urbanSTL

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?

A major reason why they are concerned about adequate parking is that the tenants (i.e. value city and walgreens) are counting on highway traffic for a lot of their business. That is really what is going on here. In fact, they are probably more focused on the proximity to the 55/70/44 interchange than they are on providing services to south city. Think about what a b**** it is to get into Whole Foods by running the gauntlet through the Brentwood *****. This place, if is easier to access, could take a lot of Whole Food's business. If the design is urbanized, the enants/developers are afraid that it will hamper the ablity of people to come in from the highway on the way home from work, park quickly, grab dinner, and leave. They want a large surface lot to facilitate "the old in out, in out" (clockwork orange anyone??). This project, as designed, is about developing a site that is accessible to the highway. It was not designed with any thought toward its impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

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.

I think that this is the productive/positive opinion that should be emphasized.

They want a large surface lot to facilitate "the old in out, in out"

I don't think this is particularly 'old'. There simply are not enough people within walking distance of this development to cater to. I wish there were. Sure the suburbs are auto-centric, but so is the city. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd bet a lot of those living in the Georgian will drive to this store (or stop by coming home from work). If there isn't parking I'd imagine that they would just go to another store and combine their grocery shopping with a trip to Target/Home Depot/wherever.



I hope the development creates inviting access for pedestrians/cyclists, not to mention amenities like properly positioned bike racks etc.

Grover, "the old in out, in out" is a quote from Anthony Burgess' novel "A Clockwork Orang[e]." In the novel it refers to sex. In my post, I was using it as a metaphor for quick traffic in, quick traffic out (and a design that accomodates this goal) as metaphorically "screwing" the neighborhood.

OK.



I don't think the neighborhood is getting skrewed by someone building a grocery store, pharmacy, etc.

Whether this site is designed more for cars or people, those without cars will still walk here. You can't stop folks living in Peabody from walking to Walgreen's. But rather than build another Lindell Marketplace, to which CWEnders don't walk OR EVEN DRIVE, you might as well create a place, to which everyone WANTS to walk.



Lafayette Square/Soulard residents will walk here if they feel safe. Safety will only come in a design that appeals to the pedestrian experience, creates a desirable environment, and builds off its success, thereby providing added safety in numbers, or a more active environment. Otherwise, not even downtown workers will shop here by car, if it means shopping alongside those walking to/from the "projects."



IOW, drivers can keep driving until they reach a retail center with exclusionary demographics. Think of how many City residents shop presently at the Clayton Road (Richmond Heights) Schnuck's instead of the Lindell Marketplace Schnuck's. But if you want a mix of foot traffic and parking, think more like Tim Boyle's strip center at Grand and Arsenal. Better yet, if you add residential into this development, you lend even greater 24/7 activity, walk-in traffic and safety.



Lafayette Square has already developed walkable commercial along Park Avenue with a healthy balance of parking. If "Georgian Square" is developed as an auto-oriented strip-center, it will be as much of a hole in the urban fabric between Lafayette Square and Soulard as Lindell Marketplace is today between CWE and SLU/Midtown. We must demand better.

^ I 100% agree with everyone's desire to have this be a walkable development that will encourage bikes, pedestrians, etc. This would be wonderful.

If more people (ie. more density) in the City creates the need/desire for urban development, then will these pro-urban development people move into a City that fails to push for urban development?

If more people move into the city then they're already there! I don't accept your premise that there are "pro-urban development people" who would move into the city if only it were more "urban." Where are they living now? Someplace even less urban.

Do you really belive that suddenly the City will reach a population point where urban design will just start sprouting up?

Maybe not suddenly, but yes. I believe that urban design is the result of demand, not the result of applied theory.

How else do explain your view that if more people (period) move into the City, suddenly more people will begin demanding urban designed project?

We live in a suburban city. My 190- neighborhood is/was a suburb. There are many reasons that someone would choose to live in St. Louis City. I don't believe that a desire for "urban living" as seen in Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, etc. rates very high on this list. I love to think what StLC could be become, but it's not going to double in population while we're still alive. Anyway, I don't think it's really a matter of people demanding urban design. Do you think 19th Century Chicago became dense because people preferred to be crowded on top of one another? I think cities become dense because of market forces. Why is there a Trader Joe's in a basement in Boston's Back Bay? Not because people demanded smart growth. It's there because there was no where else to put it economically. The developer didn't have a choice.



I (think I) understand your point. We must demand smart, urban design in our city. I really do agree. I'm simply pointing to the fact that there's a lot of land within our city and relatively little demand for it. What are we to expect from people who are only trying to make money? I think the city should do more to promote infill housing, address crime, schools, etc. Give larger incentives for people to rehab and we should invest in our parks. In the end, I think that people around St. Louis might move to the city for an "urbanish" lifestyle (I think this is what St. Louis currently and will continue to offer, better than any city I know). This is why I don't support "urban design" as we know it from other much more dense cities - at least not at the expense of any development at all.



(Sorry this is a bit rambling - it's a busy week at work)

Id like to hear what people think this development should really look like. If the main problem that people have with it is the parking lot in front, do people think that an easy solution would be to put it behind. Because I think everyone agrees that lots of people will still drive to it. I think the site is oriented pretty well so that this simple change could be a pretty easy solution. Put the storefront right up on the street with a pedestrian friendly sidewalk. A 50 space parking lot in back wouldnt even be offensive because the land practically backs up to the highway. I dont think there are any homes behind it are there?

Grover wrote: Why is there a Trader Joe's in a basement in Boston's Back Bay? Not because people demanded smart growth. It's there because there was no where else to put it economically. The developer didn't have a choice.

Sorry. Its because people refused to let the developer tear down existing infrastructure and build in whatever manner suited him. We should force Gilded Age to work within the existing constraints on Bohemian Hill as well.

Grover wrote: We must demand smart, urban design in our city. I'm simply pointing to the fact that there's a lot of land within our city and relatively little demand for it.

There is plenty of land in the city and on the Bohemian Hill Site, as well as at the nearby abandoned foodland site (also owned by Gilded Age). So.........why are they insisting on tearing down existing historic housing, and why should they have the right to do this?

Sorry. Its because people refused to let the developer tear down existing infrastructure and build in whatever manner suited him.

Well, I don't think this is true. It's a 10+ story building. It would have been too expensive to tear it down. And to provide parking the developer would have needed to buy and demolish several other buildings. Anyway, it's a cool store.



I basically agree regarding existing historic housing, especially if this was a built-out well-connected neighborhood. I hope that the exisiting homes will be left standing - I just understand why they may not.



Thanks for all the comments by the way - as I travel I'm starting to look at StLC in different ways. Hopefully this development doesn't repeat former failures in the city. I think there's a lot to overcome before we see "true" urban development.

Grover wrote:

Sorry. Its because people refused to let the developer tear down existing infrastructure and build in whatever manner suited him.

Well, I don't think this is true. It's a 10+ story building. It would have been too expensive to tear it down. And to provide parking the developer would have needed to buy and demolish several other buildings.

Matt wrote: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?

I completely agree. I've lived in LafSq and Soulard and have done a lot of walking through both neighborhoods and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Walking from one to another IS very difficult. I almost always go Russell to Mississippi and bypass anything with Tucker or Lafayette.



To make this development pedestrian friendly (which I think it should be), dcvelopers/city/modot will need to make many changes. First, Tucker is VERY hard to walk, especially heading out of Soulard, under the 55 overpass, across Gravois, and onto Tucker. You absolutely cannot do it if it's rush hour or you'll get hit by someone trying to get on 55 at Geyer.



Tucker gets better around "LA Saison" but then there's the terrible Tucker-over-the-railroad part with the concrete barriers. There's always glass on the sidewalk and there's barely enough room for my double stroller. You also feel kind of trapped in there.



Lafayette heading east from Lafayette Sq. is also complicated. The people heading onto 44 West don't have a stop and it's very hard to cross what's literally an on-ramp. You'd almost need a crossing guard there.



I usually make these walks with a stroller and I cringe to think how anyone with a wheelchair or an elderly person with a grocery tote would ever navigate those sidewalks.



for what it's worth, 7th street is the easiest way to get from the southside to downtown; the improvements around Busch are very easy to walk (except that you have to dodge some funky sidewalks at Park/7th).



In conclusion, I still want something great looking at Bohemian Hill but I think most people will drive unless there are some very serious imrpovements made. I'll try to walk, but only on Sunday afternoons when I won't get hit by a car.

63104mom wrote:

Matt wrote: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?

I completely agree. I've lived in LafSq and Soulard and have done a lot of walking through both neighborhoods and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Walking from one to another IS very difficult. I almost always go Russell to Mississippi and bypass anything with Tucker or Lafayette.



To make this development pedestrian friendly (which I think it should be), dcvelopers/city/modot will need to make many changes. First, Tucker is VERY hard to walk, especially heading out of Soulard, under the 55 overpass, across Gravois, and onto Tucker. You absolutely cannot do it if it's rush hour or you'll get hit by someone trying to get on 55 at Geyer.



Tucker gets better around "LA Saison" but then there's the terrible Tucker-over-the-railroad part with the concrete barriers. There's always glass on the sidewalk and there's barely enough room for my double stroller. You also feel kind of trapped in there.



Lafayette heading east from Lafayette Sq. is also complicated. The people heading onto 44 West don't have a stop and it's very hard to cross what's literally an on-ramp. You'd almost need a crossing guard there.



I usually make these walks with a stroller and I cringe to think how anyone with a wheelchair or an elderly person with a grocery tote would ever navigate those sidewalks.



for what it's worth, 7th street is the easiest way to get from the southside to downtown; the improvements around Busch are very easy to walk (except that you have to dodge some funky sidewalks at Park/7th).



In conclusion, I still want something great looking at Bohemian Hill but I think most people will drive unless there are some very serious imrpovements made. I'll try to walk, but only on Sunday afternoons when I won't get hit by a car.

Much of Soulard will be able to walk straight up Lafayette and cross Tucker to get to the Store, which is a rather pedestrian friendly walk.



Just because this store will have good highway access doesn't mean it shouldn't have great neighborhood access as well. People driving there from the Georgian? That's ridiculous! Lafayette Square, Soulard, and Downtown residents should all be able to walk here. It doesn't make sense to say the demand for an urban design isn't there so who cares. The populations of the 3 neighborhoods mentioned would easily support a grocery store and retail. Downtown's projected population in a few years is 20,000 by itself.



We shouldn't stop pressing for a development that fits the area and provides local residents with a walkable solution.