urbanSTL

Note the elimination of the Gravois ramp from I-55.



There is speculation that St. Louis Bread Co. will annouce as a tennant[/list][/code]

Build everything EXCEPT buildings G, K and L, and you could still have a similar look while saving the best of what's left of Bohemian Hill.

I understand not wanting to lose the architecture there, but I can only think of 2-4 properties on Bohemian Hill that have all of their windows, no boards up, and have solid roofs or back stairs/decks that aren't collapsing. What is proposed here, especially phase 2, is dense and urban looking. I agree that the front facing parking should go, and in a perfect world it'd be underground. As a resident of the area, though, it'll be much better being able to walk to a grocery store, coffee shop, and restaurants rather than walking by slum houses in various states of disrepair. Phase two looks to have some dense residential, (all brick, even!) just what everyone on the board wants. Building N even looks similar to the layout of the Georgian/City Hospital. I wish they'd move B, C, and D up to front Lafayette and move the huge lot behind at the very least. If they build phase 1 as shown and don't complete phase 2 I'd consider it a loss. If we're going to fight anything, let's fight the parking lot in front. Those things aside, I don't see how what's proposed here isn't better for the city and Soulard/Lafayette Sq. residents than what's currently there.

hold on .... correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't G - P merely speculative? Do they actually plan on building them?



and 2 - would G - P involve the destruction of standing structures? Isn't that "slice" already vacant

southslider wrote:Build everything EXCEPT buildings G, K and L, and you could still have a similar look while saving the best of what's left of Bohemian Hill.

I'd really like to see this in a rendering. It may work very well.

Ok, ideally there would be underground parking and the best of what's left on Bohemian Hill would be rehabbed and incorporated into the new development. If it's all or nothing, however; I'll take it all.

I should wait until they release the ground floor renderings, but, as we all know is the case with St. Louis, the materials used in modern construction (especially those meant to evoke the historic architecture) have fallen flat in nearly every case. Six North is a notable exception. I think it's the perfect example of infill in St. Louis (aesthetically speaking).



We are replacing buildings that are vacant now. These are no McRee Town bungalows--that is to say, modest 20th century structures in extreme decay and in a neighborhood of isolation, poverty, and crime. These are beautiful 19th century Frenchtown structures--and the city's best (IMO, obviously) single family residential infill!



I will be in New Orleans for the next two years for grad school and I have learned already that it is heartbreaking to watch St. Louis allow chain store after chain store to build strip mall after strip mall. It's now so prevalent that when one comes along that builds even a couple parcels up to the street, we rejoice.



Seeing how people in NO desperately want to rebuild in a manner that corrects old mistakes, want to make better pedestrian/cycling connections to popular neighborhoods, want to eliminate big box developments (recall that on Urban Review a NO city plan used St. Louis's own Loughborough Commons as a demonstration of what NO did NOT need)...



It's heartbreaking to be in the middle of a city that, at least on paper, has it all right, and then to watch from a distance my own city slowly unravel itself EVEN at a time when it could be capitalizing on a wave of sentiment and even passion for "city living."



I understand that people in Frenchtown would like a grocery store to go too. I also understand that the majority would want a larger grocer. But we need to demand a physical environment that itself commands respect in this city. Another thing we need to do desperately is encourage entrepreneurs to take on the chains--and pledge our support. It's so easy to do in NO but in St. Louis you have to hunt for the non-chains to support. What vibrant, active city can you go to and find nearly all businesses there are across the country as well? How exactly do you carve a niche as a city if your retail is in every other city in the country?



When it comes down to it, cities are much like businesses themselves, providing services to citizens, workers, and visitors alike. St. Louis has major universities and yet we don't see a high retention rate of graduates. We have large convention traffic and yet cry tears of joy when our economy grows at a "less than average pace" just because that's improvement. Why is that?



We as urbanists and St. Louis boosters see the beauty of St. Louis. But we also need to see the challenge. We need to see why people come to St. Louis and don't see what we do. Allowing our physical environment to become ugly Anyplace, USA with all the chains is part of the reason.



We desperately need local flair. We need residents that demand better. As I said earlier, we have become so mired in mediocrity that when something "acceptable" comes along, we are ecstatic. That should not be the case.



In another city, historic Frenchtown (one of the earliest neighborhoods of St. Louis) would be marked with historical markers, banners, historic lighting, placards, decorative sidewalks with street trees, occupied buildings, a redevelopment plan, small business assistance, etc.



This is the time to do it! All of the people on this board are the reason we need to do it. We have impassioned people that care. We all need to talk to the aldermen, not just in this case, but in all the examples of St. Louis just settling for what's "not bad."



Comments?

^I agree its not perfect, but I think it is an improvement over what was originally proposed. For example, with the exception of the grocery store and the two connecting, the other stores now front the street. I like the idea of building everything but the G,K,L.



I know a lot of people here hate chains, but I don't really. It's nice going to independent places and such and I like supporting them, but sometimes I just want a Big Mac or something. That's business, and every city has chains.



I think, and I'm pretty sure everyone here does too, that St. Louis has made major strides in the past few years with the built environment. Rome was not built in a day. Would I like the parking lot to be in back? Yes. But overall I think this project is a positive...though I don't get why we need to tear down all of the houses.

Shimmy wrote:^I agree its not perfect, but I think it is an improvement over what was originally proposed. For example, with the exception of the grocery store and the two connecting, the other stores now front the street. I like the idea of building everything but the G,K,L.



I know a lot of people here hate chains, but I don't really. It's nice going to independent places and such and I like supporting them, but sometimes I just want a Big Mac or something. That's business, and every city has chains.



I think, and I'm pretty sure everyone here does too, that St. Louis has made major strides in the past few years with the built environment. Rome was not built in a day. Would I like the parking lot to be in back? Yes. But overall I think this project is a positive...though I don't get why we need to tear down all of the houses.

To be sure, I don't hate chains. I shop at Target occasionally. Every once in a while, I'll grab some fast food. But when chains flood and dominate a market, it's a sign of lack of local entrepreneurs that establish a city's innovation and uniqueness. There is so little of it in the city of St. Louis. It's absolutely alarming.



The local economy will not improve unless people buy local. A lot of St. Louis's economic stagnancy hinges on its inability to establish a niche.



Look at the greatest St. Louis example of a thriving commercial street--Delmar Blvd. While some might argue chains are taking over the Loop, it has a good mix of stores both local and chain. It is very walkable. It has interesting signage. It's now about 5 or 6 long blocks. That's great. But every city that I've been to, save for Detroit, has multiple "Loops". In New Orleans, Magazine Street dwarfs the Loop (and is mostly local businesses). Of course, the French Quarter doesn't even compare.



Check out Magazine Street's "shop local" ad here.



I will post some pictures of New Orleans later. I realize the two have vastly differing histories, and New Orleans is such a tourist friendly city. But why are they able to build upon local history and celebrate it, while we accept the lowest common denominator? At this high profile intersection, "St. Louis" should be prominent--not Anyplace, USA.

Why all or nothing? The clear-cut approach has its consequences. Even the latest phase of Botanical Heights will follow a more infill approach. As an entire block in Clayton is neither blighted nor necessary for office expansion, I hope this developer realizes new homes and rehabs in Bohemian Hill are likewise not blighted and would work well with infill.

I think we are all missing the most important part of this project....WHERE IS BUILDING "F"?!?!?

Would imagine that A = Walgreens, C = grocery store, and E = Starbucks and maybe something else. Not sure about B & D.

ricke002 wrote:I think we are all missing the most important part of this project....WHERE IS BUILDING "F"?!?!?

I think I found it! It looks more like a concept sketch but this could be it. Now before anyone gets too upset the building appears to front three streets and there are street trees as well!

Matt Drops the H = Glass Half Empty

Grover = Glass Half Full

For anyone that's been outside St. Louis, it's clear that St. Louis is lacking in unique small businesses. While still a bit shoddy, Cherokee is a good example that I overlooked. But let's take a poll. How many non-Hispanic or non-African American members of this board have patronized one of the businesses in the Cherokee strip, and which one? How often? That would be interesting to hear.



St. Louis is quite married to the concept that residential rehabs alone equals progress. This is all going to be one unhappy cycle unless we take steps to ensure this city moves in the right direction--toward establishing itself as a one-of-a-kind, vibrant, active city.



And Grover...I didn't exactly make it all that clear. St. Louis just doesn't have a strip where you can go get coffee, look for an antique chair, buy shoes, and get groceries all in one stop. The CWE and South Grand come to mind--and they're great neighborhoods, to be sure--but even they aren't exactly places you'd spend your whole day or even half of it. And even if you could achieve all of those tasks, say, on South Grand, look at the Schnuck's--a gaping hole in the urban fabric. (By the way Grover, that is a MUCH improved site plan )



St. Louis needs to capitalize on its resources, encourage more local businesses to come in. Another thing we need is art. St. Louis really doesn't have a "bohemian" neighborhood where artists reside.



This stint in New Orleans has really gotten me excited about returning to St. Louis and getting more involved.



My point is to say that the Georgian Square development should not be another collection of chain stores in a faux historic shopping center especially when considering the plans include the demolition of some beautiful structures in the process. If this development were reconfigured to save the extant structures and to include space for potential local tenants, I'd be perhaps even happy to see it. I do look forward to Lafayette Square residents (in whose ranks I formerly was) getting to shop close to home. I just hope Koman again redesigns the site and allows for local businesses too.

As to the Cherokee question above, the late, great Tacqueria Azteca introduced us to the area. Lately, Tacqueria El Bronco and Garduno's, as well as one or two of the bakeries.

Matt Drops The H wrote:St. Louis just doesn't have a strip where you can go get coffee, look for an antique chair, buy shoes, and get groceries all in one stop. The CWE and South Grand come to mind--and they're great neighborhoods, to be sure--but even they aren't exactly places you'd spend your whole day or even half of it. And even if you could achieve all of those tasks, say, on South Grand, look at the Schnuck's--a gaping hole in the urban fabric. (By the way Grover, that is a MUCH improved site plan )

It wouldn't surprise me to see Morganford develop into the kind of strip you just described. It's well on its way.

There's a few differences in the 3/4 perspective illustration and the overhead site plan. Building E is actually two buildings in the illustration (perhaps that's the mysteriously missing building F?) and doesn't wrap around to face Lafayette. Not sure which design is more up-to-date.



-RBB

The Phase II buildings still have to be acquired, though they are still blighted so eminent domain could rear its head again. Anybody who lives in the area and thinks that the Bohemian Hill buildings should be demolished because some of them have boarded up/missing windows has their head up their ass. Sorry, but it is true. I would bet money that just about every house in Soulard, Lafayette Square, Benton Park, TGE, McKinley Heights, Fox Park, etc etc, has been boarded, or had a broken window or two at one time or another. I know mine did. Now it is beautiful. I can't abide the inability to recognize the beauty and importance of the extant infrastructure along Tucker. Given time and a removal of the blight designation (and thus the threat of seizure by the city) they WILL be redeveloped. Why the hell would anybody support knocking those buildings down and building "old looking" condos and offices in their place. Seriously, what the *****. We have been sacrificing the buildings that make our city unique at the alter of "gee, I guess it is not that bad" for 50 years. Oh........wait, they are putting in a Panera and a Starbucks?.............never mind, knock em all down.

TGE-ATW wrote:Oh........wait, they are putting in a Panera and a Starbucks?.............never mind, knock em all down.

Glad to see you've come around!

^Fine, then incorporate the newly proposed high density devlopment in with the existing buildings. But don't let those vacant buildings sit there while important neighborhoods sprout up all around them, and don't miss the opportunity for millions of dollars worth of development in the city. So we have a laundry list of things to urge the devloper to consider. The parking lot, saving the existing architecturally significant buildings, encouraging local businesses to open there, etc. How bout we start working on those rather than saying other people on this board have their head up their ass?



Right now, Bohemian Hill looks horrible. I don't want it to stay the way it is. How anyone would argue that it should look the way it looks is beyond me.