urbanSTL

Well, I have to say that the press release sounds alright. Office, retail, and residential in that area would be nice. I think the residential component, if true, will force a more urban design with entrances fronting the streets. I, like others, still want to make sure we work with Alderman Young and the developers to let them know what we will, and will not support. I want our voices to be heard to ensure that this project, which could have a HUGE impact on some very important neighborhoods, is developed with urban design and walkability as main priorities. So when and where is the meeting, everyone?

Pace of city's redevelopment overtakes tiny Bohemian Hill



Bill McClellan has a nice slice of life article in the PD about this. Phylis Young says no use of eminent domain-yet!

Alderman Phyllis Young told me it was not really eminent domain, at least not yet.

"They worry about eminent domain, and my concern is the focus is on that and not about what kind of place you want to live. Do people really want to live across the street from a commercial development?"



Actually, yes. Besides, if their homes are replaced by condos, people will still be living across from a commercial development.



Young said the appraisals were just to give people an idea of what they could get, and not an indication that the city was going to use eminent domain. "People should consider their options," she said.

trent wrote:Where's my STLUP activation belt when I need it?

We've kicked around the idea of resurrecting our little group.



Maybe now is the time? What do others think?

1. I don't know exactly why, but I LOVE the brick cube-modern infill in the pics.

2. For good and bad, the houses look like 100 other neighborhoods in St. Louis. I've come to believe that the vast neighborhoods of quality brick construction means that not everything can/will/should be saved.

3. The corner store buildings should be incorporated into any retail - what a fantastic character building - a great place for a Kaldi's or Northwest Coffee.

I'm tending to agree with the point that a Phase 2 is pointless. Leaving the residential intact on the one block would soften the edge that a new commercial development will have and help it blend into the surrounding residential.



Who would want to live across the street from commercial development with parking lots and bright lights? No one. The point is made very well by the alderwoman that the idea of a strip center in incongruent with urban living, period, and shouldn't be allowed. The commerce should blend as seamlessly as possible with residential.



The ill-conceived statement would also apply to condos in the Georgian...who would want to buy there with a 24-hour Walgreens across the street?

It seems like there is a concensus. 1. Phase I could be a beneficial thing IF! it is re-designed to encourage pedestrians, hide the parking, add to the streetscape along lafayette, and keep signage low-key. 2. Phase II as planned is mind-bogglingly stoopid, but could be salvaged by working WITH the existing fabric between 13th and Tucker. I propose that these become the focus of future letters to the alderwoman etc. In this manner we can speak with a common voice, and not seem obstructionist.

TGE-ATW wrote:It seems like there is a concensus. 1. Phase I could be a beneficial thing IF! it is re-designed to encourage pedestrians, hide the parking, add to the streetscape along lafayette, and keep signage low-key. 2. Phase II as planned is mind-bogglingly stoopid, but could be salvaged by working WITH the existing fabric between 13th and Tucker. I propose that these become the focus of future letters to the alderwoman etc. In this manner we can speak with a common voice, and not seem obstructionist.

PRAISE THE LARD!!!

who would want to buy there with a 24-hour Walgreens across the street?

This is actually a common point made by people downtown, in the Grove, even the CWE. People want a Walgreen's across the street - but only if it's urban in design. The picture in this thread is a great example of what would work. I wish the Manchester strip would bring in a Starbucks, Einstein's, Walgreen's, etc. There are plenty of open store fronts for local merchants, but I want some standard conveniences close by.

TGE-ATW wrote:It seems like there is a concensus. 1. Phase I could be a beneficial thing IF! it is re-designed to encourage pedestrians, hide the parking, add to the streetscape along lafayette, and keep signage low-key. 2. Phase II as planned is mind-bogglingly stoopid, but could be salvaged by working WITH the existing fabric between 13th and Tucker. I propose that these become the focus of future letters to the alderwoman etc. In this manner we can speak with a common voice, and not seem obstructionist.

I have a hard time believing they will build a grocery store built up to the street with parking behind. This is uncommon, even in dense urban environments. You run into issues with carts leaving the grocery store right onto the sidewalk and such. The only way I see a grocery store butting up to the street is within a dense condo building. I wouldn't expect the Phase I plans to change much - although it would be nice to have some of the other retail against the street.



As for Phase II, I agree with all that tearing down those existing structures is rediculous. They should take the time to incorporate those existing buildings and build residential around it. Let's hope they come to their senses about this (assuming Phase II ever happens).

^

You are incorrect. You change up the design of the building to filter the masses of your shoppers through a back entrance (usually can be done with a side hallway that leads to the front -- some places have little cafes there), while still having a front entrance for walkups.

metzgda wrote:I have a hard time believing they will build a grocery store built up to the street with parking behind. This is uncommon, even in dense urban environments. You run into issues with carts leaving the grocery store right onto the sidewalk and such. The only way I see a grocery store butting up to the street is within a dense condo building. I wouldn't expect the Phase I plans to change much - although it would be nice to have some of the other retail against the street.

They could do what the Target on Hampton did with their carts. There is an electronic system that locks a wheel of the cart when it goes outside of the permitted boundary. In this case, that boundary would be the front door.

TGE-ATW wrote:It seems like there is a consensus. 1. Phase I could be a beneficial thing IF! it is re-designed to encourage pedestrians, hide the parking, add to the streetscape along lafayette, and keep signage low-key. 2. Phase II as planned is mind-bogglingly stoopid, but could be salvaged by working WITH the existing fabric between 13th and Tucker. I propose that these become the focus of future letters to the alderwoman etc. In this manner we can speak with a common voice, and not seem obstructionist.

I think you've got it in a nutshell. Hopefully our voices will be heard this time.



Look at other threads in this (South Side Development) forum, like those devoted to Loughborough Commons and Southtown Centre. I cannot think of two developments in St. Louis that are more disappointing, and I cannot believe that our leaders are content to repeat those mistakes on Lafayette west of Tucker.



Grover, I really like that infill too. I wish we'd see more modern designs like this for infill, and fewer mullet houses.

ThreeOneFour wrote:Look at other threads in this (South Side Development) forum, like those devoted to Loughborough Commons and Southtown Centre. I cannot think of two developments in St. Louis that are more disappointing, and I cannot believe that our leaders are content to repeat those mistakes on Lafayette west of Tucker.



Grover, I really like that infill too. I wish we'd see more modern designs like this for infill, and fewer mullet houses.

This is what continues to baffle me. There is such a large gap between what is proven to work in urban environments and what cities and developers are actually doing in St. Louis. How do we close that gap? Continuing education for politicians?

Thinking ahead -- this site on Bohemian Hill may be prime to tie to the Falstaff and Lemp sites with a southbound MetroLink line.

Back to the possibility of fronting a grocery store on the street, I think it can be done by having a store that has no rear. 1, scale back the size of the store (it is planned to be almost 26,000 square feet). 2. Put loading bays on one side. 3. place a cafe/prepared food section with tables along Lafayette with large windows and maybe a street front patio; area could not be used to bring carts in and out of premises. 4. have a main entrance/parking around back on the I-55 side. Whats wrong with that?

trent wrote:^

You are incorrect. You change up the design of the building to filter the masses of your shoppers through a back entrance (usually can be done with a side hallway that leads to the front -- some places have little cafes there), while still having a front entrance for walkups.

True, I have seen this done. Just from my experience, I only see this done when there is no land to build a large parking lot on - only if their is a garage or it's a small niche grocery store.



Does anyone have examples of free-standing grocery stores that butt up to the street and have a parking lot in the rear? I can't think of any in Chicago, only ones that have condos or offices above on multiple levels.

metzgda wrote:

trent wrote:^





Does anyone have examples of free-standing grocery stores that butt up to the street and have a parking lot in the rear? I can't think of any in Chicago, only ones that have condos or offices above on multiple levels.

Going from memory, there is a Dominics in a multi-story building, by the El station near DePauls campus in Lincoln Park. Stopped therefor batteries on the way down to the loop. It comes up to the street, probably about 30 to 40,000 sq. ft. on 2 levels, full service, yuppie store, good stuff but expensive and small selection.



There is also the massive 2 story Home Depot west of there, which comes up to the street, the only example of a true big box in an urban setting outside of Europe.

Giant Eagle in Pittsburgh. There are a number of these stand alone grocery stores that front the sidewalks. I've even seen one with underground parking. In particular, the one at 1901 Murray Ave, strikes seems like the ideal that grocery stores should be striving for. I don't actually have any pictures but I figured that if anybody here was determined enough to find that, they could.

stellar wrote:This is what continues to baffle me. There is such a large gap between what is proven to work in urban environments and what cities and developers are actually doing in St. Louis. How do we close that gap? Continuing education for politicians?

I'm baffled too. Are our politicians' expectations lowered given the city's decades-long and spectacular decline in population and businesses? Or do they just not get out of town often enough to see the best practices in place in similar cities? I'm guessing it's a little bit of both, although I also think city government is still somewhat dysfunctional by design.



I'd be willing to let an alderman or two, or even Hizzoner, hitch a ride to Chicago to point out some good examples of urban development. Granted, I get tired of STL vs. Chicago comparisons, and the Windy City's development record isn't perfect by any means, but I don't even see a desire among many in this city to strive for something better. What gives?



Like many of you, I'm (almost always) a tireless booster of city living. However, I'm tired of new developments that make no attempt to pay respect to the incredible built environment that can be found in much of our city. I'm tired of said built environment being routinely sacrificed (the Century Building, possibly Bohemian Hill, etc.) for schlocky new developments. And I'm tired of politicians that just don't get it, even when a significant number of citizens express their concerns and opposition legitimately and offer reasonable alternatives.

Beer City wrote:

metzgda wrote:

trent wrote:^





Does anyone have examples of free-standing grocery stores that butt up to the street and have a parking lot in the rear? I can't think of any in Chicago, only ones that have condos or offices above on multiple levels.

Going from memory, there is a Dominics in a multi-story building, by the El station near DePauls campus in Lincoln Park. Stopped therefor batteries on the way down to the loop. It comes up to the street, probably about 30 to 40,000 sq. ft. on 2 levels, full service, yuppie store, good stuff but expensive and small selection.



There is also the massive 2 story Home Depot west of there, which comes up to the street, the only example of a true big box in an urban setting outside of Europe.

What I meant by my prior post is stand-alone grocery stores. I know of the Dominicks by DePauls campus you talk about, but it's in a multi-use building with floors above the Dominicks containing either offices or residences. Now the Home Depot I think is stand-alone if I remember correctly, so that is one example, however, there is no land near to build a parking lot.

Whole Foods in New Orleans. I went there once while visiting a friend. Parking in the back, store abutting the front.



Where's Rollin Stanley? Isn't this something he should be able to help with?

Re: baffled

A part of the explanation may be that real estate investment decisions are made on a 3-5 year track. If investor/owners had to take a longer view before being rewarded with a return or in the tax code, chances are we'd see smarter design and a different behavior.



This may make an outstanding suggestion for a presentation and discussion at the Investments in the City meeting sponsored by the Urban Land Institute-St. Louis Chapter, scheduled for May 2.