Thats a great point MattSTL. From that I-64 stop you can hit up a Dierberg's, Best Buy, sports authority, or Home Depot within a reasonable walking distance.
Great news! I stand officially updated. My info was from a CMT presentation nearly two years ago on mixed use development. I think at that time, the idea for the Boulevard was still being formed.
I wonder if the owners of the Dierberg's plaza (with access to the Promenade) on the other side of 40 have relented and allowed access to Metrolink? They weren't going to even allow an opening in the fence or stairs at one point.
I wonder if the owners of the Dierberg's plaza (with access to the Promenade) on the other side of 40 have relented and allowed access to Metrolink? They weren't going to even allow an opening in the fence or stairs at one point.
- 49
The Boulevard-St. Louis website has been updated to reflect a few new retailers:
![]()
...
![]()
...
![]()
The Boulevard-St. Louis
...
...
The Boulevard-St. Louis
I don't think that a hotel is in the plans for phase 2 of this project. I would guess that in addition to more retail and parking, they may do condos. Phase one is all rentals, right?
I'm still pissed that they didn't replace the Steak n' Shake that used to be there. It was in the original plans for Phase 2 but has since been scrapped. No more Chili 5-way.
I'm still pissed that they didn't replace the Steak n' Shake that used to be there. It was in the original plans for Phase 2 but has since been scrapped. No more Chili 5-way.
- 377
Richmond Heights to try to help developer gain access to private roadway
Ryan Heinz
Of the Suburban Journals
Citizen Journal
Richmond Heights officials will try to help Mullenix Cos. gain access to a private, signalized right of way the developer says it needs to build a planned $55 million-plus, two-hotel project.
Without use of the private roadway, which is owned by University Club Towers, patrons would have no access to and from the proposed hotels via Brentwood Boulevard. Instead, all traffic generated by the hotels would be via Clayton Road, which the developer and city officials say would be too unsafe.
"You cannot have the traffic coming in and out on Clayton Road," City Manager Amy Hamilton said of a single entrance to the two hotels. "It's too close to the intersection of Brentwood (Boulevard) and Clayton (Road)."
"Basically, over half of our patrons that would stay at either hotel need to eventually, according to traffic studies, head south on Brentwood Boulevard," said developer Greg Mullenix.
As a result, the developer would only be able to move forward with construction of one of the hotels until the company is able to obtain access to the private roadway.
Mullenix Cos. initially entered into a letter of intent in June 2004 with Glenborough Reality Trust, a San Mateo, Calif.-based company that owns University Club Towers, to deal with off-site parking and access to Brentwood Boulevard via the private right of way, said developer Mike Mullenix. As part of the potential agreement, Mullenix Cos. planned to improve the private roadway.
The reason Glenborough gave for ending negotiations was it now intends to sell the University Club Towers, Mike Mullenix said. This would mean that Mullenix Cos. would have to wait until another company purchases the building before Mullenix could negotiate use of the private right of way.
"When we realized early on that the U. Club was willing to negotiate, we went for what was best for both parties and what obviously would have been the best situation for the city," Greg Mullenix said. "Unfortunately, they just cut off (negotiations) and pulled the rug out from under us."
Hamilton said Richmond Heights would try to use eminent domain to obtain the private right of way if Glenborough does not work with the city.
"First the city will offer to purchase the property needed," Hamilton said. "Then, if that offer is denied, we will begin the process of filing for public acquisition of the needed land."
David Reary, Richmond Heights building and zoning commissioner, said Glenborough is selling about 20 of its Midwest properties, including the University Club Towers. As of Journal press time, Glenborough representatives did not return calls requesting comment.
This is not the first time Mullenix Cos. has had its project delayed. In September, the Missouri Department of Transportation delayed the development by four months with the department's plans to use part of Mullenix's land for an Interstate 170 off-ramp. MoDOT has since dropped the project and told Mullenix Cos. to move forward with its development.
Regardless of whether Mullenix Cos. receives access to the right of way, it will commence with development of a Hilton Homewood Suites. The extended-stay hotel would feature 236 units.
The other hotel the company wants to develop is a full-service Westin Hotel, which would feature about 128 units, about 7,500 square feet of restaurant space (for two restaurants) and a ballroom.
Greg Mullenix said he feels encouraged by the city's efforts to help the project.
"They're very serious and they understand that we've been going at this thing for two and a half years," he said. "They know the clock is ticking."
You can contact Ryan Heinz at rheinz@yourjournal.com.
Ryan Heinz
Of the Suburban Journals
Citizen Journal
Richmond Heights officials will try to help Mullenix Cos. gain access to a private, signalized right of way the developer says it needs to build a planned $55 million-plus, two-hotel project.
Without use of the private roadway, which is owned by University Club Towers, patrons would have no access to and from the proposed hotels via Brentwood Boulevard. Instead, all traffic generated by the hotels would be via Clayton Road, which the developer and city officials say would be too unsafe.
"You cannot have the traffic coming in and out on Clayton Road," City Manager Amy Hamilton said of a single entrance to the two hotels. "It's too close to the intersection of Brentwood (Boulevard) and Clayton (Road)."
"Basically, over half of our patrons that would stay at either hotel need to eventually, according to traffic studies, head south on Brentwood Boulevard," said developer Greg Mullenix.
As a result, the developer would only be able to move forward with construction of one of the hotels until the company is able to obtain access to the private roadway.
Mullenix Cos. initially entered into a letter of intent in June 2004 with Glenborough Reality Trust, a San Mateo, Calif.-based company that owns University Club Towers, to deal with off-site parking and access to Brentwood Boulevard via the private right of way, said developer Mike Mullenix. As part of the potential agreement, Mullenix Cos. planned to improve the private roadway.
The reason Glenborough gave for ending negotiations was it now intends to sell the University Club Towers, Mike Mullenix said. This would mean that Mullenix Cos. would have to wait until another company purchases the building before Mullenix could negotiate use of the private right of way.
"When we realized early on that the U. Club was willing to negotiate, we went for what was best for both parties and what obviously would have been the best situation for the city," Greg Mullenix said. "Unfortunately, they just cut off (negotiations) and pulled the rug out from under us."
Hamilton said Richmond Heights would try to use eminent domain to obtain the private right of way if Glenborough does not work with the city.
"First the city will offer to purchase the property needed," Hamilton said. "Then, if that offer is denied, we will begin the process of filing for public acquisition of the needed land."
David Reary, Richmond Heights building and zoning commissioner, said Glenborough is selling about 20 of its Midwest properties, including the University Club Towers. As of Journal press time, Glenborough representatives did not return calls requesting comment.
This is not the first time Mullenix Cos. has had its project delayed. In September, the Missouri Department of Transportation delayed the development by four months with the department's plans to use part of Mullenix's land for an Interstate 170 off-ramp. MoDOT has since dropped the project and told Mullenix Cos. to move forward with its development.
Regardless of whether Mullenix Cos. receives access to the right of way, it will commence with development of a Hilton Homewood Suites. The extended-stay hotel would feature 236 units.
The other hotel the company wants to develop is a full-service Westin Hotel, which would feature about 128 units, about 7,500 square feet of restaurant space (for two restaurants) and a ballroom.
Greg Mullenix said he feels encouraged by the city's efforts to help the project.
"They're very serious and they understand that we've been going at this thing for two and a half years," he said. "They know the clock is ticking."
You can contact Ryan Heinz at rheinz@yourjournal.com.
I drove through here one evening and it was hopping. The people that accompanied me didn't know the place existed to the extent it does. They thought the retail outlets facing Brentwood and the Galleria (Crate and Barrel) were all that existed.
Looks inviting. It reminds me of new developments that have gone up in the inner suburbs of DC. Of course, Mid-County STL reminds me a lot of inner DC suburbs.
I hope the metro will stop here.
I hope the metro will stop here.
- 1,610
MetroLink will stop at the new Richmond Heights station just east of this development. The Boulevard is actually closer to the station than the Galleria.
While the distance from the station to the Galleria's door is about the interior length of the indoor mall itself, the station's distance to the Boulevard is only one-third of that to the Galleria.
Though all buses serving the future station will be routed to serve nearby retail, it still would be nice to improve the I-170 underpass with better lighting and wider sidewalks to encourage walking.
While the distance from the station to the Galleria's door is about the interior length of the indoor mall itself, the station's distance to the Boulevard is only one-third of that to the Galleria.
Though all buses serving the future station will be routed to serve nearby retail, it still would be nice to improve the I-170 underpass with better lighting and wider sidewalks to encourage walking.
- 1,517
Now why, why, why couldn't something like the Boulevard have happened at Chippewa and Kingshighway? When will we start to see St. Louis new urbanism/lifestyle centers within St. Louis City?
^^^no kidding! why couldn't they have done it. I hate the way they destroyed Chippewa & Kingshighway.
- 667
I still have yet to actually visit this place. I drive by it like every week, but haven't gone anywhere there. Next time I will pay a visit to this place. 
I can't say for sure, but it looks like the apartments aren't open yet. I drive by once a week and there doesn't seem to be any activity in the apartments yet. I think the condos are in a later stage as well.
This is a good looking project. I drove through there quickly last week, but wasn't able to stop. Arch City's photos make me want to go back, park and walk through it. As has been pointed out, not a lot of people even realize that this little "street" exists. Its just a shame it has to be hidden away in its own little world. If only Brentwood Blvd. itself looked like this.
I look forward to the next block being built to the South, as well as the new hotels on the North end.
I look forward to the next block being built to the South, as well as the new hotels on the North end.
As I walked around the area last Thursday afternoon, it did not look like people are living in the apartments yet. There is a phone number posted on the door to make appointments but it doesn't look like you can just walk in any time and look at the apartments. They are still doing a little construction on the stairwell that leads up to the condo area.
I really like the feel of the area in between the buildings. Most of the store are open now. Maggianos was packed the day I went with the wait being over an hour in the afternoon. There were a lot of people milling around between the shops. I hope they use this idea elsewhere too.
I really like the feel of the area in between the buildings. Most of the store are open now. Maggianos was packed the day I went with the wait being over an hour in the afternoon. There were a lot of people milling around between the shops. I hope they use this idea elsewhere too.
There's an outdoor mall like this in St. Petersberg called 'The Baywalk'. If you had told me that these pics were from St. Pete, I would have believed you. The similarity is uncanny. The only difference is the stores and restaurants in St. Pete are more unique (an upscale Italian restaurant called Ciao I, iirc, and a couple others), and they have a brilliant movie theater there, with about 12 screens.
- 1,610
DPZ-planned New Urbanist towns usually look to nearby area/local vernacular architecture for inspiration. New Town St. Charles, including its mixed use "town center" does resemble Old St. Charles.
Meanwhile, many of these new "lifestyle centers" like Boulevard St. Louis by major commercial developers do start all looking alike after awhile, just the concept is newer locally with The Boulevard thus far the best example, though Kirkwood Station another.
Heck, even hokey Branson, with Branson Landing will now follow the trend. And when New Urbanism has reached even the auto-oriented capital of the world, you know it has to have become mainstream among developers.
Still, many of these developments following more urbanist principles, whether locally inspired or not in there architecture, are creating walkable places, where really there wasn't a sense of place or walkability previously. So, when the majority of the American landscape is still Anyplace, USA, is it cause for concern if those non-places now become Fake Mainstreet, USA? So long as you're not significantly impacting established neighborhoods of the old urbanism, I think the suburbs could use a little retrofitting.
Meanwhile, many of these new "lifestyle centers" like Boulevard St. Louis by major commercial developers do start all looking alike after awhile, just the concept is newer locally with The Boulevard thus far the best example, though Kirkwood Station another.
Heck, even hokey Branson, with Branson Landing will now follow the trend. And when New Urbanism has reached even the auto-oriented capital of the world, you know it has to have become mainstream among developers.
Still, many of these developments following more urbanist principles, whether locally inspired or not in there architecture, are creating walkable places, where really there wasn't a sense of place or walkability previously. So, when the majority of the American landscape is still Anyplace, USA, is it cause for concern if those non-places now become Fake Mainstreet, USA? So long as you're not significantly impacting established neighborhoods of the old urbanism, I think the suburbs could use a little retrofitting.
- 1,517
Southslider--
I've often felt that these New Urbanist developments--especially those as small in physical scale as the Boulevard--seem like Disneyland substitutes for a real city. They seem a questionable attempt to offer the urban aesthetics outside of the urban context. There is no history and often no diversity that is so interconnected with the enjoyment of any true urban environment.
The Boulevard would look a lot better if it were not such a self-contained island of urbanity located directly across from St. Louis's largest shopping mall (complete with a huge parking lot). However, trying to encourage a pedestrian-friendly, mixed use development in the heart of this hostile environment is brave and should perhaps be encouraged.
I just wish that this respect for the urban fabric would spill over the City's own boundaries. It seems so many urban-dwellers here are stuck in the mindset that suburbia has been, is, and will always be the standard for development, both commercial and, to a lesser extent, residential. A New Urbanism project within the City would not seem so out of context and isolated if the proper location were chosen. It would also seem to offer an opportunity to expand, as there are plenty of vacant lots/underutilized commercial superblocks in the City that could be perfect sites for more comprehensive "new urbanism." A more modern take on urban ideals within the City limits such as a New Urbanism project would seem more out of respect for the "old urbanism" and the inability to emulate it than a Disneyland surrounded by a sea of parking.
Bring "New Urbanism" to the City!
I've often felt that these New Urbanist developments--especially those as small in physical scale as the Boulevard--seem like Disneyland substitutes for a real city. They seem a questionable attempt to offer the urban aesthetics outside of the urban context. There is no history and often no diversity that is so interconnected with the enjoyment of any true urban environment.
The Boulevard would look a lot better if it were not such a self-contained island of urbanity located directly across from St. Louis's largest shopping mall (complete with a huge parking lot). However, trying to encourage a pedestrian-friendly, mixed use development in the heart of this hostile environment is brave and should perhaps be encouraged.
I just wish that this respect for the urban fabric would spill over the City's own boundaries. It seems so many urban-dwellers here are stuck in the mindset that suburbia has been, is, and will always be the standard for development, both commercial and, to a lesser extent, residential. A New Urbanism project within the City would not seem so out of context and isolated if the proper location were chosen. It would also seem to offer an opportunity to expand, as there are plenty of vacant lots/underutilized commercial superblocks in the City that could be perfect sites for more comprehensive "new urbanism." A more modern take on urban ideals within the City limits such as a New Urbanism project would seem more out of respect for the "old urbanism" and the inability to emulate it than a Disneyland surrounded by a sea of parking.
Bring "New Urbanism" to the City!
- 1,610
I think we're saying the same thing. But since this is the St. Louis County sub-forum, I was editorializing about New Urbanism in the suburbs. And New Urbanism can work for redevelopment in the inner-ring suburbs and city neighborhoods, but I think it should be targeted towards commercial grayfield and industrial brownfield superblocks.
Even more so than its usual greenfield developments, I really do like the idea of New Urbanism principles applied to infill in the urban core of the City and inner-ring suburbs as major redevelopment, when replacing brownfields and grayfields. As minor infill and more organic revitalization, basic "Old Urbanism" prinicples really should apply within residential and mixed use areas of established neighborhoods.
Simply, we shouldn't tear down any blocks of established neighborhoods in the City and inner-ring Coutny for major redevelopment, when there are plenty of non-residential suberblocks available. There are plenty of sites like Christy Plaza, St. Louis Marketplace, Carondelet Coke and Pruitt-Igoe that exist in the City, and plenty of inner-ring County sites, like Hanley Industrial Park. All of these grayfield and brownfield superblocks offer redevelopment opportunities for New Urbanism within the urban core, but it's been a slow trend to arrive in greater St. Louis.
Though The Boulevard did replace a few brick gingerbread homes, these homes were isolated leftovers, with most of the site's acreage covered by cheap strip development with in-front surface parking. In general, you would want to avoid demolishing homes for redevelopment sites unless they are unusual leftovers on otherwise non-residential blocks with mostly commercial grayfields.
Even more so than its usual greenfield developments, I really do like the idea of New Urbanism principles applied to infill in the urban core of the City and inner-ring suburbs as major redevelopment, when replacing brownfields and grayfields. As minor infill and more organic revitalization, basic "Old Urbanism" prinicples really should apply within residential and mixed use areas of established neighborhoods.
Simply, we shouldn't tear down any blocks of established neighborhoods in the City and inner-ring Coutny for major redevelopment, when there are plenty of non-residential suberblocks available. There are plenty of sites like Christy Plaza, St. Louis Marketplace, Carondelet Coke and Pruitt-Igoe that exist in the City, and plenty of inner-ring County sites, like Hanley Industrial Park. All of these grayfield and brownfield superblocks offer redevelopment opportunities for New Urbanism within the urban core, but it's been a slow trend to arrive in greater St. Louis.
Though The Boulevard did replace a few brick gingerbread homes, these homes were isolated leftovers, with most of the site's acreage covered by cheap strip development with in-front surface parking. In general, you would want to avoid demolishing homes for redevelopment sites unless they are unusual leftovers on otherwise non-residential blocks with mostly commercial grayfields.
While I was driving to the Galleria today on my lunch I noticed an unfortunate woman who was attempting to cross Brentwood to get to the Boulevard after having parked across the street at the Galleria. She was stuck on the median looking for an opening. I hope she made it.
- 1,610
I know the Galleria doesn't want to make it easier for its patrons to walk over to their competitor Boulevard, but they should care about making it easier for walkers from MetroLink. Maybe once the Galleria sees how MetroLink riders more easily access their competition closer to the future station, the Galleria will want walkers to keep walking west and rethink their pedestrian accessibility across and from Brentwood Boulevard.
I know the Cheese Cake Factory would maybe complain, but there are hardly any parking spaces now in what could be sacrificed for a landscaped walkway or a lifestyle wing outgrowth from the Galleria towards Brentwood Boulevard.
I know the Cheese Cake Factory would maybe complain, but there are hardly any parking spaces now in what could be sacrificed for a landscaped walkway or a lifestyle wing outgrowth from the Galleria towards Brentwood Boulevard.
southslider wrote:I know the Cheese Cake Factory would maybe complain, but there are hardly any parking spaces now in what could be sacrificed for a landscaped walkway or a lifestyle wing outgrowth from the Galleria towards Brentwood Boulevard.
I've often thought that the next expansion of the Galleria would be something like what they are doing at Chesterfield Mall that would tie the Galleria into The Boulevard. While it would make it easier for The Galleria's customers to get to a competitors location, I think like you said, making the Galleria more accessible to metrolink will outweigh that factor.
It is a two way street. Galleria shoppers could more easily reach the Boulevard, but the reverse is just as true. More connectivity would help the owners of both, because people would view it as one "mega" shopping destination, instead of two separate ones. If people thought that they could park at either one and walk easily between the two, more people might come and shop.