The Biz Journal will receive a letter from me.
- 2,005
I don't like the site plan at all, the least they could do is follow Target's example and bring the big box closer to the road and put some parking underneath. As for phase 2, I'm totally against that, eminent domain should be used for public good, not for lining some suburban developers pocket.
- 1,026
read the article ... it says that they plan to tear down all the buildings on the west side of tucker for "phase II."
This is an utter disaster. To call this plan "urban" must be some sort of inside joke .... how exactly is this design "urban?" Its the very definition of suburban. You'd think they could at least put the retail along the street and the parking in the back ... I mean good god. Are these people that dumb or do they assume we are?
but - as bad as it is - its a blessing compared to the plans to tear down the homes along Tucker. Those buildings are irreplaceable. Why on earth would you tear those buildings down only to build "condos" in their place. Why not USE THOSE buildings for your condos. They look 400 times better than ANYTHING you will propose to build nowadays .....
This whole thing has got to stop ... how in god's name did they sneak this by everyone? can't we rally or something ... isn;t somebody doing SOMETHING
This is an utter disaster. To call this plan "urban" must be some sort of inside joke .... how exactly is this design "urban?" Its the very definition of suburban. You'd think they could at least put the retail along the street and the parking in the back ... I mean good god. Are these people that dumb or do they assume we are?
but - as bad as it is - its a blessing compared to the plans to tear down the homes along Tucker. Those buildings are irreplaceable. Why on earth would you tear those buildings down only to build "condos" in their place. Why not USE THOSE buildings for your condos. They look 400 times better than ANYTHING you will propose to build nowadays .....
This whole thing has got to stop ... how in god's name did they sneak this by everyone? can't we rally or something ... isn;t somebody doing SOMETHING
seriously - I want to know who to contact about this. Is anyone leading an opposition? Are the Lafayette SQ residents on board (I'm stunned that there's not a petition drive afoot already) ..... who do I talk to?
The most painful thing about this atrocity is that it COULD be done properly and it would be wonderful. Restore the street grid - fill in the vacant street scape - open the retail to the street - hide the parking - and work everything around the buildings already there! It really is a fantastic site with tremendous opportunity -- this is just a nightmare
The most painful thing about this atrocity is that it COULD be done properly and it would be wonderful. Restore the street grid - fill in the vacant street scape - open the retail to the street - hide the parking - and work everything around the buildings already there! It really is a fantastic site with tremendous opportunity -- this is just a nightmare
My gosh...
Well where to start. I know where
This is not acceptable and must be changed. If we are really going to "transform" this section of Lafayette, lets do something dramatic, like I don't know...
Consolidating and reworking the myriad of highway ramps that carve up the site? If we could just get that crap done, then the taking of homes would not be nessisary.
Followed by a design that actualy fronts the street? (here is will give Wallgreens credit, their building appears to be right on the street. Good for them)
Beyond that, I am kinda for some taking of homes. On blocks where less than 40 or 50 percent of the block is occupied, then using ED to consolidate properties so the whole block can be developed is a positive. Yet, from all I have seen and heard, it does not sound like the blocks along Tucker meet this description.
All in all pretty disapointing.
Well where to start. I know where
This is not acceptable and must be changed. If we are really going to "transform" this section of Lafayette, lets do something dramatic, like I don't know...
Consolidating and reworking the myriad of highway ramps that carve up the site? If we could just get that crap done, then the taking of homes would not be nessisary.
Followed by a design that actualy fronts the street? (here is will give Wallgreens credit, their building appears to be right on the street. Good for them)
Beyond that, I am kinda for some taking of homes. On blocks where less than 40 or 50 percent of the block is occupied, then using ED to consolidate properties so the whole block can be developed is a positive. Yet, from all I have seen and heard, it does not sound like the blocks along Tucker meet this description.
All in all pretty disapointing.
- 10K
markofucity wrote:seriously - I want to know who to contact about this. Is anyone leading an opposition? Are the Lafayette SQ residents on board (I'm stunned that there's not a petition drive afoot already) ..... who do I talk to?
The most painful thing about this atrocity is that it COULD be done properly and it would be wonderful. Restore the street grid - fill in the vacant street scape - open the retail to the street - hide the parking - and work everything around the buildings already there! It really is a fantastic site with tremendous opportunity -- this is just a nightmare
I guess Phyllis Young, your alderwoman, would be a good person to start with.
This plan is a joke. Something tells me that the beautiful homes along Tucker will be demolished, but "Phase II" will never happen.
Why not push the envelope, get creative and come up with a plan for a true urban development that St. Louis has never seen before?
- 835
^Because that would require seeing outside the box, which so many developers in St. Louis are unable to do, unfortunately.
- 1,026
I just wrote Phylis - not the best letter - but hey - I'm busy at work
Dear Ms. Young:
I write regarding the planned Bohemian Hill development that has only recently come to light in the St. Louis Business Journal. I can’t even begin to express how adamantly opposed I am to this development and, frankly, I don’t even know where to start. So I suppose I’ll begin with “phase I.”
I agree that the land across from the Georgian is well suited for a grocery store and pharmacy – but precisely what about this proposed development is “urban?” The rendering displayed in the business journal is the very definition of suburban. An enormous sea of parking fronts the street with big box stores in the back. An “urban” design would have street front retail and hide the parking (to encourage walking and street life). To call this design urban is an absolute joke. Its identical to the thousands of strip malls that litter our suburbs. Nobody buys property in Soulard or Lafayette Square wishing that the whole place looked like Manchester Road.
As bad as phase one is, its Phase II that has me really concerned. Do I understand correctly that you intend to demolish the gorgeous, century old buildings on the west side of Tucker for some reason? According to the Business Journal story, they plan to demolish these buildings and then replace them with “condos and retail.” Why on earth would you destroy those irreplaceable buildings simply to build “new condos” when they could just as easily be rehabbed (and some of them have been).
Your ward’s architecture and density are what makes it attractive. We should be resurrecting that area – not leveling it to create a strip mall. Last year our partnership bought my current building (2300 south 9th) because we believed in the area’s renaissance (I live in the bottom condo). We’ve been debating buying and rehabbing another – but we certainly wont if you plan on turning Soulard in Manchester.
Like I said – no one moves into Soulard hoping to live next to a strip mall. Moreover I’m not alone in my opposition. I’m very involved in the rehabbing community (you know – the people who are actually investing in your area and bringing it back to life) and everyone is up in arms over this. I would expect serious opposition and I certainly hope that you change your mind.
Very Concerned,
Mark Leinauer
Dear Ms. Young:
I write regarding the planned Bohemian Hill development that has only recently come to light in the St. Louis Business Journal. I can’t even begin to express how adamantly opposed I am to this development and, frankly, I don’t even know where to start. So I suppose I’ll begin with “phase I.”
I agree that the land across from the Georgian is well suited for a grocery store and pharmacy – but precisely what about this proposed development is “urban?” The rendering displayed in the business journal is the very definition of suburban. An enormous sea of parking fronts the street with big box stores in the back. An “urban” design would have street front retail and hide the parking (to encourage walking and street life). To call this design urban is an absolute joke. Its identical to the thousands of strip malls that litter our suburbs. Nobody buys property in Soulard or Lafayette Square wishing that the whole place looked like Manchester Road.
As bad as phase one is, its Phase II that has me really concerned. Do I understand correctly that you intend to demolish the gorgeous, century old buildings on the west side of Tucker for some reason? According to the Business Journal story, they plan to demolish these buildings and then replace them with “condos and retail.” Why on earth would you destroy those irreplaceable buildings simply to build “new condos” when they could just as easily be rehabbed (and some of them have been).
Your ward’s architecture and density are what makes it attractive. We should be resurrecting that area – not leveling it to create a strip mall. Last year our partnership bought my current building (2300 south 9th) because we believed in the area’s renaissance (I live in the bottom condo). We’ve been debating buying and rehabbing another – but we certainly wont if you plan on turning Soulard in Manchester.
Like I said – no one moves into Soulard hoping to live next to a strip mall. Moreover I’m not alone in my opposition. I’m very involved in the rehabbing community (you know – the people who are actually investing in your area and bringing it back to life) and everyone is up in arms over this. I would expect serious opposition and I certainly hope that you change your mind.
Very Concerned,
Mark Leinauer
Maybe we can bombard the developer with letters. I think some one said they're from Minneapolis. If so, they may not realize how much money they can recieve in tax credits from Missouri for renovating buildings. Given this, it's hard to believe that new construction can be more profitable than renovation. So long as it sounds profitable, maybe they'll listen and there could be some impact on Phase II.
Also, I guess harass them about how easy it is to do a better job with phase I, though I can't think of any reason the developer really care.
Also, I guess harass them about how easy it is to do a better job with phase I, though I can't think of any reason the developer really care.
There are so many things simply wrong with this idea that one hardly knows where to begin. Obviously, the planning started to unravel at the first meeting with their architect. The sea of parking is particularly striking and attractive to urban dwellers who pay upwards of $500K for a home.
Masonry exterior. What other type of exterior would there be?
The thinking is about as deep as a rain puddle. This is a strip mall, plain and simple. We have struggling strips malls all over the region and nation. Why not try to figure out why they don't work and innovate on the idea?
The name/theme (Georgian Square) has got to GO! The historic district isn't Georgian! There isn't anything about the Frenchtown area that is Georgian. It's 19th Century FRENCH. The neighborhood has a Bohemian heritage. Why not name it something related to history and heritage?
Duh.
This bird isn't gunna fly.
Masonry exterior. What other type of exterior would there be?
The thinking is about as deep as a rain puddle. This is a strip mall, plain and simple. We have struggling strips malls all over the region and nation. Why not try to figure out why they don't work and innovate on the idea?
The name/theme (Georgian Square) has got to GO! The historic district isn't Georgian! There isn't anything about the Frenchtown area that is Georgian. It's 19th Century FRENCH. The neighborhood has a Bohemian heritage. Why not name it something related to history and heritage?
Duh.
This bird isn't gunna fly.
- 10K
BT wrote:Maybe we can bombard the developer with letters. I think some one said they're from Minneapolis. If so, they may not realize how much money they can recieve in tax credits from Missouri for renovating buildings. Given this, it's hard to believe that new construction can be more profitable than renovation. So long as it sounds profitable, maybe they'll listen and there could be some impact on Phase II.
Also, I guess harass them about how easy it is to do a better job with phase I, though I can't think of any reason the developer really care.
The grocery store operator is based in Minneapolis; the developers are St. Louisans.
It pleases me no end to see that people are concerned and aware of this issue and taking action. Kudos!
I will add that we need be proactive as well as reactive -- push for what we'd like to see, not just rage against what we don't want. Point out the models of good infill and development that already exist in the area.
For example, the storefronts near the northeast corner of Lafayette Square Park -- put something of that scale and form at Tucker and 13th, and a modest Walgreens with some curbside parking could easily fit in. Or, to go in a different direction, refer back to the old scheme from 2001 that was going to put in more of those delightful modern infill houses. Let's not just be seen as obstructionist, but as positive voices advocating for what *should* be on this site.
I will add that we need be proactive as well as reactive -- push for what we'd like to see, not just rage against what we don't want. Point out the models of good infill and development that already exist in the area.
For example, the storefronts near the northeast corner of Lafayette Square Park -- put something of that scale and form at Tucker and 13th, and a modest Walgreens with some curbside parking could easily fit in. Or, to go in a different direction, refer back to the old scheme from 2001 that was going to put in more of those delightful modern infill houses. Let's not just be seen as obstructionist, but as positive voices advocating for what *should* be on this site.
- 6,775
DeBaliviere wrote:BT wrote:Maybe we can bombard the developer with letters. I think some one said they're from Minneapolis. If so, they may not realize how much money they can recieve in tax credits from Missouri for renovating buildings. Given this, it's hard to believe that new construction can be more profitable than renovation. So long as it sounds profitable, maybe they'll listen and there could be some impact on Phase II.
Also, I guess harass them about how easy it is to do a better job with phase I, though I can't think of any reason the developer really care.
The grocery store operator is based in Minneapolis; the developers are St. Louisans.
And even if the developers were from Minneapolis, trust me, they would know all about any available tax credits.
As near as I can tell, this area is technically the Peabody, Darste, Webbe neighborhood. It probably isn't part of the national historic district or have historic building codes. It is an urban revitalization area and may not be an historic district. This would explain how the houses were torn down without public notice or petition.
- 1,026
You know ... I could live with the store design .. i'd much rather have a different design but I could live with it. What I cannot stomach is tearing down the homes along tucker and tucked back into that "wedge"
- 835
Here's what I wrote to her:
Ms. Young, after reviewing the plans for what is to replace the historic Bohemian Hill neighborhood, I can honestly say that the proposal is far more horrific than I ever would have expected. When we spoke on the phone, you told me that it wasn't going to be a suburban-style development, but obviously that wasn't true. You could put this mediocre, unattractive stripmall in O'Fallon and it would fit right in.
Do you truly feel that this is the best use of that land? Because I (and MANY others) see feel the opposite. I feel that it is insulting and appalling that a prime section of URBAN land is being transformed into a parking-infested strip center that are a dime a dozen in the suburbs. What's even more offensive is that good people who have worked hard to rehab their homes in Bohemian Hill are going to be displaced for this horrid development.
If you care as much about the city as you say you do, you would recognize this for what it is. The city's density and urbanity are what make it a special place. Why not demand the very best URBAN, pedestrian-oriented development rather than settle for this eyesore? It's okay to think outside the box once in a while. Meanwhile, we are left to wonder why St. Louis languishes as other cities thrive...
Sincerely,
Randy Vines
Ms. Young, after reviewing the plans for what is to replace the historic Bohemian Hill neighborhood, I can honestly say that the proposal is far more horrific than I ever would have expected. When we spoke on the phone, you told me that it wasn't going to be a suburban-style development, but obviously that wasn't true. You could put this mediocre, unattractive stripmall in O'Fallon and it would fit right in.
Do you truly feel that this is the best use of that land? Because I (and MANY others) see feel the opposite. I feel that it is insulting and appalling that a prime section of URBAN land is being transformed into a parking-infested strip center that are a dime a dozen in the suburbs. What's even more offensive is that good people who have worked hard to rehab their homes in Bohemian Hill are going to be displaced for this horrid development.
If you care as much about the city as you say you do, you would recognize this for what it is. The city's density and urbanity are what make it a special place. Why not demand the very best URBAN, pedestrian-oriented development rather than settle for this eyesore? It's okay to think outside the box once in a while. Meanwhile, we are left to wonder why St. Louis languishes as other cities thrive...
Sincerely,
Randy Vines
- 8,912
repowers wrote:It pleases me no end to see that people are concerned and aware of this issue and taking action. Kudos!
I will add that we need be proactive as well as reactive -- push for what we'd like to see, not just rage against what we don't want. Point out the models of good infill and development that already exist in the area.
For example, the storefronts near the northeast corner of Lafayette Square Park -- put something of that scale and form at Tucker and 13th, and a modest Walgreens with some curbside parking could easily fit in. Or, to go in a different direction, refer back to the old scheme from 2001 that was going to put in more of those delightful modern infill houses. Let's not just be seen as obstructionist, but as positive voices advocating for what *should* be on this site.
Love the energy of the two pages of this thread! Why is urban design so hard to grasp? Do walgreens and supervalu demand this type of design or is this all up to the developers/architects? I would have expected better from the Lawrence Group wouldn't you?
^ I quoted powers because I think what he said was worth repeating. I think we should present some "similar developments" on this thread that would show what everyone would invision as a model urban development. Any takers?
Hey, so I emailed Phyllis earlier today and got this reply. Wonder if anything will actually change...
Brian,
Thanks for your comments. I'll be arranging a meeting with the Planning
Dept and the Developers to review the plans and hopefully, we can amend
the plans. They have been working with the Lawrence Grouo and Rosemann,
I believe. Phyllis
Phyllis Young
7th Ward Alderwoman
314-622-3766
<bmckinne> 02/09/07 4:25 PM >>>
From St. Louis CIN Web Pages
To: Phyllis Young
From: Brian McKinney
Ms. Young, writing in response to the proposed developement for
the Bohemian Hill neighborhood. While I believe that the addition of a
grociery store and a Walgreens would be great additions to this part of
the city, I cannot help but be disappointed in the suburban nature of
the project, especially given how easy it is to do better. Among the
most significant reasons to live in the city is the urban nature of it.
This nature is defined by its density, its history, and to a great
extent, it's walkability. Responsible design should promote these
attributes. My greatest qualm is with the placement of the parking as
the central feature of the project. While parking is neccissary in such
a project, it should not be the prominant, defining element.
In short, to transform this into a more urban development would be as
simple as moving the stores so that they are on Lafayette, rather than
set back behind a sea of parking. Parking is best placed behind these
stores to create an environment that addresses the pedestrian.
Furthermore, such an alteration costs no money what so ever.
I'll present the Loop as an example. While it is in a suburb, it is
still one of the most urban areas in the region. The store fronts and
even the building scape itself provide interesting views to those
passing by. If some one were to suddenly buldoze a block of the loop to
build a parking lot, even if they put stores in the background, it would
completely destroy the continuity of the area.
As somebody who cares for this city, I hope you will press for better
design in order to maintain the attributes that make the city such a
uniqe and valueable place.
Sincerely,
Brian McKinney
Brian,
Thanks for your comments. I'll be arranging a meeting with the Planning
Dept and the Developers to review the plans and hopefully, we can amend
the plans. They have been working with the Lawrence Grouo and Rosemann,
I believe. Phyllis
Phyllis Young
7th Ward Alderwoman
314-622-3766
<bmckinne> 02/09/07 4:25 PM >>>
From St. Louis CIN Web Pages
To: Phyllis Young
From: Brian McKinney
Ms. Young, writing in response to the proposed developement for
the Bohemian Hill neighborhood. While I believe that the addition of a
grociery store and a Walgreens would be great additions to this part of
the city, I cannot help but be disappointed in the suburban nature of
the project, especially given how easy it is to do better. Among the
most significant reasons to live in the city is the urban nature of it.
This nature is defined by its density, its history, and to a great
extent, it's walkability. Responsible design should promote these
attributes. My greatest qualm is with the placement of the parking as
the central feature of the project. While parking is neccissary in such
a project, it should not be the prominant, defining element.
In short, to transform this into a more urban development would be as
simple as moving the stores so that they are on Lafayette, rather than
set back behind a sea of parking. Parking is best placed behind these
stores to create an environment that addresses the pedestrian.
Furthermore, such an alteration costs no money what so ever.
I'll present the Loop as an example. While it is in a suburb, it is
still one of the most urban areas in the region. The store fronts and
even the building scape itself provide interesting views to those
passing by. If some one were to suddenly buldoze a block of the loop to
build a parking lot, even if they put stores in the background, it would
completely destroy the continuity of the area.
As somebody who cares for this city, I hope you will press for better
design in order to maintain the attributes that make the city such a
uniqe and valueable place.
Sincerely,
Brian McKinney
Info from Gilded Age. I don't trust it. They lie.
PRESS RELEASE
FEBRUARY 9, 2007
Gilded Age and Koman Properties Announce Plans for $80 Million
Georgian Square Mixed Use Development in Lafayette Square.
St. Louis, Missouri . . . Gilded Age and Koman Properties announced
today plans for an $80 million mixed use development near Lafayette
Square to be called Georgian Square. The project will be jointly
developed by Gilded Age and Koman Properties and will be the first
large scale mixed use retail development in or near Lafayette Square
in the last 100 years. Trace Shaughnessy, a principal with Gilded
Age, indicated that the development will be "a signature type
development that will serve as a catalyst for further residential
development, will serve the needs of the residents of Lafayette
Square and surrounding areas, and will be a destination for both
those who live in St. Louis as well as visitors to the St. Louis
area."
The development will feature four commercial office buildings with
residential units above and a high end lifestyle retail complex with
close to 90,000 square feet of retail space featuring national
retailers, restaurants and a coffee purveyor. City Market, a new
concept specialty grocery store, will make its St. Louis debut as
part of the development. Chris Goodson, a principal of Gilded Age,
emphasized that "this development fills the void for services
necessary to sustain revitalization of the residential housing market
in the City of St. Louis."
"The retail and shopping venues at Georgian Square will be geared to
the everyday needs and demands of the increasingly affluent residents
of the Lafayette Square and Soulard neighborhoods who have discerning
tastes", noted Jim Koman, President of Koman Properties. Koman
added: "Upscale, urban redevelopment projects of this caliber are
taking shape in communities across the country, but nothing like it
exists in the City of St. Louis. We're pleased to be partnering with
Gilded Age to bring to life what will be a landmark project for the
City." Goodson added that this development "builds upon public-
private partnerships in place to promote the growth and redevelopment
in the City of St. Louis."
The development, which is in the early stages of planning and
approval, will be located on a 12 acre site on Lafayette Avenue south
of downtown St. Louis. The site is immediately south of the former
City Hospital, which was recently converted to 104 residential
condominium units (known as the Georgian Condominiums) by Gilded Age
and features the Georgian Revival style of architecture that will be
carried over to the new development. The project is being built on
vacant land visible from Highways 44 and 55. With the start of the I-
64/Highway 40 construction project, the newly announced project will
serve as one of the main gateway entrances to the revitalized
downtown St. Louis and new Busch Stadium
"Gilded Age and Koman Properties have been on the cutting edge of
residential and retail development in the St. Louis area over the
last decade," said Edward Dinan, a local real estate consultant and
appraiser. Dinan commented: "Their ability to see the potential for
development and to meet the needs of the market has been
remarkable." Pete Snyder, President of the Lafayette Square Business
Association, added: "We are pleased to learn that their next project
will build on their existing residential developments and will
increase the retail and office space available in and near Lafayette
Square."
Koman Properties, Inc., is a retail development company that was
formed by Jim Koman in 1994. Koman has developed more than 3.6
million square feet of commercial space through Koman Properties and
related entities and partnerships. Contributing to that total are
projects ranging from single-tenant projects, to 500,000-square-foot
power centers, to mixed-use developments that are bringing the new
urbanism concept to life. For more information, call 314.727.8881 or
visit www.kpstl.com.
Gilded Age is a residential real estate developer that was formed by
Chris Goodson and Trace Shaughnessy. Gilded Age has developed and
constructed the Georgian, Eden Lofts, 1801 Park, Mississippi Place
and Abbey on the Park developments in the Lafayette Square
neighborhood and is the master developer for the Georgian Square
project. For more information, call 314.771.7171 or visit www.gilded-
age.com.
PRESS RELEASE
FEBRUARY 9, 2007
Gilded Age and Koman Properties Announce Plans for $80 Million
Georgian Square Mixed Use Development in Lafayette Square.
St. Louis, Missouri . . . Gilded Age and Koman Properties announced
today plans for an $80 million mixed use development near Lafayette
Square to be called Georgian Square. The project will be jointly
developed by Gilded Age and Koman Properties and will be the first
large scale mixed use retail development in or near Lafayette Square
in the last 100 years. Trace Shaughnessy, a principal with Gilded
Age, indicated that the development will be "a signature type
development that will serve as a catalyst for further residential
development, will serve the needs of the residents of Lafayette
Square and surrounding areas, and will be a destination for both
those who live in St. Louis as well as visitors to the St. Louis
area."
The development will feature four commercial office buildings with
residential units above and a high end lifestyle retail complex with
close to 90,000 square feet of retail space featuring national
retailers, restaurants and a coffee purveyor. City Market, a new
concept specialty grocery store, will make its St. Louis debut as
part of the development. Chris Goodson, a principal of Gilded Age,
emphasized that "this development fills the void for services
necessary to sustain revitalization of the residential housing market
in the City of St. Louis."
"The retail and shopping venues at Georgian Square will be geared to
the everyday needs and demands of the increasingly affluent residents
of the Lafayette Square and Soulard neighborhoods who have discerning
tastes", noted Jim Koman, President of Koman Properties. Koman
added: "Upscale, urban redevelopment projects of this caliber are
taking shape in communities across the country, but nothing like it
exists in the City of St. Louis. We're pleased to be partnering with
Gilded Age to bring to life what will be a landmark project for the
City." Goodson added that this development "builds upon public-
private partnerships in place to promote the growth and redevelopment
in the City of St. Louis."
The development, which is in the early stages of planning and
approval, will be located on a 12 acre site on Lafayette Avenue south
of downtown St. Louis. The site is immediately south of the former
City Hospital, which was recently converted to 104 residential
condominium units (known as the Georgian Condominiums) by Gilded Age
and features the Georgian Revival style of architecture that will be
carried over to the new development. The project is being built on
vacant land visible from Highways 44 and 55. With the start of the I-
64/Highway 40 construction project, the newly announced project will
serve as one of the main gateway entrances to the revitalized
downtown St. Louis and new Busch Stadium
"Gilded Age and Koman Properties have been on the cutting edge of
residential and retail development in the St. Louis area over the
last decade," said Edward Dinan, a local real estate consultant and
appraiser. Dinan commented: "Their ability to see the potential for
development and to meet the needs of the market has been
remarkable." Pete Snyder, President of the Lafayette Square Business
Association, added: "We are pleased to learn that their next project
will build on their existing residential developments and will
increase the retail and office space available in and near Lafayette
Square."
Koman Properties, Inc., is a retail development company that was
formed by Jim Koman in 1994. Koman has developed more than 3.6
million square feet of commercial space through Koman Properties and
related entities and partnerships. Contributing to that total are
projects ranging from single-tenant projects, to 500,000-square-foot
power centers, to mixed-use developments that are bringing the new
urbanism concept to life. For more information, call 314.727.8881 or
visit www.kpstl.com.
Gilded Age is a residential real estate developer that was formed by
Chris Goodson and Trace Shaughnessy. Gilded Age has developed and
constructed the Georgian, Eden Lofts, 1801 Park, Mississippi Place
and Abbey on the Park developments in the Lafayette Square
neighborhood and is the master developer for the Georgian Square
project. For more information, call 314.771.7171 or visit www.gilded-
age.com.
This:
Doesn't sound too much like this:
![]()
![]()
So now no mention of the 20 or so homes scheduled to be demolished?
From their website, this is a representative sampling of Koman's work:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Now, it is possible to build an urban Walgreens:
![]()
Koman is also the developer building of pretty much all the new standalone Walgreens in the St. Louis area. Honestly, though it's less than ideal I'd be OK with a box like the one at Hampton & Gravois. I'd prefer something like the above, though...
City Market is apparently owned by Kroger. I wasn't able to find any pictures of their stores, but I did look a couple up, and they mostly look like this one in Vail, CO - in other words, more like Dierbergs and less like City Grocers.
While it's possible they're planning something that's sensitive to its urban context and pedestrian-friendly, it'd be a departure for all parties named thus far..
-RBB
hackman wrote:The development will feature four commercial office buildings with residential units above and a high end lifestyle retail complex with close to 90,000 square feet of retail space featuring national
retailers, restaurants and a coffee purveyor. City Market, a new concept specialty grocery store, will make its St. Louis debut as part of the development.
Doesn't sound too much like this:
The development, which is in the early stages of planning and
approval, will be located on a 12 acre site on Lafayette Avenue south
of downtown St. Louis. The site is immediately south of the former
City Hospital, which was recently converted to 104 residential
condominium units (known as the Georgian Condominiums) by Gilded Age
and features the Georgian Revival style of architecture that will be
carried over to the new development. The project is being built on
vacant land visible from Highways 44 and 55. With the start of the I-
64/Highway 40 construction project, the newly announced project will
serve as one of the main gateway entrances to the revitalized
downtown St. Louis and new Busch Stadium
So now no mention of the 20 or so homes scheduled to be demolished?
Koman Properties, Inc., is a retail development company that was
formed by Jim Koman in 1994. Koman has developed more than 3.6
million square feet of commercial space through Koman Properties and
related entities and partnerships. Contributing to that total are
projects ranging from single-tenant projects, to 500,000-square-foot
power centers, to mixed-use developments that are bringing the new
urbanism concept to life. For more information, call 314.727.8881 or
visit www.kpstl.com.
From their website, this is a representative sampling of Koman's work:
Now, it is possible to build an urban Walgreens:
Koman is also the developer building of pretty much all the new standalone Walgreens in the St. Louis area. Honestly, though it's less than ideal I'd be OK with a box like the one at Hampton & Gravois. I'd prefer something like the above, though...
City Market is apparently owned by Kroger. I wasn't able to find any pictures of their stores, but I did look a couple up, and they mostly look like this one in Vail, CO - in other words, more like Dierbergs and less like City Grocers.
While it's possible they're planning something that's sensitive to its urban context and pedestrian-friendly, it'd be a departure for all parties named thus far..
-RBB
Meh. If this project is as dependent on Gilded Age's resources and credit as it appears, I think we'll see it die on the vine shortly.
The site plan is pretty suburban generic. I do find it interesting that Supervalu will be putting a new concept "City Market" in the development and not a Save-a-lot or Shop n' Save. Their other national new concept is called Sunflower which is a Trader Joe's competitor/clone.
Hopefully this new "City Market" will be similar (and end up with a better site plan) and give the development a "destination".
I don't think this is the same City Market owned by Kroger that currently operates 38 stores in western Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico since this is being called a new concept.
Hopefully this new "City Market" will be similar (and end up with a better site plan) and give the development a "destination".
I don't think this is the same City Market owned by Kroger that currently operates 38 stores in western Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico since this is being called a new concept.