Is not Gilded Age involved in this development? If they are then I trust they will do their best to make sure Walgreens makes a positive addition to the area. They have too much riding on the immediate neighborhood with all the vacant land they own behind the Georgian.
- 1,517
Does anyone find it strange and upsetting that citizens have NO recourse to influence the design of this building (since it's not within a historic district)? I mean, we must live with it for 35 years or so; why can't we say how we want it?
I know money talks and that it would be profitable as either a suburban or urban-formatted store, but to me that only strengthens my argument that citizens should be able to demand this store be urban in character.
I am planning on going on a mini-campaign to get a stop work order until Walgreens goes back to the drawing board (or at least releases a rendering to let us know their plans in the first place!).
I know money talks and that it would be profitable as either a suburban or urban-formatted store, but to me that only strengthens my argument that citizens should be able to demand this store be urban in character.
I am planning on going on a mini-campaign to get a stop work order until Walgreens goes back to the drawing board (or at least releases a rendering to let us know their plans in the first place!).
- 11K
^ Don't forget to add in every neighborhood/ward in the city where this is no review whatsoever. 
Here's the old rendering of the site with grocery store, etc.
http://komanproperties.com/05162007/Geo ... Square.pdf
http://komanproperties.com/05162007/Geo ... Square.pdf
JMStokes wrote:Here's the old rendering of the site with grocery store, etc.
http://komanproperties.com/05162007/Geo ... Square.pdf
The Walgreens in the sketch looks quite pedestrian-friendly. It's up against the street with a tree-lined sidewalk and even a sculpture on the corner. Notice all the apparently-happy stick people:
However, the architectural rendering shows a Walgreens less pedestrian-accessible from the street:
I'm sure both are out of date, but I hope the final design is closer to the former than the latter.
-RBB
- 549
Are they still planning on taking over the couple blocks immediately to the East of the current vacant lot the Walgreens will be built on?
The site plan shows what I assume to be multifamily housing...not sure if this phase is still part of the project scope or not. Some of the vacant lots are for sale so hopefully this phase was cut out of the project scope. Redevloping the blocks organically by rehabilitation of the historic homes and infill should be the only option.
There's already not much left of Bohemian Hill. It would be (more than) a shame to lose the historic houses and modern infill houses that currently inhabit those blocks.
The site plan shows what I assume to be multifamily housing...not sure if this phase is still part of the project scope or not. Some of the vacant lots are for sale so hopefully this phase was cut out of the project scope. Redevloping the blocks organically by rehabilitation of the historic homes and infill should be the only option.
There's already not much left of Bohemian Hill. It would be (more than) a shame to lose the historic houses and modern infill houses that currently inhabit those blocks.
- 11K
I actually think that one of the only things that make this commercial development make sense would be much added density immediately next door. This would be Bohemian Hill to the east. Of course this would only make sense IF the density added is at least what it shown in the rendering.
When this plan initially got going years ago, some people got really up in arms about it, but in the end, there didn't really seem to be enough public outcry to force a "good" design. I and many others were hoping that the development would, 1. leave the remaining homes to the east intact and 2. improve pedestrian connectivity between Lafayette Square and Soulard. I am not sure if public outcry ended up saving the homes or if Guilded Age just figured they had bit off more than they could chew already and just tabled that portion of the plan.As far as the design of the shopping center, In the end, there was a lot of grumbling but the public never rose up and firmly asked for a better design. Everyone was so excited about having retail nearby that they forgot about the long-term advantages that could be reaped by asking for retail that created a streetwall along Lafayette.
RBB wrote:JMStokes wrote:Here's the old rendering of the site with grocery store, etc.
http://komanproperties.com/05162007/Geo ... Square.pdf
The Walgreens in the sketch looks quite pedestrian-friendly. It's up against the street with a tree-lined sidewalk and even a sculpture on the corner. Notice all the apparently-happy stick people:
However, the architectural rendering shows a Walgreens less pedestrian-accessible from the street:
I'm sure both are out of date, but I hope the final design is closer to the former than the latter.
-RBB
Went to a condo meeting last night and a rep from Koman gave a presentation on this project. The renderings he showed us closer to the 1st sketch minus the fountatin). This Walgreens is going to be a little different than the typical Walgreens. I tried to get digitial files of the renderings, but Walgreens does not allow that for some reason. Here are some key points:
-store pushed all the way to the edge of the sidewalk.
-entrance is right on the northeast corner of the building against the sidewalk
-Instead of the typical, one-story box, they added a faux 2nd story with windows at the top to blend in more with the surrounding area. So, from the outside, it will look like a 2 story building, but the inside will be the same as any Walgreens.
-They also added streetside window displays (I think like 3 or 4 along the front and side) to make it more friendly for the pedestrian. I really liked this touch, as long as they keep it clean and OK.
-Brick and 2nd story windows (I think) matches the Georgian across the street
-There is a one-lane drivethrough on the back
-There will be a tall sign (think McDonalds) with a digital marque to announce specials, but also neighborhood events, amber alerts, etc. Not sure what I feel about this... have a feeling this is going to be pretty gaudy.
- 1,218
Built to the sidewalk? That's fantastic. This sets a precedent for Walgreens in St. Louis, no?
I want to see a rendering, but this could work. I presume there will still be a parking lot on one side?
Now the digital marquee irks me. That is the one concession Walgreens normally makes in the city, but I guess if that is the one flaw in the plan, I can live with it.
This just proves that Walgreens and the others will do what is asked of them because they want to be there, and they know they will still be massively profitable.
Now the digital marquee irks me. That is the one concession Walgreens normally makes in the city, but I guess if that is the one flaw in the plan, I can live with it.
This just proves that Walgreens and the others will do what is asked of them because they want to be there, and they know they will still be massively profitable.
MattnSTL wrote:I want to see a rendering, but this could work. I presume there will still be a parking lot on one side?
Now the digital marquee irks me. That is the one concession Walgreens normally makes in the city, but I guess if that is the one flaw in the plan, I can live with it.
This just proves that Walgreens and the others will do what is asked of them because they want to be there, and they know they will still be massively profitable.
The parking is similar to what you see in the first rendering, with a new entrance on Lafeyette the leads to the parking lot. I expected this, though.
Of all of the tenants of the original plan, Walgreens is the only one that stuck. They are still hopeful once the economy comes back that the grocery will be built, that is why they are not paving over that land for parking. They will be leaving areas open for Phase 2 and 3.
MattnSTL wrote:I want to see a rendering, but this could work. I presume there will still be a parking lot on one side?
Now the digital marquee irks me. That is the one concession Walgreens normally makes in the city, but I guess if that is the one flaw in the plan, I can live with it.
This just proves that Walgreens and the others will do what is asked of them because they want to be there, and they know they will still be massively profitable.
IMHO Walgreens can have the digital marquee if they don't do the flashing security lights.
I was at this meeting also. I believe the marquee sign is to be placed on the northwest side of the building and is to have a low profile.
Lighting will be directed downward for the most part.
Facade will be a mix of brick and limestone.
Lighting will be directed downward for the most part.
Facade will be a mix of brick and limestone.
Very nice - glad to hear Walgreens listened to their new neighbors!
-RBB
-RBB
stlmark wrote:Built to the sidewalk? That's fantastic. This sets a precedent for Walgreens in St. Louis, no?
Only if you don't count Chesterfield as part of St. Louis. The Walgreens on Chesterfield Parkway pushes out to the sidewalk.
The Walgreen's on Gravois just west of Grand is right up to the sidewalk. Of course, it's surrounded by parking on the other three sides
- 8,922
the walgreens at Clayton and Big Bend is to the street on the Clayton side.
stlmark wrote:Built to the sidewalk? That's fantastic. This sets a precedent for Walgreens in St. Louis, no?
The Walgreens on Gravois just west of Grand is built to the sidewalk.
Up to the street, but not up to the corner. I've always found it funny that their buildings are built for a corner location but are almost never located on the actual corner.Moorlander wrote:the walgreens at Clayton and Big Bend is to the street on the Clayton side.
- 1,026
that is damn good news. am I correct that the remnants of bohemian hill are still being spared? I've seen nothing to the contrary......
i wonder why they can't simply put actual housing on top of the store. They do it in Chicago. In that neighborhood it would likely sell.
anyway - overall I'm pleased.
i wonder why they can't simply put actual housing on top of the store. They do it in Chicago. In that neighborhood it would likely sell.
anyway - overall I'm pleased.
- 2,093
after reading the STLToday story and the comments at the bottom of the page this is what made me upchuck--
"Why a security force? Are you kidding? Have you ever visited the Walgreen’s down on South Broadway? This one has the potential to become an even bigger mecca for homeless to hang out, criminals to congregate, and hoosiers to perform oil changes in the parking lot (all with a police sub station hosted inside). If you think Soulard is one of the “nicer” neighborhoods in St Louis, try coming down after dark…just don’t come alone or unstrapped. This place will become Ft Apache the Bronx in no time. Count on it!
Xenophobe Masta
8:27 am April 28th, 2009 "
Idiot! At least his screen name is truth in advertising.
"Why a security force? Are you kidding? Have you ever visited the Walgreen’s down on South Broadway? This one has the potential to become an even bigger mecca for homeless to hang out, criminals to congregate, and hoosiers to perform oil changes in the parking lot (all with a police sub station hosted inside). If you think Soulard is one of the “nicer” neighborhoods in St Louis, try coming down after dark…just don’t come alone or unstrapped. This place will become Ft Apache the Bronx in no time. Count on it!
Xenophobe Masta
8:27 am April 28th, 2009 "
Idiot! At least his screen name is truth in advertising.
- 8,922
^ what did you expect? 
"looser" LOL
reminds me of the kids from Whitfield who vandalized my HS and tag'd us as LOOSERS!
"looser" LOL
reminds me of the kids from Whitfield who vandalized my HS and tag'd us as LOOSERS!