urbanSTL

Although I suspect most buyers won’t be “second home” buyers, in the big scheme of things, they will be taxpayers (hint, hint) and likely visible people on the streets even if only part-time. Personally, I feel that if they are “second home” buyers – it’s no big deal – let them buy – it’s their money.



In important, high commerce cities all over the country and the world, people, who are able to afford it, have second homes in core cities.



Interestingly however, what people fail to consider is that there was no residential around the old cookie cutter Busch Stadium for 40 years. Absolutely nothing. There was NO residential. Little to no retail. Now that there is a significant chance for a housing and retail component to be developed around the stadium, people seem to want to nitpick about who should be the tenants. I can understand the arguments about street connectivity, however, as far as I am concerned the tenants should be…………BUYERS!! That should be the only resident people should be concerned about. I am sure that is all Cordish and the bigwigs at City Hall are concerned about too. Buyers! Everything else will fall into place.



Also, I don’t recall reading any pro-BPV posts (or Bottle District, Pinnacle, or Ice House District posts for that matter) here which claim such projects are going to be “saviors” for downtown. I certainly didn’t. However, these projects, I think, will add more vibrancy to downtown St. Louis. This cannot be denied. You can’t visit other cities where Cordish has projects - Houston (Bayou Place), Louisville (4th Street Live), or Baltimore (Power Plant Live) - and not see the how the end results of these projects have added to the vibrancy of those downtown’s.

Hmm a few points:



1. If the BPV is full of second home buyers (heck lets make it a simple majority) I think it might fail. It is year round home owners who walk the streets, shop at the stores, and pay the taxes that will determine whether all the retail and resturan space proposed will make the BPV another STL Center or something much better (and long lasting). I would not so quickly dismiss the negative impact of second home buyers.



2. Clearly downtow's new development has included mostly residential rehabing old commerical space followed by some retail and a small amount of office space. That much is pretty clear to me. Sure a hand full of office firms have opened up (though I am likely under counting lets say 2 dozen) but none have been heavy hitter. In fact, if anything downtown has lost some of its former heavy hitters over the period (some out of their control like May Co and some more in their control like Union Pacific). I, and I think most others, would call this downtown revival a residential one, vs. the office one of the 80's.

JMedwick wrote:Hmm a few points:



1. If the BPV is full of second home buyers (heck lets make it a simple majority) I think it might fail. It is year round home owners who walk the streets, shop at the stores, and pay the taxes that will determine whether all the retail and resturan space proposed will make the BPV another STL Center or something much better (and long lasting). I would not so quickly dismiss the negative impact of second home buyers.

You are clearly wrong. First, the district is not just being geared toward residents. In fact, residents - full time or otherwise - alone could not support the tenants the BPV is planning. Surely, the more pedestrians we continuously have on the streets the better, but residents alone won't make or break this project. If that were the case, Cordish wouldn't have sought approval from the city to opt out of housing. On-site residents would simply help with some sustainability. The retail/entertainment they are planning is for a cross-section of people. If you were to visit other Cordish projects around the country (as I have) you'll see what I mean. There's something for everybody at their projects.

JMedwick wrote:
2. Clearly downtow's new development has included mostly residential rehabing old commerical space followed by some retail and a small amount of office space. That much is pretty clear to me. Sure a hand full of office firms have opened up (though I am likely under counting lets say 2 dozen) but none have been heavy hitter. In fact, if anything downtown has lost some of its former heavy hitters over the period (some out of their control like May Co and some more in their control like Union Pacific). I, and I think most others, would call this downtown revival a residential one, vs. the office one of the 80's.

While a "heavy hitter" would be a boon for downtown - let's not discount the small firms. And collectively, they can bring more jobs than one large firm. Small firms and government agencies are credited with helping to spark downtown Denver's comeback.



Also, Federated/Macy's laid off some people downtown, true, but Macy's still has hundreds of jobs downtown as a part of its Midwest Division. UP, that's another story.



So yeah, while downtown's resurgence is largely rooted in residential construction - this renaissance is different than in the 80's when development was office and retail focused - with absolutely no residential.



With this current resurgence, many pieces of the puzzle, regardless of their individual size, are underway - infrastructure, residential, office, retail, and commercial/entertainment.

Waiter, I will have what Arch City is having! (Long post coming)



Look Arch, I know the BPV is not being geared toward just residents. It has been noted in most announcements (at least back when residential was a significant part of the project) that the retail, shops, and restaurants will fall into two categories (although there will clearly be some overlap) residential oriented and tourist oriented.



I have few concerns in the short term about the tourist aspect. I think folks from throughout the adjoining states who are Cards fans (not to mention folks traveling from other MLB cities, families looking for vacation spots, convention folks, and Metro area residents) will come to the BPV and spend their money. It will be a winner as long as the tourists come.



But tell me then, Arch, what happens in 4 years when folks within 250 miles have all made their trip and done their thing, when folks in the Metro have made their trip down. What happens when the BPV is no longer the hottest spot in the metro, when it starts to show some wear and tear?



This is of course the same situation that confronted St. Louis Center and Union Station. STL Center survived that change poorly. Union Station has done much better due to a commitment to the past owners (not the current ones we can agree) and the addition of Scottrade Center on its doorstep to help add another draw in the area.



So back to the first question, what happens to the BPV in five years? None of us knows the answers yet, but I would feel much better about the long-term health of the BPV if I were sure that it would be full of primary homeowners who on a regular basis would use the retail, shops, and restaurants in the village. If full of second homeowners, the BPV is that much more reliant on the downtown work force (we will get back to this topic in a minute) and tourists to make a go of it.



Moreover, the you can’t just say “What about all the new downtown residents, won’t they support the BPV?” Sure Cupples Station is adding residential near the BPV, along with the developments on 4th street and the old Pet Building, but even with those project, the bulk of downtown residents live north of Pine and probably still west of Tucker. For those residents west of Tucker and north of Locust, the BPV is outside of the fundamental five-minute walk for residents, drastically reducing the likelihood of residents in these areas just walking over and shopping or dining. All in all, if we want to be certain that there will be adequate residential development to support the BPV in the long term, the BPV better make sure that there are enough residents to support it.





Now what about office space. As noted above, downtown office workers will play a role in both the long-term health of downtown and in the long-term success of the BPV. Thus far, while downtown has been moderately successful in adding some small firms to fill out office space, such as those mentioned in today’s Post article, clearly downtown has lost some heavy hitters. We have already touched on the likes of May and Union Pacific, and we can add others like AB to that list. If downtown has a growing workforce, it is that much easier for the shops and restaurants opening throughout downtown to make a go of it. If downtown office growth is stagnant, then all that much more weight for the economic success of new ventures) such as Schnucks and the BPV (and existing ventures fall on a growing residential population (or growing tourists and conventions).



I am sure you would agree Arch, that even with the most positive spin on those small firms added, office growth downtown has been the laggard in this downtown revitalization in the same way that residential development was a laggard in the 1980’s (and btw, you don’t think that residential occupancy was growing in buildings like Mansion House when STL Center opened, and frankly is that so dissimilar to the office growth seen since 2000?).



Frankly, the downtown office market needs a big positive shot in the arm. Adding small firms is very important no doubt, but downtown continues to have a finite and shrinking amount of downtown office space, cramping attempts to add new firms. Simply look at all the office space taken off the market with the residential boom.



For the sake of the health of downtown, to reduce the risk of this boom falling apart, it is important that growth in downtown be a balance as possible. This means office growth much catch up to residential and retail growth. We have seen the negative effects of one-sided growth in the past (1960’s was all civic uses and residential, 1980’s was all office and retail, 2000’s is all residential, stadiums, and retail). In each of the past two instances downtown’s revitalization fell short, petering out within a decade and failing to reverse the downward spiral of downtown. Balance is the key in all aspects and we cannot ignore it.

Most people won't walk much farther than 5 minutes to get to something. Further away than 5 minutes (or around 1,500 feet) and people figure they have to drive or take transit, which reduces the ease of getting somewhere. Think about most suburban malls, most are about a 5 minute walk in total length. And that is why McGowan's idea is a good one. Downtown residential, particuarly that west of Tucker far enough away from the bulk of downtown that to make the whole of downtown more easily accessable to residents scooters and bikes are a good idea.



Think about it this way. If you are trying to sell the 2020 Lofts and mention that it is close to Busch Stadium, Union Station, Macy's and the like, that is fine. But the 2020 building is so far from those places that to travel to them is not terribly different from needing to go to Grand. You have to come up with a solution to bridge that divide.





Now, you can play with the 5 minute walk somewhat. Much like a casino, the goal on a street is to make the place go interesting, engaging, and fun that you lose your sense of time, meaning sure, it maybe a 10 minute walk from say the Doorsa Lofts to the BPV, but with streets full of people and shops, the 10 minutes is no longer a big deal and have no concept of time. This is why streetscaping and active streetfronts are so important.

^ Neither do I grover, but with local and state tax subsidies on the line and the growing idea pushed by local leaders that this project is a "capstone" to the growth seen thus far in downtown, it is important to look at the mix of groups that the BPV will draw on to ensure long term sucess. The specter of failure in 5 years is not a reason not to build, the specter is a reason to ensure that the development of the BPV is planned well to prevent this outcome. Now is the time to look ahead and make sure we do it right, not after the BPV has been built.

bonwich wrote:One nitpick to an Arch City assertion of an absolute: There was a little residential in the '80s -- we moved into the lofts at 13th and St. Charles in about 1985, and Columbus Square opened in 1981. I suppose one could nitpick back that Columbus Square isn't really "downtown," but it's awful close.

Actually, I considered Columbus Square. But back then downtown's northern boundary stopped at Cole St. The northern boundary of downtown did not stretch all of the way over to Cass Avenue as it does now.



Columbus Square Apartments, which are geographically north of Cole, at the time were not "downtown" - although they might have been "marketed" as downtown when they were completed.



Downtown essentially stopped at the Edward Jones Dome (Cole St.) where there were a few old small buildings, parking lots, the Sheraton, and the old Greyhound Bus Station - which I used a lot back in those days.



Here's a picture I took from the EJD of Columbus Square.

stlmike wrote:
Downtown's border is still Cole. Where are people getting the Cass reference?



Here's mine: http://stlouis.missouri.org/downtown/



"The City's Downtown neighborhood is defined by Cole and Carr Streets to the North, and Chouteau Avenue to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by the Mississippi River, and the Western edge by South Tucker Boulevard (formerly 12th Street).



The Downtown West neighborhood is defined by Cole street to the North, and Chouteau to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by Tucker Boulevard, and the Western edge by Jefferson Boulevard."



The page was made in 2001. Have the boundaries changed since?

Yes, the boundaries have changed according to the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. They are now Jefferson (west), The River (east), Cass (north) and Chouteau (south). How else would nearly 10,000 people reside downtown?



http://www.downtownstl.org/docs/IntroHo ... port06.pdf



There is a more defined map out there, but I can't find it now.

Arch City wrote:

stlmike wrote:
Downtown's border is still Cole. Where are people getting the Cass reference?



Here's mine: http://stlouis.missouri.org/downtown/



"The City's Downtown neighborhood is defined by Cole and Carr Streets to the North, and Chouteau Avenue to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by the Mississippi River, and the Western edge by South Tucker Boulevard (formerly 12th Street).



The Downtown West neighborhood is defined by Cole street to the North, and Chouteau to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by Tucker Boulevard, and the Western edge by Jefferson Boulevard."



The page was made in 2001. Have the boundaries changed since?

Yes, the boundaries have changed according to the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. They are now Jefferson (west), The River (east), Cass (north) and Chouteau (south). How else would nearly 10,000 people reside downtown?



http://www.downtownstl.org/docs/IntroHo ... port06.pdf



There is a more defined map out there, but I can't find it now.

No the actual boundaries of the neighborhoods have not changed. DTSLP is a booster organization, and use a commonly percieved area to determine their numbres. Because to most "outsiders" downtown starts after SLU and encompasses a wide area around the actual CBD, they find it convenient and a better representation of the area as a whole. Bottom line, trying to explain to someone from Colombia IL, or Wildwood the individual #s for DT, DTW, and Carr Square, among others, is an impossibility, especially in the context of downtown boosterism. Your message would undoubtedly become muddled or lost completely in the breakdown of little known neighborhoods. If I lived in Colombus Square, to someone in chesterfield, I live Downtown. DTSLP relies on that generalization to inflate the Core area's numbers, for good, IMO, rather than a strict nieghborhood based report. When he states "this is the boundaries of DT..." He means for their statitical reporting purposes, so that the casual observer knows where he is talking about. If the city says "the downtown neighborhood..." they are refering the actual neighborhoodas stated aove, and on the city's website:



The City's Downtown neighborhood is defined by Cole and Carr Streets to the North, and Chouteau Avenue to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by the Mississippi River, and the Western edge by South Tucker Boulevard (formerly 12th Street). #35



The Downtown West neighborhood is defined by Cole street to the North, and Chouteau to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by Tucker Boulevard, and the Western edge by Jefferson Boulevard. #36

stlmike wrote:I think the point that JMedwick is making is that in the 80s, it was strong on business growth and light on residential growth, wheras now its strong on residential growth and weak on business growth. No one is saying that at either time, there was nonexistant growth in either category, simply that one was more minimized in its grand plan and results. The sentiment he is trying to appeal to is that the focus, and results, should be equally strong in both categories.

But there is business growth. Perhaps not in gleaming new towers, but there has been and is business (construction) and government growth.



Cupples Station

Thomas Eagleton Courthouse (2000)

Federal Reserve

Old Post Office

Bee Hat

Arcade Building (coming)

Nadira Place (coming)

Park-Pacific (coming)

NCI (The National System)

DEA Building

Social Security Building

Globe-Democrat Building (Bandwidth Exchange)

Nooter Campus

Old Post-Dispatch

Marquette Building

City Crime Lab

Rudman Lofts on the Park



And countless other knick-knack renovations in old buildings downtown. One might could include A.G. Edwards' mega expansion if it were not on the wrong side of the western boundary.



Downtown St. Louis saw many new gleaming towers go up in the 80's, but many of the buildings downtown that are being renovated now were either emptying out or already rotting. What is happening is that there's a balancing act underway - and eventually new office space will become a necessity as old Class B and C space downtown are being wiped off the market because of residential construction taking place in those buildings.



As I said earlier, a precursor to Denver's downtown renaissance was small businesses and government moving in and supporting renovated spaces - according to an article I read. People discount the shifting around of downtown businesses, government growth, and small businesses but it could be a precursor of bigger things to come for downtown St. Louis.

TheWayoftheArch wrote:
No the actual boundaries of the neighborhoods have not changed.



DTSLP is a booster organization, and use a commonly percieved area to determine their numbres. Because to most "outsiders" downtown starts after SLU and encompasses a wide area around the actual CBD, they find it convenient and a better representation of the area as a whole. Bottom line, trying to explain to someone from Colombia IL, or Wildwood the individual #s for DT, DTW, and Carr Square, among others, is an impossibility, especially in the context of downtown boosterism.



The City's Downtown neighborhood is defined by Cole and Carr Streets to the North, and Chouteau Avenue to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by the Mississippi River, and the Western edge by South Tucker Boulevard (formerly 12th Street). #35



The Downtown West neighborhood is defined by Cole street to the North, and Chouteau to the South. The Eastern edge is defined by Tucker Boulevard, and the Western edge by Jefferson Boulevard. #36

Yes, I understand why the boundaries were expanded. Regardless of it being a booster organization, the Downtown St. Louis Partnership, one of the city's main economic development tracking entities, gives the overall boundaries as Cass, Jefferson, Chouteau and the river.



Yes, downtown St. Louis has many neighborhoods within its 2.9 square miles, which also fluctuate, depending on the resource used. Downtown's current core, from the way I understand it, is Jefferson, the river, Cole/Carr, I-64. But the larger downtown boundaries expand to Cass and Chouteau Avenues according to the downtown website. The old National/Schnucks on Cass Avenue was considered the "downtown Schnucks". Was it not? Should it have been called the near northside Schnucks? Is the current Greyhound Station in downtown, near north or north St. Louis?



Either way, back in the 80's, north of Cole - particularly Columbus Square - was not legitimately considered downtown - according to the boundary lines at the time. CS was a border community marketed as downtown. It doesn't matter what someone in Chesterfield thinks either boundaries are boundaries.

And you know what Arch, almost every building on your list was once 100% non-residential space, and much of it not that long ago (ie. change since the 1980's).