urbanSTL

Here is what I have from deep throat. Goodson and Shaughnessy were caught off guard by immediate negative reaction that followed their initial contacts with BH residents about selling their homes. Young didn't help by threatening people with eminent domain in the initial exchange. Rumors started flying about grocery stores and Walgreens (which proved true). Gilded Age went on the offensive with a PR campaign to drum up support and quiet dissenting voices; hence the BJ story. Needing some kind of graphic, they submitted the rendering that they used to entice potential clients. This appears to have blown up in their face. The design from the BJ, they now claim, is not set in stone and will likely change to an extent. I hear that certain forces within the preservation community have met with Shaughnessy and Goodson, and have discussed playing some kind of role as design consultants. Nothing has been worked out for sure, but Goodson and Shaughnessy are reported to be amenable to a certain extent of compromise. I don't know if the demolition plans have changed, but I know that concerns about them were discussed. Much of what people have criticized as design flaws in the project are apparently being driven by tenant requirements, i.e. Walgreens said they wouldn't come unless they got XX. Everyone needs to keep up the pressure. It seems that the initial resistance may have brought them to the table, if we back off now, they may not follow through. Once again, I agree, Gilded Age has done what I consider to be very nice work, but we need to make sure that standards remain high.

TGE-ATW wrote:Much of what people have criticized as design flaws in the project are apparently being driven by tenant requirements, i.e. Walgreens said they wouldn't come unless they got XX. Everyone needs to keep up the pressure.

If anyone underestimates the value of keeping the pressure on, let's remember what Walgreens wanted to do with the South Side National Bank. Their current location just off of the busy Grand/Gravois intersection probably wasn't their first choice, and they had to make some accommodations to those that demanded pedestrian access from Gravois, but ultimately the SSNB building was saved and Walgreens built their new store anyway.



I'm glad to see the final design may not be etched in stone, especially as it pertains to demolishing structures east of 13th Street. There's still much more work to be done, though, but hopefully we'll wind up with a quality development and as much of BH preserved as possible.

DeBaliviere wrote:

Susan wrote:Just walk into a well-designed building, then walk into a poorly constructed strip mall, and tell me if your mood and attitude isn't different. If our city forces crap down our throat, then the chances of residents caring enough to take care of it is minimal, and the behavior will reflect that. If you're surrounded by beautiful things you'll care more about taking care of them.

So true. As an experiment, go to the Wal-Mart on Kirkwood Road. I've been there once, and it was one of the most awful shopping experiences I've ever had. Even by Wal-Mart standards, the store sucked and the attitudes of the employees were very poor.

I totally agree with you about the kirkwood wal-mart, but I dont see much of a correllation between these two places. The wal-mart/lowes/target in kirkwood has at least 1000 parking spaces while the BH project maybe has 50. If the rendering we were shown isnt final and they can make it even better for everyone then great. But I dont think that people will get the same vibe from this new development as they get from the 50+ acre walmart complex

I hope they set the highest design standards and stick to them. Retailers like Walgreens will build to the lowest standard allowed and make threats about walking away if pressed. The funny thing is, retailing giants all over the planet build some really nice stuff if required.

TGE-ATW,



That's good news. I hope that they come up with a smarter design, it sounds as if they are working on it to an extent.

TGE-ATW wrote:Here is what I have from deep throat. Goodson and Shaughnessy were caught off guard by immediate negative reaction that followed their initial contacts with BH residents about selling their homes.

... Nothing has been worked out for sure, but Goodson and Shaughnessy are reported to be amenable to a certain extent of compromise.

So we can maybe, maybe, maybe hope this won't happen?:

hey, that would look GREAT in Ballwin!!

Question:



To whom can we write to complain about the suburbanity of this project along with the tearing down of owner occupied homes? I and some others want to write someone...who are they and what are their email addresses?



Thank you.

and it looks like the Gravois ramp is being relocated to Lafayette.

Phyllis Young is who to call (contact information below). She holds the power to control this project. I am a little concerned about the site plan being published. where did it come from? THere is ALWAYS the chance that Goodson and Shaughnessy are blowing smoke with their apparent willingness to listen to our concerns. If they passify everyone by public displays of receptiveness, people will stop b*tching because they assume the threat has been ameliorated. Meanwhile, the developers will continue with their plans. If we don't keep up the pressure it may be too late. Don't let them hoodwink us. Also, avoid being bamboozled and hornswaggled. It may be time for another round of contacts with Young from all of us who have contacted her before, just to let her know that we are still watching.



Alderwoman Young

City Hall, Room 230

1200 Market Street

St. Louis, MO 63103

Office: 622-3766 Home: 776-1036

Youngp@stlouiscity.com

I heard the Gravois ramp is being rerouted to exit onto Truman.



Who gets the property? Look at site plan.

There is a meeting of the Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition, at which Bohemian Hill will be discussed, next Saturday 3/3 at the Barr Brancy library. SW corner of Jefferson and Lafayette at 12:00. All are welcome

The Georgian Square 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.





Specialty Grocery Store Slated for $80 Million Georgian Square Mixed Use Development Near Lafayette Square

ST. LOUIS, (SLFP.com), February 23, 2007 - Gilded Age and Koman Properties recently announced 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 Georgian Square, 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 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."



In an announcement, Jim Koman, President of Koman Properties, said "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."



"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."



http://www.slfp.com/ConstructionNews.htm







OK, so here is what I know about City Market. City Market's are Krogers urban-style specialty markets. http://www.citymarket.com/



Interesting - Kroger coming back into city market.

^ Something doesn't add up here. The so-called City Market concept has been identified as a Supervalu (Shop 'n Save) project in all prior published accounts.

I don't think that Kroger is re-entering the market. They do operate a chain called City Markets, but it is not a urban prototype store, it's just the name for one of their regional chains like Ralph's, King Soopers, etc. There are currently 38 stores in western Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico.



I think this will be a new concept from Super-Valu that just happens to have a similar name as one of Kroger's regional chains.



Also the description given in this article sounds more promising with residential built above retail/commercial.

I saw a couple of well dressed men messing with the signs in front of the Georgian yesterday. I pulled over and walked up to them (actually chased them down because they were walking away) and asked them about the grocery store. They didn't give any new information, but both said that the City Market grocery store going in will be upscale like a whole foods and is part of super valu stores. They mentioned a Walgreens going in on the corner, and said there will be buildings with first floor residential and second floor office space. I was interested in the fact they failed to mention residential but the whole conversation lasted maybe 20 seconds anyway. I wanted to quiz them further about the nature of the design but it was windy and cold and they were backpedaling the whole time I was talking to them. Maybe I'll have another chance to talk to someone there when the weather warms up and I can get some actual information out of them.

I hope that we see new rendering soon (assuming that the release of the initial rendering were a knee-jerk reaction - as has been reported). I have to say that I always favor "urban" design for retail and hope that positive changes are made to this development, but this area will not receive true urban design as many of us wish. Having been in a Trader Joe's that was literally in a retail basement and CVS/Walgreen's - all with zero parking it's tempting to think that we should have the same here. BUT - where do the customers come from? Is there bus service to the store? Metro? Are there 10,000 people that live within 1/2 mile? How about business travellers? In most of StL there does not exist the density that would demand a more urban design.

Georgian Square = so it'll look like Hampton Village?

Grover wrote: In most of StL there does not exist the density that would demand a more urban design.

But therein lies the problem, or the vicious cycle. St. Louis isn't dense enough in a lot of places to support genuinely urban design, so we build auto-centric developments. But that only perpetuates the need for low density, auto oriented developments.



If we insisted on more urban designs, the density would increase. At least in theory.



But I can understand the developers desire for ample parking. I'm just not sure it's the best solution from a long-term, macro vision of the city.

^ Unfortunately developers can't develop using theory - they actually have to work with reality. IMO - it's the city, city planner, etc. who control building regulations. For a second I understood the vicious cycle idea of auto-centric v. adding density, but exactly where has this ever occurred? ALL cities with "urban" commercial (and other) developments first became crowed with people which necessitated dense development. As StLC became more auto-centric people did leave, but they left for the MORE autocentric suburbs. Less autocentricity would not have lessened the exodus. I think it's easy to wish now that we have more of the buildings that were once on the mall etc. (and there were some very, very bad decisions made there), but without demand it's not easy to preserve buildings. Sure, there's a "kick-back" in that a lot of people enjoy a dense environment. My point is that small, dense developments relying on walk-in traffic will fail in St. Louis City as it is now. I'm becoming more of the opinion that we should do what we can to bring people into the city - increase density. This creates the NEED/DESIRE for urban development.

A functional definition of urban design for this development for me would be:

I can walk on wide sidewalks or ride a bicycle easily from my house on Geyer to the proposed Walgreens without fear of traffic or impediments from manmade barriers.



Although the site may be ideal from a general location view, it is completely cut off from all surrounding residential by major barriers.



Any idea how difficult it would be now to cross Lafayette from the Georgian condos to the vacant plot?



How would anyone from Lafayette Square manage to cross all the traffic in only a two block distance? It's a total nightmare.



It would seem the only way to easily access the site will be by auto.



Maybe the site and new traffic flow around the site has already determined that it cannot be urban?