steve wrote:I think it's so cute how bonwich and CS stick up for their boss.
I work for the Post? Care to place a bet?
- 6,775
I work for the Post? Care to place a bet?
Joe Edwards is out of TBD - that happened a long time ago (Joe is so savvy that he saw TBD was going no where fast with this development team and decided to hit the downtown market while this venue is hot). If Joe Edwards or anyone with any credibility would be involved with TBD it would be on their website. I think the hip bowling alley will run it's course and as mentioned earlier in this thread - it will fade in the near future.
- 11K
^ I know that Joe's had many successes - but he's still some way from opening downtown. Getting out of the Bottle District was probably a good move, but his new home hasn't proven to be so much better. Business-wise he has time - downtown will see more residents over the next couple years - at least.
steve wrote:I think it's so cute how bonwich and CS stick up for their boss.
Yeah, and I never criticize them, either. You're new here, aren't you?
Matt, LOLOL!!! How about the Crying Wolf Times Dispatch?
MattnSTL, I agree 100%
bonwich, Matt and MattnSTL are right.
Suggesting that the BPV "is not home free yet", to me, suggest the obstacles cited could possibly derail the project. Also, the first sentence implies that the BPV might be a little too "ambitious". (subliminal message: think mediocre, scale back, be safe.) Furthermore, this story, which is essentially a rehashing, certainly wasn't worthy to be the main story.
As I see it, the PD continuously plant seeds of doubt and "alarmism". A lot of times, it breeds mediocrity and "naysayerism" which is not progressive at all.
State Subsidy
I don't see this being a problem. The state gave the KC project over $100-million in tax subsidies. The St. Louis project is only asking for $27-million - 1/4 of the KC subsidy.
Bowling Hall of Fame
A done deal. If not, Cordish will build anyway. The BHF is in an ugly cheap-looking building that desperately needs a facelift - it's quite dated. I can't see the stakeholders of the BHF not wanting new digs.
Competition
Bah. St. Louis hasn't seen this kind of development expansion in a long, long time so it's understandable that some folks would be a bit nervous. However, St. Louis is the only city/region that worries about "competition" it seems.
Additionally, lots of cities use tax incentives to spark new development. Allowing such incentives are always risky. Houston has a new Pavilions project about to start construction. It has secured a House of Blues and Lucky Strike Bowl.
Plus, downtown Houston has on-going developments on Main St., phased development around its MM ballpark, expansion of Bayou Place (another Cordish project) and of course Houston Pavilions - a monstrous BPV type project - all happening downtown. Yet, there is no haggling about "competition".
Get over it already St. Louis.
Part of what makes cities attractive is entertainment, dining, recreation - especially for young people. One of the reasons St. Louis has lost young people is because it has not had a "cool factor" with lots of young people.
It has been perceived as old, set in its ways, racist, and uncool thus it has not been attractive for younger people.
New mixed-used districts/developments with new destinations, contrary to what some may believe, will help to elevate the "cool factor" in St. Louis. Washington Avenue, albeit more organic, is a perfect example of being "a lure" for a diverse crowd of people. Let the developers/planners devise/experiment with ways to make these new districts "distinct". Let them worry about the "competition".
MattnSTL, I agree 100%
bonwich, Matt and MattnSTL are right.
Suggesting that the BPV "is not home free yet", to me, suggest the obstacles cited could possibly derail the project. Also, the first sentence implies that the BPV might be a little too "ambitious". (subliminal message: think mediocre, scale back, be safe.) Furthermore, this story, which is essentially a rehashing, certainly wasn't worthy to be the main story.
As I see it, the PD continuously plant seeds of doubt and "alarmism". A lot of times, it breeds mediocrity and "naysayerism" which is not progressive at all.
State Subsidy
I don't see this being a problem. The state gave the KC project over $100-million in tax subsidies. The St. Louis project is only asking for $27-million - 1/4 of the KC subsidy.
Bowling Hall of Fame
A done deal. If not, Cordish will build anyway. The BHF is in an ugly cheap-looking building that desperately needs a facelift - it's quite dated. I can't see the stakeholders of the BHF not wanting new digs.
Competition
Bah. St. Louis hasn't seen this kind of development expansion in a long, long time so it's understandable that some folks would be a bit nervous. However, St. Louis is the only city/region that worries about "competition" it seems.
Additionally, lots of cities use tax incentives to spark new development. Allowing such incentives are always risky. Houston has a new Pavilions project about to start construction. It has secured a House of Blues and Lucky Strike Bowl.
In addition to bank financing, the Houston Pavilions has lined up an $8.8 million development grant from the City of Houston, $5.5 million from Harris County, $1 million from the Downtown District and an undisclosed amount from partner Houston Catalyst LP. The project will be part of the Main Street/Market Square Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone.
Plus, downtown Houston has on-going developments on Main St., phased development around its MM ballpark, expansion of Bayou Place (another Cordish project) and of course Houston Pavilions - a monstrous BPV type project - all happening downtown. Yet, there is no haggling about "competition".
Get over it already St. Louis.
Part of what makes cities attractive is entertainment, dining, recreation - especially for young people. One of the reasons St. Louis has lost young people is because it has not had a "cool factor" with lots of young people.
It has been perceived as old, set in its ways, racist, and uncool thus it has not been attractive for younger people.
New mixed-used districts/developments with new destinations, contrary to what some may believe, will help to elevate the "cool factor" in St. Louis. Washington Avenue, albeit more organic, is a perfect example of being "a lure" for a diverse crowd of people. Let the developers/planners devise/experiment with ways to make these new districts "distinct". Let them worry about the "competition".
The thing that bothers me most about that article, and if it is true than we are a long way away from any real changes downtown, is that people only stay downtown when the Cardinals win. That's not right. As much as I love the Cardinals and probably put too much emphasis on their current state, is a bad loss going to stop me from hanging out after the game at a bar. It may make it a little less rowdy, but should not impede the urge to go. You think WrigleyVille has suffered over the years when the Cubs blow a late game lead for the third day in a row? We're not Chicago, but I'd like to think "The best fans in Baseball" could show just as well.
So now we look past the fact that we are blessed with three pro sports downtown to pump some life to downtown outside of business hours, and decided, I'll only stick around if they win. I'm sure economical stats show that more money is spent downtown following a win, but the sweeping statement made in the article is discouraging. As if the Birds don't have enough pressure on them already, let's add saving downtown to their shoulders. I hope that attitude is not as prevelent as the article indicated.
So now we look past the fact that we are blessed with three pro sports downtown to pump some life to downtown outside of business hours, and decided, I'll only stick around if they win. I'm sure economical stats show that more money is spent downtown following a win, but the sweeping statement made in the article is discouraging. As if the Birds don't have enough pressure on them already, let's add saving downtown to their shoulders. I hope that attitude is not as prevelent as the article indicated.
- 11K
^ True. You'd think that the Cardinals are the only thing downtown has to offer.
How about this for real news? What are realistic expectations for increasing the flow of visitors and spending to downtown?
When I read the story, I sensed an underlying tone that market demand couldn't support more than one of the 2-4 entertainment developments and maybe we shouldn't expect otherwise (that old nemesis self-doubt that hangs with self-fulfilling prophecy). Bill McClennan's column in the Post a few days ago stated this doubt.
It's not about us. It's about them. It's not about residents. It's about visitors. It's not about visitors from a 250 mile radius. It's about visitors from all regions of the nation and parts of the globe. IMHO, St. Louis is only a step or two away from having the pieces in place to become a world class destination for a greater number of people.
If my opinion is right - there's a story for the PD. If my opinion is wrong - then there too is a story with real news.
When I read the story, I sensed an underlying tone that market demand couldn't support more than one of the 2-4 entertainment developments and maybe we shouldn't expect otherwise (that old nemesis self-doubt that hangs with self-fulfilling prophecy). Bill McClennan's column in the Post a few days ago stated this doubt.
It's not about us. It's about them. It's not about residents. It's about visitors. It's not about visitors from a 250 mile radius. It's about visitors from all regions of the nation and parts of the globe. IMHO, St. Louis is only a step or two away from having the pieces in place to become a world class destination for a greater number of people.
If my opinion is right - there's a story for the PD. If my opinion is wrong - then there too is a story with real news.
Hey, AC -- are you God everywhere now, or just on this forum? 
First of all, let's remember that your good friends at Clayco started this whole ball rolling. Who the hell announces that they've "withdrawn their bid"? Didn't that strike anyone as a bit odd, especially since their last public statement was that they didn't expect to be part of the project (BJ, 2005)?
And, as confirmed by others recently in this thread, St. Louis as a whole doesn't have your inside sources to tell you that all of this stuff is actually on target, gonna happen, no problem. Nor does the whole world apparently believe that a population-stagnant region is suddenly gonna rise up, fling aside its Applebees, Six Flags and Chesterfield Valley, and flock downtown in droves to support casinos, bowling alleys, J. Buck's, martini bars and go-kart tracks. You wanna keep promoting this stuff, knock yourself out -- but those of us who have lived through the Gateway Malls, Busch Stadium IIs, Union Markets, St. Louis Centres and Union Stations of the past couple of decades have our own rights to be just a tad skeptical.
BTW, loved your Houston comparison. Here's Houston's growth numbers:
How are our comps to that?
First of all, let's remember that your good friends at Clayco started this whole ball rolling. Who the hell announces that they've "withdrawn their bid"? Didn't that strike anyone as a bit odd, especially since their last public statement was that they didn't expect to be part of the project (BJ, 2005)?
And, as confirmed by others recently in this thread, St. Louis as a whole doesn't have your inside sources to tell you that all of this stuff is actually on target, gonna happen, no problem. Nor does the whole world apparently believe that a population-stagnant region is suddenly gonna rise up, fling aside its Applebees, Six Flags and Chesterfield Valley, and flock downtown in droves to support casinos, bowling alleys, J. Buck's, martini bars and go-kart tracks. You wanna keep promoting this stuff, knock yourself out -- but those of us who have lived through the Gateway Malls, Busch Stadium IIs, Union Markets, St. Louis Centres and Union Stations of the past couple of decades have our own rights to be just a tad skeptical.
BTW, loved your Houston comparison. Here's Houston's growth numbers:
Between the ’00 census and mid-’06, the population of the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which consists of all 10 counties shown above, grew 17.5 percent. Over the same period, the nation’s population grew 6.4 percent, while Texas’ grew 12.7 percent. Local population growth was approximately 825,000 for the MSA.
How are our comps to that?
- 1,044
I just hope the Hall of Fame doesn't choose to pull up stakes and move, wasn't Reno trying to steal them away a few years ago?
- 622
The stuff about the Cardinals not playing well, etc. is stupid. This is May of '07. Fopr the first time in what 5-6-7 years, the Birds aren't playing well. They'll be back and winning in no time. Certainly there possibility will be there in 2009! when this thing gets up and rolling. Enough.
Bonwich,
What you fail to realize is that rising gas prices, the aging of the baby-boomers, and the tendency of the younger generation to support city living are all things that American cities have going for them now that they have never had in the past. All those failures you mention in the past are just that, in the past. This is a new momentum that has gotten downtown farther than it has ever been on the road to recovery. Statements like yours do seem to come straight out of the Post-Dispatch. Don't beleive in St. Louis? Fine, then move. Until then you might consider changing your name to Post Dispatch Emulator.
What you fail to realize is that rising gas prices, the aging of the baby-boomers, and the tendency of the younger generation to support city living are all things that American cities have going for them now that they have never had in the past. All those failures you mention in the past are just that, in the past. This is a new momentum that has gotten downtown farther than it has ever been on the road to recovery. Statements like yours do seem to come straight out of the Post-Dispatch. Don't beleive in St. Louis? Fine, then move. Until then you might consider changing your name to Post Dispatch Emulator.
I think Bonwich and Arch City made some very valid points. My thought on this whole downtown development issue (which BPV is one part) there needs to be a directed effort to stimulate growth with sustainable developments. Entertainment is great but we need to support it with educational and cultural destinations. Downtown retail is going to be marginally successful at best unless it is unique to the region (ULI refers to it as showcase retail). Restaurants and bars are great but let's keep some reflection of St. Louis' culture and season it with some unique dining options (unique either by cuisine or environment). I do think we need to understand that a regional attraction is going to pull the majority of visitors from a 250 mile radius especially with soaring gas prices. St. Louis is wonderfully positioned to capture a large portion of visitors if they can just plan this carefully and correctly. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Yes, everywhere. And when I say, "Let there be light", then God dammit, get with the program - immediately.bonwich wrote:Hey, AC -- are you God everywhere now, or just on this forum?
Who cares? I mean really? Who the f**k really cares, but you and a few other doldrummers?bonwich wrote:First of all, let's remember that your good friends at Clayco started this whole ball rolling. Who the hell announces that they've "withdrawn their bid"? Didn't that strike anyone as a bit odd, especially since their last public statement was that they didn't expect to be part of the project (BJ, 2005)?
Well I did report that Clayco, which you did not know had a real estate arm, was a new partner in the Bottle District. In fact, I reported it BEFORE your Tucker Blvd-based employer (which by the way needs a new building) so apparently I do have some "inside sources". All people have to do is pick up the damn phone and call somebody if they have a question as well as stop being so overly-critical when it really isn't that serious.bonwich wrote:
And, as confirmed by others recently in this thread, St. Louis as a whole doesn't have your inside sources to tell you that all of this stuff is actually on target, gonna happen, no problem.
Well, I understand that some people like to be in depressed mode - particularly in St. Louis. I don't know what medications there are for the "oh woe is us" or "I can't get over history and move on" disorders, but there has to be some magic pill or spirit out there somewhere.bonwich wrote:
Nor does the whole world apparently believe that a population-stagnant region is suddenly gonna rise up, fling aside its Applebees, Six Flags and Chesterfield Valley, and flock downtown in droves to support casinos, bowling alleys, J. Buck's, martini bars and go-kart tracks. You wanna keep promoting this stuff, knock yourself out -- but those of us who have lived through the Gateway Malls, Busch Stadium IIs, Union Markets, St. Louis Centres and Union Stations of the past couple of decades have our own rights to be just a tad skeptical.
I have lived through all of those too. I visited St. Louis Centre and Union Station the first day they opened. I shopped for fruits and vegetables at Union Market. I saw buildings being demolished along Market St. to make way for the Gateway Mall. Hell, I even saw the Mercantile tower and the old Sheraton underconstruction - so there. I have been around just as long - if not longer. The difference is that I am not stuck in a time warp. In the case of Union Station, which is still not dead, good things don't last forever. Life goes the f**k on.
bonwich wrote:
BTW, loved your Houston comparison. Here's Houston's growth numbers:
It doesn't compare, but neither does New York City, Chicago or Philadelphia. So because Houston has an explosive growth rate, St. Louis shouldn't consider development options for its downtown? Please.Between the ’00 census and mid-’06, the population of the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which consists of all 10 counties shown above, grew 17.5 percent. Over the same period, the nation’s population grew 6.4 percent, while Texas’ grew 12.7 percent. Local population growth was approximately 825,000 for the MSA.
How are our comps to that?
By the way, St. Louis is not a "population-stagnant" region. Check out the chart shown below - and it is even dated. AND, if some consider it "stagnant" they probably should ask themselves, why? Is it because I am one of perhaps millions stuck in a time warp? Is it because I am one of perhaps millions who have a naysayer mentality that doesn't help? I am contributing the overall depressed, can-do-nothing mindset - complaining about sh*t that happened decades ago?
SoulardD wrote:Bonwich,
What you fail to realize is that rising gas prices, the aging of the baby-boomers, and the tendency of the younger generation to support city living are all things that American cities have going for them now that they have never had in the past. All those failures you mention in the past are just that, in the past. This is a new momentum that has gotten downtown farther than it has ever been on the road to recovery. Statements like yours do seem to come straight out of the Post-Dispatch. Don't beleive in St. Louis? Fine, then move. Until then you might consider changing your name to Post Dispatch Emulator.
Oh, please. There was no gas crisis in the early '80s? Just which historical high do you think we just passed?
"It's different now." How'd that do for your investment portfolio from about 2000-2004?
Naw, I don't believe in St. Louis at all. You'll never read a quote in a national publication from me singing the praises of downtown redevelopment, the restaurant renaissance, etc. (You've just imagined all that stuff in the Boston Globe, Food & Wine, Nation's Restaurant News, etc.)
"Fine, then move." Hey, great attitude. We old farts know nothing, you young'uns are going to make it all better. History is irrelevant. Have a nice day.
Re: AC
1) Re: Clayco. Most people with half a grain of business sense probably care. So Clayco is now a "partner" in TBD. How much experience does this bring to the overall development team? How many half-billion-dollar developments has Clayco pulled off? Suddenly they're going to be negotiating leases with national players with infinitely more legal and financial smarts? You don't question this in the least?
2) "Stuck in a time warp." So history has no validity at all? The fairly well-demonstrated fact that St. Louis has, repeatedly, thrown money at megaprojects that fail should have no bearing on the fact that, in 2007, St. Louis is throwing lots more money at lots more megaprojects? Since you've been around so long, can you cite any downtown projects from the past 20-30 years that have succeeded? (And please define why you think they've "succeeded.")
Throwing money, especially other people's money (and taxpayer money), at a problem is an easy solution. Justifying it is another matter.
1) Re: Clayco. Most people with half a grain of business sense probably care. So Clayco is now a "partner" in TBD. How much experience does this bring to the overall development team? How many half-billion-dollar developments has Clayco pulled off? Suddenly they're going to be negotiating leases with national players with infinitely more legal and financial smarts? You don't question this in the least?
2) "Stuck in a time warp." So history has no validity at all? The fairly well-demonstrated fact that St. Louis has, repeatedly, thrown money at megaprojects that fail should have no bearing on the fact that, in 2007, St. Louis is throwing lots more money at lots more megaprojects? Since you've been around so long, can you cite any downtown projects from the past 20-30 years that have succeeded? (And please define why you think they've "succeeded.")
Throwing money, especially other people's money (and taxpayer money), at a problem is an easy solution. Justifying it is another matter.
- 8,912
I keep waiting for the day that Bonwich stops playing the devils advocate card. It's ok to be skeptical and realistic, but it's mindsets like yours that keep this city down. I mean, it's as if you don't have the foresight to think big and your PD blinders won't let you step back and see the big picture possibilities. How's the view up there on your STL HATERS bandwagon? It's no wonder the "Think Big" campaign runs in the BJ and not the PD.
Bonwich:
FYI
1. The world is not Flat.
2. The planets revolve around the sun
3. July 21 1969 Man landed on the moon
"Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible."
François de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680) French writer.
"Our thoughts and imagination are the only real limits to our possibilities."
Orison Swett Marden (1850-1924) American author and founder of Success magazine.
Bonwich:
FYI
1. The world is not Flat.
2. The planets revolve around the sun
3. July 21 1969 Man landed on the moon
"Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible."
François de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680) French writer.
"Our thoughts and imagination are the only real limits to our possibilities."
Orison Swett Marden (1850-1924) American author and founder of Success magazine.
- 1,768
bpe235 wrote:
Bonwich:
FYI
1. The world is not Flat.
2. The planets revolve around the sun
3. July 21 1969 Man landed on the moon
Even I'm a little skeptical of that last one.
If we can just maintain our civility...
How do we know if we're stagnant or reasonable?
What are the measureable differences between then and now?
A sea change started in the late 1990s.
I think one might be that most of the financing now comes from private capital markets and less comes from government. Some think this difference is an indicator of viability and sustainability. Of the several billion invested in downtown alone, I'd guess that somewhere above 95 percent has come from private sources seeking a return on investment.
How do we know if we're stagnant or reasonable?
What are the measureable differences between then and now?
A sea change started in the late 1990s.
I think one might be that most of the financing now comes from private capital markets and less comes from government. Some think this difference is an indicator of viability and sustainability. Of the several billion invested in downtown alone, I'd guess that somewhere above 95 percent has come from private sources seeking a return on investment.
^So is Marshall Faulk. Should we have not enjoyed the Super Bowl win?
But more seriously: Being skeptical is hardly "hating." And discounting my objections just because I happen to work for the PD (you got any other places where I could have a full-time job reviewing restaurants?) is running away from valid debate.
"Mindsets"? Sorry, you never went to the CVC with a bonafide opportunity to attract a $50M convention, and were unable to get them to return your call. Nor did you ever show up for countless "Technology Gateway" meetings only to have them steered to promoting meaningless technology initiatives (several hundred thousand dollars later, I don't think "Technology Gateway" even exists anymore).
My problem -- my "mindset" -- is that all the same bozos are still in charge. It isn't as easy as "thinking big." Cervantes "thought big." Schoemehl "thought big." Hell, even Clueless Clarence occasionally "thought big." They even tried to do big -- and the failures have been much more striking than the successes.
Feel free to continue to click your heels together three times and repeat, "There's no place like Ballpark Village...and there never has been. There's no place like the Bottle District...and there never has been. There's no place like Chouteau's Landing...and there never has been." I'll continue to advocate what I think are rational development policies, and what should be simple little things like improving traffic flow and pedestrian safety for what we've already got. Maybe along the way we'll even discover the true identity of the Man Behind the Curtain.
But more seriously: Being skeptical is hardly "hating." And discounting my objections just because I happen to work for the PD (you got any other places where I could have a full-time job reviewing restaurants?) is running away from valid debate.
"Mindsets"? Sorry, you never went to the CVC with a bonafide opportunity to attract a $50M convention, and were unable to get them to return your call. Nor did you ever show up for countless "Technology Gateway" meetings only to have them steered to promoting meaningless technology initiatives (several hundred thousand dollars later, I don't think "Technology Gateway" even exists anymore).
My problem -- my "mindset" -- is that all the same bozos are still in charge. It isn't as easy as "thinking big." Cervantes "thought big." Schoemehl "thought big." Hell, even Clueless Clarence occasionally "thought big." They even tried to do big -- and the failures have been much more striking than the successes.
Feel free to continue to click your heels together three times and repeat, "There's no place like Ballpark Village...and there never has been. There's no place like the Bottle District...and there never has been. There's no place like Chouteau's Landing...and there never has been." I'll continue to advocate what I think are rational development policies, and what should be simple little things like improving traffic flow and pedestrian safety for what we've already got. Maybe along the way we'll even discover the true identity of the Man Behind the Curtain.
- 8,912
bonwich wrote:Re: AC
1) Re: Clayco. Most people with half a grain of business sense probably care. So Clayco is now a "partner" in TBD. How much experience does this bring to the overall development team? How many half-billion-dollar developments has Clayco pulled off? Suddenly they're going to be negotiating leases with national players with infinitely more legal and financial smarts? You don't question this in the least?
2) "Stuck in a time warp." So history has no validity at all? The fairly well-demonstrated fact that St. Louis has, repeatedly, thrown money at megaprojects that fail should have no bearing on the fact that, in 2007, St. Louis is throwing lots more money at lots more megaprojects? Since you've been around so long, can you cite any downtown projects from the past 20-30 years that have succeeded? (And please define why you think they've "succeeded.")
Throwing money, especially other people's money (and taxpayer money), at a problem is an easy solution. Justifying it is another matter.
Bonwich,
We all know you're a "glass half empty" kinda guy and that you probably drive an uber consevative car. (my guess is a volvo)
I ask you this bonwich, when you were learning to ride a bike and fell and fell and fell, Did you say "well history says if I try again I'll fall again" or did you learn from your mistakes and try try again. You thin that we as a city are just throwing money at it (oh not again!). But I think we as a city are taking a different approach. I think we are using a proven business approach DT and investing in our city.Matt wrote:If we can just maintain our civility...
How do we know if we're stagnant or reasonable?
What are the measureable differences between then and now?
A sea change started in the late 1990s.
I think one might be that most of the financing now comes from private capital markets and less comes from government. Some think this difference is an indicator of viability and sustainability. Of the several billion invested in downtown alone, I'd guess that somewhere above 95 percent has come from private sources seeking a return on investment.
I'm up for this, so I'll ask for clarification:
1) Was it really a sea change, or was it simply a substitution of residential-led redevelopment policies for the retail-based redevelopment policies of the 1980s?
2) I've generally heard $2B-$2.5B for the recent downtown investment numbers. Adjusted for inflation, how does that compare to the retail projects of approx. 1980-88? (I don't know where we'd include the Gateway Mall.)
3) How do you factor all the tax credits into the total figure?
bpe235 wrote:
Bonwich,
We all know you're a "glass half empty" kinda guy and that you probably drive an uber consevative car. (my guess is a volvo)
Please illustrate
1) How the current approach is "proven."
2) What evidence there is that we've "learned from our mistakes."
Is a '91 Q45 "uber conservative"? It didn't seem that way when I bought it in 1994. I drive it now because my wife has the convertible Cruiser, and one daughter has the hardtop Cruiser, and the other daughter has my dad's old '98 DeVille. We also have a van, but we only use it anymore for family vacations.
TheWayoftheArch wrote:bpe235 wrote:
Bonwich:
FYI
1. The world is not Flat.
2. The planets revolve around the sun
3. July 21 1969 Man landed on the moon
Even I'm a little skeptical of that last one.
Actually it was late on Sunday July 20th.
Launch: July 16, 1969
13:32:00 UTC
Lunar landing: July 20, 1969
20:17:40 UTC
Lunar surface operations: July 21, 1969
02:56:09 UTC
UTC is Zulu or Greenwich Mean Time. Subtract 6 hours to get St. louis time.
- 1,610
I think the mistake made in the 1980s was making Downtown a destination for outsiders without thinking of it as a vibrant 24/7 neighborhood.
Shoppers are mobile and most have long stopped shopping downtown. Residents are more permanent and will build the necessary base for retail along with office workers and visitors. Early risk-taking residents begets pioneering City Grocers, which begets more residents and Schnuck's, which begets more residents and more retail.
IOW, it's all about critical mass. And in the past, or specifically the 1980s, that mass was mobile or still left downtown sidewalks empty after 5 o'clock. Ironically, in those same 1980s, Soulard and the CWE got their headstart on Downtown in their renaissance by rebuilding residential mass.
Shoppers are mobile and most have long stopped shopping downtown. Residents are more permanent and will build the necessary base for retail along with office workers and visitors. Early risk-taking residents begets pioneering City Grocers, which begets more residents and Schnuck's, which begets more residents and more retail.
IOW, it's all about critical mass. And in the past, or specifically the 1980s, that mass was mobile or still left downtown sidewalks empty after 5 o'clock. Ironically, in those same 1980s, Soulard and the CWE got their headstart on Downtown in their renaissance by rebuilding residential mass.