I've always felt that BV would prove popular for office space. Now that Centene has made the first jump, I expect lots more to follow. Really, this area seems more appropriate for office space, rather than residential.
- 1,517
Framer wrote:I've always felt that BV would prove popular for office space. Now that Centene has made the first jump, I expect lots more to follow. Really, this area seems more appropriate for office space, rather than residential.
What?
How is this area much different from Cupples Station, which seems to be incorporating "retail" (aka a hotel), restaurants, offices, and residents? Imagine that.
To me, BPV needs a residential component sorely. If Centene were to break off their plans and instead a residential component was upped five times the original plans (and pre-sold), that would be more contributory to the health of downtown in my opinion. But let's not discuss office vs. residential as an either/or situation, and certainly in that scenario, let's not favor offices!
- 923
The project will occupy two blocks in the Cordish Co.’s Ballpark Village development and generate about 1,200 jobs for St. Louis.
Well, not generate so much as relocate. Maybe a few new jobs will be created, but I don't see Centene doing massive hiring just because they're moving to downtown.
But let's not discuss office vs. residential as an either/or situation, and certainly in that scenario, let's not favor offices!
Why not? And in either case, offices (presently) are just as (if not more) desirable downtown than residential. Why you ask? Well.....
Office space (filled of course) equals jobs. Jobs equals money. money equals people. People equals take up of housing (wherever that may be), which is what the City of STL needs more than downtown, IMO. See, a new residential building comes into downtown and offers a lot, but really, how much of that can be had for less in areas not too far away? My friend just bought a 3 bedroom in Tower Grove for $150,000. You're telling me that downtown needs more residential than office? If anything, the city needs more jobs so people coming in will take up a lot of the underused existing residential in the city. More residential downtown doesn't help improve the areas in the north or near west of downtown. Remember what Clinton once said - it's the economy stupid!
- 1,517
If this retail-centric project is to work, it needs a sizeable residential component.
Jobs are needed, but new offices are not so much. The office vacancy downtown is such that jobs could be gained within the present build-up of offices. It's harder to argue the same for residences. And it's even harder to argue that downtown saw much vitality when office development was the big push.
What we got from the office and downtown suburban mall push in the 70s is an ugly skyline, even among American cities, and a depressingly anti-urban, anti-pedestrian street level (and St. Louis Centre/Union Station redevelopment). Even when we had over 100,000 employed in the downtown core, our downtown received regular attention from New York Times writers for its "moribund" state--a favorite catchword of theirs to describe St. Louis.
If there is any hope for the downtown area, it includes both residential and offices, with due respect given to the residential component's unparalleled contribution to downtown activity. It is almost inarguable that Centene would not have even looked at downtown as a relocation site if not for the upswing in residential units and associated renewed life in downtown St. Louis.
If our goal is the economic vitality of downtown, in pure economic terms, the city stands to gain much more in the short term from gaining a worker/non City resident than a new downtown resident who works outside the City. The earnings tax gets captured in the former, without the city services cost. But, of course, the local economy's health is tied to both jobs and the presence of residents. If St. Louis continues losing people, it will likely continue to be a place hostile to the retention of businesses as well.
Jobs are needed, but new offices are not so much. The office vacancy downtown is such that jobs could be gained within the present build-up of offices. It's harder to argue the same for residences. And it's even harder to argue that downtown saw much vitality when office development was the big push.
What we got from the office and downtown suburban mall push in the 70s is an ugly skyline, even among American cities, and a depressingly anti-urban, anti-pedestrian street level (and St. Louis Centre/Union Station redevelopment). Even when we had over 100,000 employed in the downtown core, our downtown received regular attention from New York Times writers for its "moribund" state--a favorite catchword of theirs to describe St. Louis.
If there is any hope for the downtown area, it includes both residential and offices, with due respect given to the residential component's unparalleled contribution to downtown activity. It is almost inarguable that Centene would not have even looked at downtown as a relocation site if not for the upswing in residential units and associated renewed life in downtown St. Louis.
If our goal is the economic vitality of downtown, in pure economic terms, the city stands to gain much more in the short term from gaining a worker/non City resident than a new downtown resident who works outside the City. The earnings tax gets captured in the former, without the city services cost. But, of course, the local economy's health is tied to both jobs and the presence of residents. If St. Louis continues losing people, it will likely continue to be a place hostile to the retention of businesses as well.
For the record, MDTH, I wasn't trying to start an office vs. residential debate. Clearly Downtown needs more of both to succeed. I just feel that the BPV location will prove more popular with office users than we (and Cordish) may have expected.
Most of the Downtown residential development is taking place further North and West of BPV, along with most of the amenities that go with it. A true "neighborhood feel" is developing, which BPV will have to try to create from scratch. And it sounds like office users are already showing a very strong interest in BPV. This, along with the possible overbuilding of the downtown residential market in the near future, could very well push the focus of BPV development towards office use.
Most of the Downtown residential development is taking place further North and West of BPV, along with most of the amenities that go with it. A true "neighborhood feel" is developing, which BPV will have to try to create from scratch. And it sounds like office users are already showing a very strong interest in BPV. This, along with the possible overbuilding of the downtown residential market in the near future, could very well push the focus of BPV development towards office use.
- 2,386
The project will occupy two blocks in the Cordish Co.’s Ballpark Village development and generate about 1,200 jobs for St. Louis.
Well, not generate so much as relocate. Maybe a few new jobs will be created, but I don't see Centene doing massive hiring just because they're moving to downtown.
Well, not generate so much as relocate. Maybe a few new jobs will be created, but I don't see Centene doing massive hiring just because they're moving to downtown.
I'm pretty sure this has been gone over about a million times before allready, but I could swear that almost all of these new positions are going to be new hires, or at least 600 (I think that was the number). An amount of the original employees are remaining in Clayton, and there are going to be plenty of new jobs generated by the expansion. I apologize if I have that wrong, but I'm fairly sure that I have it correct.
Matt Drops the H:
While I agree that for a retail/ restaurant- centric development like the BPV to succeed, a significant residential population is needed, I do not at all think that those residents must be located/ added on the six blocks that make up the BPV.
Remember, with the development of residential in the Cupples district combined with the availability of properties such as those due east and west of the ballpark, there are many nearby areas where residential development driven by the ballpark can occur, without that residential development actually occurring on the blocks bounded by Broadway, Walnut, 8th, and Clark. Given that downtown residential growth has far outstripped office growth, making use of what might be the most attractive office location in the metro to bolster downtown as a major employment center while locating residential growth to other surrounding properties is hardly a mistake.
While I agree that for a retail/ restaurant- centric development like the BPV to succeed, a significant residential population is needed, I do not at all think that those residents must be located/ added on the six blocks that make up the BPV.
Remember, with the development of residential in the Cupples district combined with the availability of properties such as those due east and west of the ballpark, there are many nearby areas where residential development driven by the ballpark can occur, without that residential development actually occurring on the blocks bounded by Broadway, Walnut, 8th, and Clark. Given that downtown residential growth has far outstripped office growth, making use of what might be the most attractive office location in the metro to bolster downtown as a major employment center while locating residential growth to other surrounding properties is hardly a mistake.
- 1,517
Framer wrote:
Most of the Downtown residential development is taking place further North and West of BPV, along with most of the amenities that go with it. A true "neighborhood feel" is developing, which BPV will have to try to create from scratch. And it sounds like office users are already showing a very strong interest in BPV. This, along with the possible overbuilding of the downtown residential market in the near future, could very well push the focus of BPV development towards office use.
I agree that it shouldn't be an either/or debate.
But Wash Ave residential was more or less created from scratch as well. And yes, building on momentum is advisable, but it is so imperative that this southern part of downtown establish a residential component.
The most exciting part of the Ballpark Village was the creation of a neighborhood feel for the stadium and environs--more akin to a fledling Wrigleyville than a parking-garage ridden and lifeless collection of office towers. Can you imagine what Cubs fans must think of St. Louis when they look at the area around Busch? And not just them--what about people who have been to Coors Field in Denver? Even the new Tigers Stadium in Detroit is in a much more attractive area in proximity to a growing number of new residences.
I'm not accusing any forum member of this per se, but it is astounding to see the lack of civic confidence in St. Louis. I know it is bred from our well-documented fall from national prominence, but we cannot make excuses for it anymore. As a citizenry, we need to demand the best out of these major projects that, even as potential failures, will mark our landscape for two decades or more (see St. Louis Centre, 1985-2006).
While I agree that for a retail/ restaurant- centric development like the BPV to succeed, a significant residential population is needed, I do not at all think that those residents must be located/ added on the six blocks that make up the BPV.
Not all, of course. But a lot.
Cupples Station and Pointe 400 will not provide sufficient density for "Downtown South"/Greater BPV to succeed as a neighborhood. This is a rare chance to establish high residential densities and to turn people on to downtown living outside of lofts/loft-style apartments en masse. As I've said in earlier posts, BPV should NOT be these "six" blocks alone (wha--six blocks--more like one and a half downtown blocks), but should encompass surrounding blocks ripe for redevelopment. Busch parking garages should come down and be replaced with underground.
Only at that point might there be a connection and symbiosis between Chouteau's Landing and BPV.
- 8,912
I just wish they would get rid of the name Ballpark VILLAGE. Don't you need people living there to call it a village?
[/i]
[/i]
- 11K
^ and even then . . . "village"? really? With any luck it will blend into the surrounding city enough that it won't appear to stand alone.
migueltejada wrote:Well, not generate so much as relocate. Maybe a few new jobs will be created, but I don't see Centene doing massive hiring just because they're moving to downtown.The project will occupy two blocks in the Cordish Co.’s Ballpark Village development and generate about 1,200 jobs for St. Louis.
Wha? I suppose that in your world, your two quotes above do not contradict each other at all. Unless, of course, you believe that all of the other office space you want built in BPV will somehow beget greater results than the Centene project you have so casually dismissed???migueltejada wrote:...Office space (filled of course) equals jobs. Jobs equals money. money equals people. People equals take up of housing (wherever that may be), which is what the City of STL needs more than downtown, IMO. See, a new residential building comes into downtown and offers a lot, but really, how much of that can be had for less in areas not too far away? My friend just bought a 3 bedroom in Tower Grove for $150,000. You're telling me that downtown needs more residential than office? If anything, the city needs more jobs so people coming in will take up a lot of the underused existing residential in the city. More residential downtown doesn't help improve the areas in the north or near west of downtown. Remember what Clinton once said - it's the economy stupid!
If BPV is to be anything other than another entertainment district, à la Laclede's Landing, that is a ghost town when there is no game or other downtown event, it MUST have a significant residential population. The few hundred people at Pointe 400 and Cupples Station are not going to be enough. Why, why, why are people so insistent that BPV is the best place for office development when there are plenty of empty lots just as suitable for office space nearby? Proximity to Busch Stadium may be a big plus for some office tenants - if it is, I would think developers would be fighting tooth-and-nail over the empty lot just east of Busch - but I really don't see how a view into the stadium from the corner office is such a big selling point. A view into Busch from your living room and balcony would seem to be rather desirable, however, particularly when it is coupled with all of the services and amenities of BPV right outside your front door - the services and amenities that most potential residents of BPV probably feel downtown is currently lacking.
You absolutely must understand that the potential buyers and renters of BPV residential units are an alltogether different demographic than the Washington Avenue crowd. If developed correctly, BPV could attract many of the empty nester set that would never have considered living downtown otherwise, you know, the set that is filling all of those new residential high-rises popping up in Clayton? BPV may be (or, unfortunately, may have been) downtown's only chance in the near future to develop a high-density, high-rise, pedestrian-oriented residential neighborhood, complete with the grocers, dry-cleaners, book stores, coffee shops, specialty clothiers, and restaurants that wealthy urban high-rise dwellers expect.
This was always my vision for BPV, and I am shocked that so few seem to share it, or are so pessimistic that they feel it cannot happen. Instead, it seems many of you want (and it looks like you will get) a Ballpark "Village" development tantamount to a shotgun wedding between Westport Plaza and a dressed-up Laclede's Landing.
- 1,517
^ My sentiments exactly. And an excellent description by the way, combing Westport and Laclede's Landing. 
I agree with the folks say that a strong residential component near Ballpark Village would help its success and add to the atmosphere. It's probably the case that the market for office space in this area is a bit hotter than residential right now. There is obviously demand for residential, but there's a lot of units coming online in the area. And yeah, people will say that this is Busch and people will be glad to pay a premium. We'll see, but build too much in the near term and it might weaken the market a bit.
It'd be nice if that in addition to office space and some initial residential, to allow room for further increases in residential when the market can fully support it.
It'd be nice if that in addition to office space and some initial residential, to allow room for further increases in residential when the market can fully support it.
Wha? I suppose that in your world, your two quotes above do not contradict each other at all. Unless, of course, you believe that all of the other office space you want built in BPV will somehow beget greater results than the Centene project you have so casually dismissed???
Because they don't. Miguel was talking about two separate things. The first was his perceived regional (or Metro-wide) impact of the Centene move. The second was his perceived impact of the move for downtown and the City proper. Two different things. Even if correct about Centene adding no new jobs to the region (btw, I think he is wrong), the different location of the jobs in downtown vs. Clayton will make City living and downtown living more attractive.
Why, why, why are people so insistent that BPV is the best place for office development when there are plenty of empty lots just as suitable for office space nearby?
Sure, the nearby lots with ballpark views could be used for office development. However these lots have been available for development with ballpark views for the decade or more the new ballpark idea has been floated and there has been only one development proposal for any (that being the Byran Cave office tower east of the ballpark). Additionally, downtown has been making significant progress in residential and retail development since 1999-2000. Office development, while making a few gains, has been the laggard (some new businesses added but lots of retention). Now, with the BPV on the verge of starting (we hope) it appears major firms are interested in locating downtown. If downtown has trouble attracting firms and then with the BPV firms are suddenly interested in downtown, it seems a bit foolish to throw away the opportunity address the lack of office development in the downtown renaissance for residential development that can be located nearby.
Cupples Station and Pointe 400 will not provide sufficient density for "Downtown South"/Greater BPV to succeed as a neighborhood. This is a rare chance to establish high residential densities and to turn people on to downtown living outside of lofts/loft-style apartments en masse. As I've said in earlier posts, BPV should NOT be these "six" blocks alone (wha--six blocks--more like one and a half downtown blocks), but should encompass surrounding blocks ripe for redevelopment. Busch parking garages should come down and be replaced with underground.
Matt, take a look at this map showing downtown development opportunities around the ballpark village.
Map
Those sites in dark blue are Surface Lot/ Vacant Lot Conversions with ballpark views. Those sites in turquoise are Parking Garage/ Parkland Conversion with ballpark views (i.e. longer term planning required and less likely to ever occur). In red is the Ballpark Village. In green are Parking Garage/ Parkland Conversion without ballpark views. In orange are Surface Lot/ Vacant Lot Conversions without ballpark views. (Yes I know that if you build tall enough, some sites further away would in fact have ballpark views.)
From the map, it is clear that there are many development opportunities around the ballpark that are not part of the ballpark village. Development of some (including the lots east and west of the stadium) would go a long way to meeting the residential development you envision around the stadium without undercutting the residential population needed to support the BPV. Such development would more than free up the opportunity to develop office space in the BPV proper. Also note that all of the development opportunities would require new construction, thereby providing the non-loft residential you seek.
- 1,517
Thanks for the visualization.
I would be satisfied if Cordish announced plans to acquire adjacent lots and develop more residential in subsequent phases corresponding with market demand. Unfortunately, the current discussion centers on compressing this development within a couple tiny blocks (to me, one downtown block).
As such, I would hate to see residential take a back seat to office towers. If you can establish a residential neighborhood somewhere, especially one of respected character and lively mixed uses, it may last for centuries, speaking optimistically. These office buildings are often victims of corporate musical chairs. They're built ugly and bulky (at least in St. Louis) and degenerate into leper status when they're consider Class B Office Space. In such a high profile space, it would be nice to see a long term, sustainable investment that will truly make downtown a more active and lively place.
I think we have to decide whether we want to focus our attention on downtown or not. In truth, it would be a lot easier to shift resources to surrounding neighborhoods and invite development there. Most neighborhoods do not have huge stadiums, seas of parking lots and garages, and ugly, dead office towers to contend with. If we want our downtown to remain a "moribund" business district and a questionable entertainment district, then I say go ahead and sacrifice the residential.
If there's any hope for downtown becoming a neighborhood, then we can't afford that. But your point is well taken. There are other opportunities for residential other than BPV in the immediate vicinity. Ideally, there would be both residential and offices on the current BPV site and likewise a mix on all of the sites you have highlighted.
I really hope that Centene is able to design a building that is able to transcend the precedent for underwhelming and even downright ugly construction that has plagued our downtown for forty years now. And I hope Cordish doesn't drop the residential.
I would be satisfied if Cordish announced plans to acquire adjacent lots and develop more residential in subsequent phases corresponding with market demand. Unfortunately, the current discussion centers on compressing this development within a couple tiny blocks (to me, one downtown block).
As such, I would hate to see residential take a back seat to office towers. If you can establish a residential neighborhood somewhere, especially one of respected character and lively mixed uses, it may last for centuries, speaking optimistically. These office buildings are often victims of corporate musical chairs. They're built ugly and bulky (at least in St. Louis) and degenerate into leper status when they're consider Class B Office Space. In such a high profile space, it would be nice to see a long term, sustainable investment that will truly make downtown a more active and lively place.
I think we have to decide whether we want to focus our attention on downtown or not. In truth, it would be a lot easier to shift resources to surrounding neighborhoods and invite development there. Most neighborhoods do not have huge stadiums, seas of parking lots and garages, and ugly, dead office towers to contend with. If we want our downtown to remain a "moribund" business district and a questionable entertainment district, then I say go ahead and sacrifice the residential.
If there's any hope for downtown becoming a neighborhood, then we can't afford that. But your point is well taken. There are other opportunities for residential other than BPV in the immediate vicinity. Ideally, there would be both residential and offices on the current BPV site and likewise a mix on all of the sites you have highlighted.
I really hope that Centene is able to design a building that is able to transcend the precedent for underwhelming and even downright ugly construction that has plagued our downtown for forty years now. And I hope Cordish doesn't drop the residential.
^^Um, so, theoretically, all other things being equal, if the city would have offered Centene the same incentive package to build on the lot east of Busch, you don't think they would have - thus leaving Cordish and the Cardinals, ahem, "free" to develop their original BPV proposal?
^ Yes, I do. Rightly or wrongly, I think many local businesses see a cachet associated with the BPV proper that does not yet exist for the surrounding properties. On a related note, I seem to remember a Bizjournal article on the sale of that eastern lot a few months ago.
When it comes right down to it Matt, I agree that the best outcome would be a mix on all sites. That said, even if the BPV ended up being all offices except for the contractually required 250 condos, there are enough surrounding opportunities for residential development, that such an outcome would not be a guaranteed death knell (only if there was no supportive residential development on surrounding properties). We both agree that residential must occur in some way in the areas around the BPV.
When it comes right down to it Matt, I agree that the best outcome would be a mix on all sites. That said, even if the BPV ended up being all offices except for the contractually required 250 condos, there are enough surrounding opportunities for residential development, that such an outcome would not be a guaranteed death knell (only if there was no supportive residential development on surrounding properties). We both agree that residential must occur in some way in the areas around the BPV.
I think you remember incorrectly. What you may remember is a BJ article in January announcing that three downtown parking facilities, including 500 S. Broadway, were for sale, with one or more of them under contract. As far as I can tell, it is still for sale. In any case, I am sure the lady in Albany that owns the lot would have been happy to talk with Centene if the city of St. Louis, the Cardinals, and Cordish weren't so nervous about Ballpark Village.JMedwick wrote:On a related note, I seem to remember a Bizjournal article on the sale of that eastern lot a few months ago.
Surrounding Busch Stadium with residential and having mostly office and retail in BPV will not, and can not, create a high-density pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Except on game days, Busch Stadium and the garages suck the life out of all of the surrounding areas, and the stadium always will unless, at some future point, the Cardinals decide to put the money into the stadium that they should have. Only by using the contiguous blocks that the Cardinals and Cordish now have at their disposal can such a neighborhood be created in this area of downtown. A thriving, high-density, residential and retail neighborhood has a far greater chance of growing organically, encompassing surrounding blocks, and spurring additional development, even office development, than a sterile office and retail setting.JMedwick wrote:When it comes right down to it Matt, I agree that the best outcome would be a mix on all sites. That said, even if the BPV ended up being all offices except for the contractually required 250 condos, there are enough surrounding opportunities for residential development, that such an outcome would not be a guaranteed death knell (only if there was no supportive residential development on surrounding properties). We both agree that residential must occur in some way in the areas around the BPV.
This desperation to get someone to develop office space downtown at all costs sounds like it came straight out of the Vince Schoemehl School of Urban Planning.
^ You have a very narrow view of how a dense pedestrian oriented district can be created. Apparently office workers cannot be pedestrians, residents cannot manage to walk more than 1 or 2 blocks to access retail, and the east and west stadium garages could never be redeveloped for residential development (in which case I think we both would agree that the long term health of the BPV is in question because residential or no residential, the BPV will long remain cutoff from surrounding areas).
Only eh? You couldn't create such a neighborhood (high-density and pedestrian-oriented) along Spruce street, developing tall towers along with rehabilitation of the 5 to 7 story warehouses? You could conceivably develop 3 towers along Spruce west of 8th along with 3 or 4 more within one block north or south. Sounds like a lot of potential density to me. Such a neighborhood couldn't create the destiny on the southside of downtown support the BPV? And we are not even talking about the ability to link the BPV development physically with a Spruce Street corridor through developments along 8th street, including the West garage. Such thinking grossly underestimates the residential development potential of areas surrounding the BPV.
On a side note, think about what sort of neighborhood we could/ would be talking about had the stadium location never moved, thereby leaving the block between Spruce and 40 open for development. Seems like many of the connectivity concerns that drive the discussions above would go away as the neighborhood would link well from 4th out to 11th along Spruce.
Only by using the contiguous blocks that the Cardinals and Cordish now have at their disposal can such a neighborhood be created in this area of downtown.
Only eh? You couldn't create such a neighborhood (high-density and pedestrian-oriented) along Spruce street, developing tall towers along with rehabilitation of the 5 to 7 story warehouses? You could conceivably develop 3 towers along Spruce west of 8th along with 3 or 4 more within one block north or south. Sounds like a lot of potential density to me. Such a neighborhood couldn't create the destiny on the southside of downtown support the BPV? And we are not even talking about the ability to link the BPV development physically with a Spruce Street corridor through developments along 8th street, including the West garage. Such thinking grossly underestimates the residential development potential of areas surrounding the BPV.
On a side note, think about what sort of neighborhood we could/ would be talking about had the stadium location never moved, thereby leaving the block between Spruce and 40 open for development. Seems like many of the connectivity concerns that drive the discussions above would go away as the neighborhood would link well from 4th out to 11th along Spruce.
- 923
Yes, I was talking about two separate things.
Now, everyone thinks that living right on top of the stadium is really really desirable. Ok, so people are in love with wrigley, the fens area, etc - notice how they aren't surrounded by massive towers, but by low rises? Additionally, these neighborhoods are DEEP. They go back and away from the stadium a fair ways, meaning noise, traffic, and general nuisances from drunk, obnoxious fans (usually cubs, yankees or red sox, but sometimes cardinal fans from the 618 or 636 area code
) are far less.
Now, lets say there's that singular residential, right at the base of the stadium - you're right on top of the maddness. The bars, restaurants, games - they're all fantastically sexy for a touirst or local visitor to the area - but you're telling me you'd want to live there? That's half the problem with the Landing and Wesport, you so lovingly trashed. Find me anyone that wants to live over that type of stuff? That's why Washington Ave started losing its club scene. People wanting to live near the action is totally different from living ON TOP OF IT. Sorry, but I wouldn't want to feel like a prisoner in my own home 81 days of the year.
And again, we're banking on people actually buying this residential. Jmed and I had the discussion (and fear) of these residences not being owned by any actual people, but by corporations using them to entertain clients. With only 250 (if that) units, if 50 of them are purchased by local firms (AB, Centene, Boeing, Monsanto, etc.) - then what, exactly has the city gained in the development of a neighborhood?
And of course, we've really missed the big picture, in that there is ZERO linking this theoretical BPV village to other "neighborhoods" in downtown or elsewhere St. Louis. There's nothing of interest along Broadway - zip zero zilch to keep a pedestrian to wander up it towards the landing or wash ave - same goes for 8th & 10th. There's a little along 6th & 7th, but that ends at Olive. There's hardly any street level retail presence to maintain visual interest (and safety!) between these areas. That has to come before the residential, or all you'll get is ANOTHER isolated district.
Now, everyone thinks that living right on top of the stadium is really really desirable. Ok, so people are in love with wrigley, the fens area, etc - notice how they aren't surrounded by massive towers, but by low rises? Additionally, these neighborhoods are DEEP. They go back and away from the stadium a fair ways, meaning noise, traffic, and general nuisances from drunk, obnoxious fans (usually cubs, yankees or red sox, but sometimes cardinal fans from the 618 or 636 area code
) are far less. Now, lets say there's that singular residential, right at the base of the stadium - you're right on top of the maddness. The bars, restaurants, games - they're all fantastically sexy for a touirst or local visitor to the area - but you're telling me you'd want to live there? That's half the problem with the Landing and Wesport, you so lovingly trashed. Find me anyone that wants to live over that type of stuff? That's why Washington Ave started losing its club scene. People wanting to live near the action is totally different from living ON TOP OF IT. Sorry, but I wouldn't want to feel like a prisoner in my own home 81 days of the year.
And again, we're banking on people actually buying this residential. Jmed and I had the discussion (and fear) of these residences not being owned by any actual people, but by corporations using them to entertain clients. With only 250 (if that) units, if 50 of them are purchased by local firms (AB, Centene, Boeing, Monsanto, etc.) - then what, exactly has the city gained in the development of a neighborhood?
And of course, we've really missed the big picture, in that there is ZERO linking this theoretical BPV village to other "neighborhoods" in downtown or elsewhere St. Louis. There's nothing of interest along Broadway - zip zero zilch to keep a pedestrian to wander up it towards the landing or wash ave - same goes for 8th & 10th. There's a little along 6th & 7th, but that ends at Olive. There's hardly any street level retail presence to maintain visual interest (and safety!) between these areas. That has to come before the residential, or all you'll get is ANOTHER isolated district.
- 214
migueltejada wrote:And again, we're banking on people actually buying this residential. Jmed and I had the discussion (and fear) of these residences not being owned by any actual people, but by corporations using them to entertain clients. With only 250 (if that) units, if 50 of them are purchased by local firms (AB, Centene, Boeing, Monsanto, etc.) - then what, exactly has the city gained in the development of a neighborhood?
Coming in late to this, I must say that I share Migueltejada's concerns about who exactly wants to buy these "residential" units - especially in BPV, but also in some of the other planned high-rises downtown. Take away corporate purchases, "investments" by speculators, and second or third homes for wealthy individuals who only periodically visit St. Louis but want a pied-à-terre here, and I suspect that there is actually relatively little demand for such properties as primary residences, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the stadium.
Whenever % sales figures for a new downtown development are released, it's invariably hailed as proof that people are again ready to live downtown in significant numbers, but sales do not necessarily translate into full-time occupancy; if most units are kept vacant most of the time, as seems likely to be the case with BPV, even fully sold-out buildings will contribute little to increasing population density or energizing sustainable commercial development in the surrounding neighborhood.
Someone mentioned the empty nesters filling the high-rises of Clayton. I pass several such high-rises each evening and see relatively few lighted units(and it's always the same ones, regardless of the time). Undoubtedly, many (most?) of the dark units are owned by people whose primary residence is located elsewhere or who spend most of their time away on business; the dwindling retail options in downtown Clayton indicate that merely having expensive condo towers in close proximity is not in itself sufficient to sustain a thriving commercial district. (I suspect the same will prove to be the case for many of the "upscale" retailers lured to the CWE in the wake of recent projects there, but that's a subject for another thread.)
^It's funny how people in St. Louis just can't seem to fathom that people might actually want to have their primary residence be in a large building in the city. It's like these people have never been to cities with large successful residential populations downtown. They think that only corporations, speculators, people who'll use them as second residences, etc. will ever be interested in buying residential downtown. The fact that this living option thrives in cities all over the country seems to be lost on St. Louisans.
This project needs residential. The only thing that will keep an area continuously busy is when many people live there. The BV would never be empty because the people would never GO home, they would BE home. I'll admit that I don't know what the market studies say about the demand for downtown residential, but I can't imagine that with Skyhouse and Roberts' towers going up that it is in terrible shape. Even if it were less than stellar, the one project that could draw St. Louisans downtown would be the chance to live within spitting distance of the stadium. One thing is for sure, if you don't build it, they won't come.
This project needs residential. The only thing that will keep an area continuously busy is when many people live there. The BV would never be empty because the people would never GO home, they would BE home. I'll admit that I don't know what the market studies say about the demand for downtown residential, but I can't imagine that with Skyhouse and Roberts' towers going up that it is in terrible shape. Even if it were less than stellar, the one project that could draw St. Louisans downtown would be the chance to live within spitting distance of the stadium. One thing is for sure, if you don't build it, they won't come.
- 11K
the dwindling retail options in downtown Clayton indicate that merely having expensive condo towers in close proximity is not in itself sufficient to sustain a thriving commercial district
Retail has fallen off in Clayton over the past 12 years, but there weren't many high-rise living options 12 years ago. With Maryland walk and Trianon currently being marketing retail is increasing - at Maryland and Central and the larger development at Trianon along Forsyth.
- 8,912
Grover wrote:the dwindling retail options in downtown Clayton indicate that merely having expensive condo towers in close proximity is not in itself sufficient to sustain a thriving commercial district
Retail has fallen off in Clayton over the past 12 years, but there weren't many high-rise living options 12 years ago. With Maryland walk and Trianon currently being marketing retail is increasing - at Maryland and Central and the larger development at Trianon along Forsyth.
the retail options might be more limited than years prior (thanks Galleria) but there sure aren't many vacant storefronts.