agree with Mr. Olgivie all I want on a gang of issues, but what can we actually do going forward.

By the way, I personally do not see how a $100 million investment in downtown is a failure. I would also like to know why it will take at least 5 years to see a phase II? I would also like to know if I've been misinformed about the Cardinals being directly involved with the TOD plans for the Stadium Metrolink.