urbanSTL

^ even a 'master expert'?

Well, he's not to life member which comes at 2000+ posts yet. Maybe then.



Our two 2000+ poster don't even get to be life members. We get stuck with boring ranks such as moderator and administrator.

If I posted as many 's as Framer I'd be at 3,000!!



And now an effort to make a comment on topic . . .



I do think it's possible that BPV will have a negative affect on Union Station. There just isn't the foot traffic and with big name restaurants and entertainment right next to the stadium who would go west along Market? Fewer conventioners will make it that far and there are more hotels closer to BPV. It seems that Union Station may become not much more than an enormous lobby serving the Drury and Hyatt.

Ihnen wrote:If I posted as many 's as Framer I'd be at 3,000!!



And now an effort to make a comment on topic . . .



I do think it's possible that BPV will have a negative affect on Union Station. There just isn't the foot traffic and with big name restaurants and entertainment right next to the stadium who would go west along Market? Fewer conventioners will make it that far and there are more hotels closer to BPV. It seems that Union Station may become not much more than an enormous lobby serving the Drury and Hyatt.

I second what framer said... Cordish predicts this will be a viable project for many many years even without the residential component... Wonderful mayor Slay had to push and push hard for that. We all claim the residential component as the saveing grace for BPV, but according to Cordish's market research, it seems to be viable even without it...



I think US as well as many other surrounding areas could take a little hit when BPV opens up, similar to when a new mall, restuarant, or apartment complex debuts anywhere. But I believe this will help solidify the market DT and make the area stronger as a whole. I believe that in some/many cases development spurs development and in this case I think the sum will be greater than the parts.

As for what I believe about US, I would not be surprised to see a residential component added to that as well. Whether in the mall area or in the surrounding surface lots. I'd also wouldn't be surprised to see some more traditional non touristy stores open or even a market.

and I disagree... I think Union Station will hold it's own.

and I disagree... I think Union Station will hold it's own...

hand to it's throat if it keeps going this way.



Union Station isn't what it was even 5 years ago. It's tired. It's got gimmicky indoor playthings and a bevy of touristy t-shirt shops. It no longer has any real higher end retail. It's far away from the core of the development activity.



Why the city chose to build the new multi modal center when they could have guaranteed Union Station's viability by locating the transit hub there is beyond me.

I disagree. I think BPV would be successful w/o residential because it is surrounded by hotels, the Pointe 400 apartments, and now Cupples Stations/Ballpark Lofts. However, it will be more successful with residential and will provide a better atmosphere with it.

They need foot traffic 24/7/365 and this will not happen without residential.



Without people living there it will be a St. Louis Centre, only this time next to Busch.

I agree with the first line - year-round foot traffic is essential, but as I drove past St. Louis Centre today, the grean and white facade, glass atrium, etc. struck me as kind of cool. And that's no nostalgia - I wasn't in St. Louis when it was relatively successful. I think St. Louis Centre could have been/still be successful if 10,000+ people had lived downtown the last twenty years. Maybe the indoor mall in a CBD just doesn't work, but it is working in other places like Indianapolis - though there aren't very many people living close to Circle Center (damn - I'm defeating my own argument here, guess I thought I'd save others the trouble).



I think a good point to make is that it's almost impossible to predict what will fail and what will succeed. There are all types of barometers (convention traffic, residential, parking, special events), but we still don't know. Even afterwards we don't know - we guess (and we have fun doing it).

Doug wrote:BPV will not work without residential.



They need foot traffic 24/7/365 and this will not happen without residential.



Without people living there it will be a St. Louis Centre, only this time next to Busch.

Please, a little help from the forum... but roughly how many retail tenants are planned for BPV (maybe 20?) vs the number of tenants at the mall (80?)... also why did cordish have to be convinced to add residential to the plan it was necessary for the success of the project...just questions?

Doug wrote: Without people living there it will be a St. Louis Centre, only this time next to Busch.

There are 250 units guaranteed, plus a probability that there will be more.



I dont think there is much comparison to STL Centre here. There are many differences between the two... Location being a major one. When the Centre was built there really werent many draws to get people there besides the Dome and convention center which gets alot less traffic than the BPV's proximity to Busch will. Also, Washington Ave. was nothing like it is now and Famous was almost dead too. I think if St Louis Centre was built today it would have a much better chance of success because of Wash. Ave. and the new Macys which looks like it could be successful. I guess St Louis Centre was ahead of its time.



I really think that BPV will get consistent traffic year round, especially from suburban residents. I, being born in the suburbs and now a resident of suburban Washu, think that St Louis is now and will increasingly become the "cool" place to be in the area at night. St. Louis has better and better days ahead of it and BPV will be one of its coolest places

bpe235 wrote:also why did cordish have to be convinced to add residential to the plan it was necessary for the success of the project...just questions?

I've never heard this. Residential was planned from the start, before Cordish was even involved.

MattnSTL wrote:

bpe235 wrote:also why did cordish have to be convinced to add residential to the plan it was necessary for the success of the project...just questions?

I've never heard this. Residential was planned from the start, before Cordish was even involved.

True it was planned but (maybe i'm misinterpreting this) it seems to me that it was something Cordish needed to be pushed on...



" News > St. Louis City / County > Story

Intense, closed-door talks led to deal

By Jake Wagman

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

10/29/2006





Documents generated by the negotiations, obtained by the Post-Dispatch through a public records request, suggest that the lengthy talks held behind closed doors were cordial, yet filled with moments of frustration for both parties. Among the tension points: the amount of the tax incentives, the commitment to residential units as part of the project and the number of parking spaces.



Though the city wanted to make sure condominiums were part of Ballpark Village, documents suggest that Cordish wanted more flexibility to respond to market conditions.



In one e-mail last month, Deputy Mayor Barbara Geisman recalled having to listen to Blake Cordish, the firm's vice president, "opine yesterday about what a horrible deal the residential was."



Later in the same e-mail, Geisman wondered what the city would have to contribute for the developer to build in real life what's depicted on the elaborate scale model of Ballpark Village. "









http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

250 units? That's nothing! What is that, maybe 500 people?



Saying BPV will be successful because it'll attract suburbanites is the same logic that doomed STL centre. Not similar, the exact same. Same with the Landing, and the same effects are starting to take place at union station, it's just taking longer because Union station has more parking and a hotel attached.



As far as everyone walking to work - how long are your lunch breaks? If you get an hour, ok yeah, you can walk 5 blocks in each direction, but if you et 1/2 hr or 45 min? I dunno about you but I don't like to inhale my food. And I suspect the BPV is going to be very pricey to being with - you're telling me office workers are going to continually pay more for lunch every day?



And just because a place is guaranteed to have customers 81 days a year is absolutely no guarantee the shops wil survive. How many retailers close down even though they know they're going to have lots of people shopping during the holidays? Plus those customers are only guaranteed for a few hours - maybe 5 (2 before, 3 after a game?) - not exactly open to close you're talking about here.



When I say I worry about the BPV, I'm not saying the thing will become some decrepit wasteland 5 minutes after it's built. That's impossible. But within 5-10 years after completion , if there's no consistent (and HEAVY) auto and foot traffic, I suspect vacancy rates will level out at around 50%, which isn't good. There absolutely has to be a large (1,500 units or more) residential component to the BPV, or if not directly built in, within a 2 block radius to adequately sustain the BPV for the long term. Look, I like office workers as much as the next guy, but THEY DONT' BUY DINNER. At least, not often. Residents buy dinner. And yes, Dierdorfs, Shannons, Kemolls, Tony's and Als have all managed to survive downtown with no residents - AND THAT'S 5 PLACES. The rest of downtown's meal options are closed by 2pm (ok ok, so fridays and calecos too - wow, I wanna line up for a meal at Fridays!) because the workers leave to go home.



You guys should know better - if there's 2 (1 old, 1 new) malls and a stagnant population, the old mall loses out to the new mall. However, if poulation grows, both can conceiveably survive. Thus is the BPV - if population remains low (under 20,000), then the BPV will siphon from union station and the landing. If population grows, it can be sustained on its own without really adversely affecting the other entertainment areas in the city.



The development on washignton Ave is fine, but they have built in residential populations. The BPV needs the same. I want this to work, but without a big residential population, it will be NO different than the Landing or Union Station.

I think it's great that BPV will have residential - 250 units in phase 1 and possibly 1,000 or more in phase 2 and 3 (the published hoped for number was 1,200). That would be ~2,000 people on site. And there must be significant residential nearby, BUT urban malls without residential are succeeding across the county. I understand that St. Louis Centre failed, but not every project is alike.

Remove the 1% city tax. That should attract more business and more residents.



I have been told there are alternative means to make up for this tax. I do NOT have the answers, but think it logical that an "upfront" 1% tax is a huge negative, while a hidden tax like sales, property, etc is normally more palatable.



BV can indeed thrive, along with Union station, et al, if the city poured more money into attracting commercial ventures. Current population cannot sustain continius growth of retail downtown.

I cannot think off the top of my head of a single Urban Mall succeeding without a resident base nearby. Then again, this is not something I have researched. Can you post an example or two?

Neither can I - what I said was "there must be significant residential nearby," just not necessarily as a part of the project itself. For BPV to succeed it does need to draw suburbanites, and it must appear (and be, to some extent) safe. Being next to the ballpark will help and residential within or nearby helps with this too. I think the perception of safety will be especially important to overcome here in St. Louis.



Other urban malls without residential within the complex (there are many more examples in Sydney, NYC, Chicago, Toronto - but they're probably not comparable for multiple reasons):

Charleston Place – Charleston SC

San Francisco Centre

Horton Plaza – San Diego

Circle Centre Mall - Indianapolis

Harbor Place - Baltimore



Anyone else think Circle Centre shares some similarities with St. Louis Centre?

You also have to realize that the BPV will be coming online at a time that downtown will be hopping. When the Centre was built, downtown was largely an office community. There will be a vastly larger population downtown than there was in the 80's, so the village will be able to feed off that. There are also quite a few other retailers that have opened/will open in the next few years, making the BPV just yet another option. Having residential in this project is key, but I don't think that it will do or die by residential.



I don't know, I just think that comparing this project to the St. Louis Centre is totally off base.

Re: Charleston (love to get the first-hand info by the way) - I think BPV will be a 'bridge' of sorts for the residential downtown. I like the observation that at least some of the 'elite' were already living downtown when C Place was built. Urban malls don't work as an effort to stem the tide of residential exodus - or purely as a destination, they must follow demand. This is probably too obvious considering that this is how retail works in general. The exception's been urban mall projects that attempt to 'revitalize'.



The stores at Charleston Place (~30): this isn't so dissimilar from the size of BPV is it? The mix of retail will be different, but as long as we get our Thomas Kincaid Gallery I'll be OK.



Clothing

April Cornell

Anne Fontaine

Cache'

Chico's

Lacoste

The Limited

Lucas

Everything but Water

Express

St. John

Talbots

Talbots Shoes and Accessories

Tommy Bahama

United Colors of Benetton

White House/Black Market



Health and Beauty

Crabtree & Evelyn

The Spa at Charleston Place



Home

Yves Delorme

Thomas Kinkade Gallery

Accessories

Gucci

Mori Classics

Sunglass Hut

Montblanc



Jewelry

Dazzles



Gifts

Brookstone

Orient-Express Boutique



Books

Waldenbooks



Food

Charleston Grill

Godiva