urbanSTL

Framer wrote:

TGE-ATW wrote: If somebody wanted to start their own small family grocery store there they would do incredibly well.

There's a small, fairly new supermarket on Chouteau just East of Truman Parkway.

I wouldn't call that a supermarket. It's a ghettomart. Can you imagine showing potential Laf. Square residents that as their new grocery store.

First, that new 'market' at Chouteau/Tucker is not what most people have in mind as a supermarket that could serve LafSq or SOulard.



Second, that space at Tucker/Lafayette is not large enough to support a "suburban style" Schnucks, so if a Schnucks is coming to that area, it would have to be a 2 level facility or have underground parking.



Third, don't forget family owned (4 generations) Vincent's on 12th Street (12th Street=Tucker) in Soulard is just 1/2 a mile away from this site. I've lived in both Laf. Sq and Soulard and here's how most people grocery shop: "big shopping" every week or two at one of these Schnucks: Richmond Center by Esquire, Schuncks on the Hill on Arsenal or the new Schucks at Loughborough. That shopping is supplemented by quick trips to Vincents (or other small market) for milk, eggs, bread, beer, wine, things forgetten. People also go to the Soulard Farmers Market for fruit/vege/some meats/bakery/etc. I know I cannot speak for everyone in LafSq or Soulard, but that would be my observation.

And wouldn't a grocery store on that large plot of vacant land on Chouteau near 14th make more sense for a large grocery store anyway?

Yes, that would make more sense but I really doubt Schnucks is coming to the near south side because they already are serving these folks with the three stores I listed. If you assume Schnucks opens a new "downtown" store, I think it will be in downtown proper, not LAf Sq or SOulard. Just my opinion.



ETA: I think a store at 14th/Chouteau would have an image problem. I wouldn't go there, just like I don't go to "Project Amoco" at 14th/Chouteau.

63104mom wrote:
Second, that space at Tucker/Lafayette is not large enough to support a "suburban style" Schnucks, so if a Schnucks is coming to that area, it would have to be a 2 level facility or have underground parking.

What space are you thinking about? The empty lot at the corner of Lafayette and Tucker? That's not the area in question. It just West of that directly across from the Georgian. It's huge, and could (unfortunately) fit a suburban style schnucks.

63104mom wrote:
Third, don't forget family owned (4 generations) Vincent's on 12th Street (12th Street=Tucker) in Soulard is just 1/2 a mile away from this site. I've lived in both Laf. Sq and Soulard and here's how most people grocery shop: "big shopping" every week or two at one of these Schnucks: Richmond Center by Esquire, Schuncks on the Hill on Arsenal or the new Schucks at Loughborough. That shopping is supplemented by quick trips to Vincents (or other small market) for milk, eggs, bread, beer, wine, things forgetten. People also go to the Soulard Farmers Market for fruit/vege/some meats/bakery/etc. I know I cannot speak for everyone in LafSq or Soulard, but that would be my observation.

Yep, you've pretty much nailed my shopping habits as well of those of my Soulard friends. It's just a given that Saturday mornings you get fruits and veggies for the week at Soulard Market.

63104mom wrote:
Yes, that would make more sense but I really doubt Schnucks is coming to the near south side because they already are serving these folks with the three stores I listed. If you assume Schnucks opens a new "downtown" store, I think it will be in downtown proper, not LAf Sq or SOulard. Just my opinion.

I'd feel more confident about your opinion if my neighbor didn't bang on my door and walk in with tears in her eyes saying her friend was served with ED papers and that a Schnucks and Walgreens were being built there.



MarkInSTL/others, any idea on how we can go about encouraging Schnucks to put an an urban style development here rather than a suburban wasteland that will turn into another 'Schnucks on Lindell' otherwise known as 'ghetto Schnucks' by SLU students?

I don't think you need to worry about the design IF the rumor is true (and I still don't think the space is big enough; maybe for a Walgreens/Starbucks/cleaners though). THe preservation heavy hitters in LSq and Soul. will be all over the design if true.

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q= ... 4&t=k&om=1



Are they tearing down from across the street from the Georgian all the way to Tucker? Seems like there would be plenty of room for a suburban atrocity.

I don't shop at any of those Schnucks. Try the one on Grand. And what are you, to good for the Amoco at 14th and Chouteau.

Well, I did say that I couldn't speak for all residents to generalize their shopping habits. As for the Amoco, yes, I am too good in that I find it unsafe. I've been to the Schnucks on Grand- the other ones are better.

Why don't some LF residents make up some signs (like the Praxair signs) that simply ask the question....."Whats going on across from the Georgian" (or some better description of the property). I think if the neighborhood association got interested and made signs like that (or just individuals) it would alert others in the area that they need to be asking that question too. I agree that the neighborhood could force a good design, but only if the developer is prevented from slipping the project in under the door by vigilant citizens.

DeBaliviere wrote:This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, at least not in that location. They better make a huge investment in security. I picture shopping carts littered all over the neighborhood.

<Rant>

Are you guys saying we shouldn't have supermarkets in lower-income areas because these people might steal carts and food? If so, my stomach is churning. Just wait until we sick Al Sharpton on your damn conservative asses!



I hear you if somehow the design isn't "urban enough..." If you want to argue eminent domain and historical teardown, fine. Go ahead and add pressure in these respects. But don't tell these people they shouldn't have access to cheaper food in a more convenient location.



And don't complain because you decided to move into the fancy shmancy Georgian which happens to be in a low-income area and be sad to see lower-income folks shopping in your beloved Schnucks. Oh, I forgot. We're a segregated and "progressive" city. My mistake, let's continue the trend!

</Rant>

I don't think innov8ion has been reading this thread very carefully, but at least he/she managed to insult all of us. The comment to which you (innov8ion) refer (shopping carts) was abberant; no one else seemed to think that shopping carts would be scattered all over the neighborhood if a supermarket was built at the location. For that reason, no one responded to that comment (read the thread). Instead, we all continued to focus our efforts on discussing getting a well designed urban market into the area, rather than a gigantic suburban Schnucks with a gigantic suburban surface parking lot. No mention has been made of keeping supermarkets out of low income areas. No complaints have been made about low income people shopping at "our beloved Schnucks." sh*t, I'm about as low income as it gets. You obviously don't "hear us" discussing how we want the design to be "urban enough," you obviously don't "hear us" discussing eminent domain and historical tear-down. All you "heard" was the sound of the steam coming out of your ears. Read the thread, then join the conversation.

Thanks a lot for raising my blood pressure with this talk of a supermarket on Bohemian Hill!



I can't really imagine the rumor to be true. The 4-neighborhood area is known as the Frenchtown Historic District. As a Soulard homeowner, I don't need, want or desire a supermarket in the area.



Retail in this area should follow a historic model of small scale shops.

Biggest out of nowhere over reaction of 2007

1 vote for innova8ion.

I second

TGE-ATW wrote:I don't think innov8ion has been reading this thread very carefully, but at least he/she managed to insult all of us. The comment to which you (innov8ion) refer (shopping carts) was abberant; no one else seemed to think that shopping carts would be scattered all over the neighborhood if a supermarket was built at the location. For that reason, no one responded to that comment (read the thread). Instead, we all continued to focus our efforts on discussing getting a well designed urban market into the area, rather than a gigantic suburban Schnucks with a gigantic suburban surface parking lot. No mention has been made of keeping supermarkets out of low income areas. No complaints have been made about low income people shopping at "our beloved Schnucks." sh*t, I'm about as low income as it gets. You obviously don't "hear us" discussing how we want the design to be "urban enough," you obviously don't "hear us" discussing eminent domain and historical tear-down. All you "heard" was the sound of the steam coming out of your ears. Read the thread, then join the conversation.

The post was meant to be provocative but ya'll are soooo sensitive! An abberation? Let the quotes speak for themselves. And if you're ashamed of these comments, don't look at me; look within yourselves:



"This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, at least not in that location. They better make a huge investment in security. I picture shopping carts littered all over the neighborhood."



"Not to be rude, but a lot of people might take the stroll from the La saison area through LS to get a drink, or at least that was part of the concern."



"I wouldn't call that a supermarket. It's a ghettomart. Can you imagine showing potential Laf. Square residents that as their new grocery store."



"ETA: I think a store at 14th/Chouteau would have an image problem. I wouldn't go there, just like I don't go to "Project Amoco" at 14th/Chouteau."

innov8ion wrote:<Rant>

Are you guys saying we shouldn't have supermarkets in lower-income areas because these people might steal carts and food? If so, my stomach is churning. Just wait until we sick Al Sharpton on your damn conservative asses!

</Rant>

My comment on the shopping carts is based on my experience living in the city for almost 15 years now. They spring up all over the place unless you take measures like the Target at Hampton and Chippewa, which features a system that locks down a cart's wheels if it's removed from the parking lot. Take a walk down Whittier by the Lindell Schnuck's and you'll see carts all over the place. Heck take a walk by Hampton Village and you'll see carts all over the place. It drives me nuts. Build a Schnuck's at Tucker and Lafayette, and I guarantee you'll see shopping carts all over the place. If they build there, they should incorporate the same system that Target did.



My thought on the location itself is that I would prefer to see a Schnuck's built on the site of the old Foodland at Jefferson and Lafayette, so we don't lose any more historic buildings. I'd rather see Bohemian Hill's remaining buildings restored, with new infill construction on the vacant lots.



And I'm hardly conservative.

Those statements do not apply to the potential market across from the Georgian. They are, in two cases, individual opinions expressed about the Amoco and the convenience store. The third statement about people coming from La Saison to get drinks was phrased in terms of "at least that is what some people thought..." I actually don't have a problem with calling the convenience store a "ghetto mart" although that wasn't my comment. You shouldn't either if you are concerned with making high-quality food available to people in low-income areas. That store sells nothing but chips, soda, candy, and cigarettes. Until they start selling vegetables, I'm happy to call it what it is.

Points taken, TGE-ATW & Deb.



Of course I see the valid concerns of eminent domain, teardown of historical buildings and urban design. However, this discussion wasn't limited to those factors and that's the point I wanted to bring up.



It seems the same people that talk negatively about segregation in St. Louis are also saying they won't shop at a Schnuck's because it's "ghetto." Lower-income folks many times don't have convenient access to a supermarket due to the distance and lack of reliable transportation. Having a supermarket in this area could help, but the same people that cry for the poor are denouncing the idea by saying it would just turn into a "ghetto" Schnucks and may hurt the image of Lafayette Square.



And yes, I know most of you are hardly conservative. That's what makes this appear so hypocritical on many levels. Not trying to insult anyone, just trying to provoke discussion. Take it with a grain of salt.

I think it's important to distinguish between not wanting to shop at a store because lower-income people shop there, and not wanting to shop at a store because it's poorly run. Whether it's coincidental or not, a lot of the Schnuck's stores in lower-income neighborhoods are poorly run, which makes for an awful shopping experience - the Grand-Gravois Schnuck's is a perfect example.

DeBaliviere wrote:I think it's important to distinguish between not wanting to shop at a store because lower-income people shop there, and not wanting to shop at a store because it's poorly run. Whether it's coincidental or not, a lot of the Schnuck's stores in lower-income neighborhoods are poorly run, which makes for an awful shopping experience - the Grand-Gravois Schnuck's is a perfect example.

I agree. I just don't think this is a valid reason to not have a nearby supermarket that sells more than chips, beer and soda to low-income families. Personally, given the choice of a poorly-run Schnucks and a better-run Schnucks, of course I'm choosing the better option. But low-income families aren't as fortunate and may not have the same options we have due to inherent limitations. All I'm saying is that we should not deny them a quality supermarket because it may be an eyesore. We have more choices, they likely do not.

Presumably, the store managers, clerks, stockers, and other staffers at stores in a local grocery chain receive the same training and make the same salaries or wages. Presumably, again, they all report to the same district and regional managers.



If both are true, why would the differences in shopping experience be predictable by neighborhood?

I agree with all of you, but to build on what innov8ion just said about "us" having more choices, and to get us back to what we have been talking about, I think that if a supermarket is proposed for that site, residents should "choose" to have a good urban design that compliments the current neighborhood and its future potential. Good design doesn't discriminate against anybody.

^ Completely agree! See, I'm not that evil, am I?