Thinking big includes all of the things you espouse and more; however, there is no magic bullet for revitalizing urban communities – particularly urban downtowns. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Each of those mayors you noted had successes. I don’t know of a perfect mayor ANYWHERE – including Daley, Giuliani or Bloomberg.bonwich wrote:^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.
southslider wrote: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.
DeBaliviere wrote:^
I'd like to see more efforts to develop some new Class A office space added to the current residential and retail developments.
But, I bet you were one of the people who believed Washington Avenue would never look like it does today. It bet you thought all of those old warehouses/office buildings would never get rehabbed. I bet you were one of the people who believed Cupples Station would never be fully redeveloped. You probably thought the Wash. Ave streetscape probably wouldn't happen. You probably thought Macy's downtown would close up shop. You probably thought the Rams wouldn’t move from Los Angeles. You probably thought the Old Post Office District was “pie in the sky”. You probably thought Post-Dispatch wouldn’t build a new building. (Opps, so far you’ve guessed right on that one).
Grasshopper? What a "cute" little name to call someone.bonwich wrote: C'mon, Grasshopper, now you're ignoring facts that are known to you. I worked on Washington Avenue for about eight years, WAY before most of the rehab was even a gleam in the most ardent Polyannish zealot's eye. I was part of the solution, as they say. I was a pioneer.
Cupples? Check out the piece I wrote for the RFT right before the Westin opened. Macy's? French onion soup once a week for me, plus an article once that engendered a bunch of "gee, thanks, we forgot that was even open" e-mails.
The Rams? Hey, throw enough money at the problem, and it'll get solved. Can you make a good economic case that the money was well-spent, or that the massive ongoing liabilities are a good investment?
At this point in time, I still think the Old Post Office district is "pie in the sky." Where are the for-profit tenants? Where's the net increase in downtown employment? That one still has a long way to go to prove a valid return on investment.
Yes, the city should offer incentives to make it happen. When will Lee make a proposal? Like yesterday?bonwich wrote:As for the P-D building, I bet if the City offered Lee a hundred mill or so in incentives, I bet they'd do it. Of course, then you'd be stuck with the adaptive-reuse issue. I just can't see this place turned into lofts.
loftlover wrote:^I don't think things are too far off topic. The debate between progressive and regressive people in the city needs to happen and this is a good forum for that, especially the BPV thread. Being an outsider and new to the city I have to agree with AC and others who voice their frustration with the PD's STL city bashing. Why does the PD do this? Is it because most of their subscriber base is in the county and/or coutside the city proper and these folks enjoy reading about the city's demise? Two article's in today's PD took a negative slant on results of competiton (BPV and Schnuck's DT) yet the PD itself has no direct competition. If it did, perhaps we'd get more sensible reporting?
Arch City wrote:Grasshopper? What a "cute" little name to call someone.
loftlover wrote:Being an outsider and new to the city I have to agree with AC and others who voice their frustration with the PD's STL city bashing. Why does the PD do this? Is it because most of their subscriber base is in the county and/or coutside the city proper and these folks enjoy reading about the city's demise? Two article's in today's PD took a negative slant on results of competiton (BPV and Schnuck's DT) yet the PD itself has no direct competition. If it did, perhaps we'd get more sensible reporting?
I personally feel Ballpark Village will succeed. There is a component around that hasn't been there during other "mega-projects" downtown - residential. As long as there are residents to help support the retail, downtown CAN have successful districts. Residential was not planned as part of STL Centre or Union Station. Additionally, they did give some thought in partially integrating this project into the existing street grid - this is also key in my opinion.
jefferson wrote:I'd rather just see the BHOF move into BPV as was origianally envisioned. In any case, it's silly to start talking about eminent domain for that building. BPV is already in line to receive way too much public assistance as it is.
I personally feel Ballpark Village will succeed. There is a component around that hasn't been there during other "mega-projects" downtown - residential. As long as there are residents to help support the retail, downtown CAN have successful districts. Residential was not planned as part of STL Centre or Union Station. Additionally, they did give some thought in partially integrating this project into the existing street grid - this is also key in my opinion.
But how smart is this residential component when:
a) it's heavily subsidized and,
b) if we can learn from other projects like this around the country, many of these high-end residents will buy the condos (if they even end up being part of the project) as second or third homes, just a place to "crash" once in awhile after a Cards game, while their primary residence remains in West County or wherever. Doesn't seem like the makings of a real 24/7 urban neighborhood, not to mention supporting retail in the southern half of DT after 6pm.
The city/state would be better off pulling most if not all subsidies and letting the Cardinals develop this high value piece of land as they see fit...believe me they won't just put a parking lot there. Even a few Cardinals themed bars/restaurants would be an improvement over the sea of parking south of the old stadium; it would fulfill it's purpose in giving people a place to hang out before and after games. It's silly to subsidize investment properties for wealthy suburbanites; furthermore, I'm not so sure the Cards/Cordish wouldn't put some small residential component in the project without public subsidies, but if they didn't, no big loss in my view.
dutchtowner wrote:The Post-Dispatch building is quite lovely after the recent exterior rehab. Now if only the Board of Election Commissioners would move out and a gokart-bowling alley-brewpup would move in. Then downtown would really turn the corner. Perhaps we could call it the Typesetter District.
I'm not a huge fan of tan brick, but the Globe-Democrat building, where the Post-Dispatch is produced, is just fine in my opinion. It is much improved now that the first-floor windows are glass again. Too bad all the printing doesn't happen there. They'll probably get bricked up again come contract negotiations in a few years.
Now if only someone would do something with the Illinois Terminal Warehouse, which, of course is where the Globe-Democrat was produced. Except for the printing, which happened at the Globe-Democrat Building, which is owned by the Post.
JMedwick wrote:Oh brother,
You guys have lost it. One little article in the Post updating readers about the status of the highest profile development in the Metro sparked all of this? Come on.
The points made by Jefferson and Bonwich are important. I have similar concerns that BPV residential buyers will just be folks looking for second homes (and if true, then a winning record will make an impact on how quickly folks hold onto such properties. I mean what happens when going to the Cards game is no longer the hottest ticket in town?). I too worry that downtown is being as "one-sided" as it was in the 1980's (pushing residential development to then spur and support retail development vs. pushing office development to then spur and support retail development).
And above all else, the natural momentum of development is slowly being turned back into a push for the "savior" development, be it the casino, the BD, BPV, or whatever. Maybe this is a natural process and certianly downtown has its savior egg is more baskets than in the past, but I think we all would agree that as much progress downtown could occur by making some common sense improvemetns that we have all discussed elsewhere (improving parking, lighting, signage, streetscapes, connections to nearby neighborhoods).
Downtown is loosing the battle with Clayton and the suburbs for business retention and location. Downtown is cutoff from areas like Soulard, Lafayette Square, and Old North St. Louis. Downtown needs more primary home owners than secondary home owners. All of the above are valid concerns, ones that should not be dismissed lightly with calls of "naysayer" and whatnot.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Are you trying to confuse me?
The old Globe Democrat building is nearer to Washington, right? Has the quickshop and other stores on the first floor? Is it still used?
JMedwick wrote:Oh brother,
You guys have lost it. One little article in the Post updating readers about the status of the highest profile development in the Metro sparked all of this? Come on.
The points made by Jefferson and Bonwich are important. I have similar concerns that BPV residential buyers will just be folks looking for second homes (and if true, then a winning record will make an impact on how quickly folks hold onto such properties. I mean what happens when going to the Cards game is no longer the hottest ticket in town?). I too worry that downtown is being as "one-sided" as it was in the 1980's (pushing residential development to then spur and support retail development vs. pushing office development to then spur and support retail development).
And above all else, the natural momentum of development is slowly being turned back into a push for the "savior" development, be it the casino, the BD, BPV, or whatever. Maybe this is a natural process and certianly downtown has its savior egg is more baskets than in the past, but I think we all would agree that as much progress downtown could occur by making some common sense improvemetns that we have all discussed elsewhere (improving parking, lighting, signage, streetscapes, connections to nearby neighborhoods).
Downtown is loosing the battle with Clayton and the suburbs for business retention and location. Downtown is cutoff from areas like Soulard, Lafayette Square, and Old North St. Louis. Downtown needs more primary home owners than secondary home owners. All of the above are valid concerns, ones that should not be dismissed lightly with calls of "naysayer" and whatnot.
