urbanSTL

I agree there needs to be a connection. I shouldn't have used "pipe dream". It's hard to find excitement in projects that have stalled while other have come and gone/been completed.



There are so many wastelands in the city. I don't think this location is anymore important than others. I don't understand the "complete the city" comment.

trent wrote:Sure the phased out development of Chouteaus Landing might be a pipe dream, but they're already involved in phase one. There are great warehouse buildings there that will most likely be rehabbed, so I belive it will be a neighborhood...to what degree is the question.



You may think I'm exaggerating, but we also might have different expectations for the city. Leaving a wasteland of parking and train lots in between downtown and the near southside is a big detriment to the development in that surrounding area. Lafayette Square has had success expanding to Chouteau, but Soulard has essentially stopped, spurned by the highway and poor planning.



Chouteau Lake and Landing would connect that, and complete the city. That's just how I see it.

I've describes my ideas and sentiments enough, that I really don't see how much more I need to explain. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Trent is correct.



Getting retail downtown is entirely dependent on a smooth transition to its immediatley surrounding neighborhoods, along with easy connections and major arteries. The south side of downtown, being the most dense collection of close neighborhoods to downtown, is the most logical first target. All we have to do there is connect two areas. Developers have expressed countless times that (fill in the blank for whatever amenity, retail option you want to be built downtown) won't be an easy sell until there is not only strong density in the downtown neighborhood, but the immediate surrounding area without any gaps. A lake may be a barrier, but its a friendly one that can be built around, unlike train tracks.

I'm looking at a map of soulard/south edge of downtown - that little grey area that is the "connector" between Downtown and Soulard. I am assuming this is the "connector" in question. [Area between 7th st. & I-55 from Park Ave. north to Highway 40 / future chouteau lake.]





Many urbanstlouisans want retail, retail, retail to be the connector. I truly believe mixed use, with a HEAVY emphasis on residential should be the connector. We have so much residential just south of Park Ave., it just makes sense. Also, how can retail survive w/out people living there? I have an answer for that - big box development. [-X



What came first on Washington Ave? You know dern well that it wasn't retail. In fact, it was those cool little clubs and hang outs that spurred the development. (beginning in 1995 or so - Oh how I miss the galaxy) The yuppies moved in as more and more warehouses were converted to living units. Those living modestly in the warehouses were forced out. Oh yeah, good bye Gus' Fashion. The trendy businesses and retail moved in afterwards and WALAH!!! ****gentrification***



We're becoming saturated with retail. Everywhere you look it seems another retail development pops up. Retail, and only retail, is not the answer. I understand many of us know that but I just need to reiterate it, thanks.



I would focus on developing residential, within the mentioned connector, and return with retail when the time is right.



After re-reading some of your posts, trent & stlmike, I think we agree that developing a residential hood is the answer.

Everyone on this board is "for" residential. Retail is simply a side benefit to our main point. The main point is that everything benefits when neighborhoods are connected properly. We're talking about walkable roads lakes, office buildings, retail, bars, etc. vs. psychological barriers like highways and train yards and huge swaths of wasted land.



On a side note, I don't understand why a lot of people think its so black and white: either dingy, cool, underground clubs and independent stores OR a huge g-d-mn Walmart.

Walmart? Can I assume that you are not anti-walmart, or other big box developments? That is fine...but...



Do you think a big walmart would work well in the hypothetical "connector" between downtown and soulard? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q ... 4&t=k&om=1



I understand your point that everything benifits the hood when they are connected properly. My main argument or point is that you have to start with residential first. Walkable roads(sidewalks) will come with the territory. Office buildings are to the north in downtown and not necessary at the moment in this connector, IMO.



Inserting a wal-mart is only going to add another psychological barrier with all the parking, thus making wasted land. Yet a large supermarket would be nice if planned correctly.

stlmike wrote:Everyone on this board is "for" residential. Retail is simply a side benefit to our main point. The main point is that everything benefits when neighborhoods are connected properly. We're talking about walkable roads lakes, office buildings, retail, bars, etc. vs. psychological barriers like highways and train yards and huge swaths of wasted land.



On a side note, I don't understand why a lot of people think its so black and white: either dingy, cool, underground clubs and independent stores OR a huge g-d-mn Walmart.

rustedhinge wrote:Walmart? Can I assume that you are not anti-walmart, or other big box developments? That is fine...but...



Do you think a big walmart would work well in the hypothetical "connector" between downtown and soulard? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q ... 4&t=k&om=1



I understand your point that everything benifits the hood when they are connected properly. My main argument or point is that you have to start with residential first. Walkable roads(sidewalks) will come with the territory. Office buildings are to the north in downtown and not necessary at the moment in this connector, IMO.



Inserting a wal-mart is only going to add another psychological barrier with all the parking, thus making wasted land. Yet a large supermarket would be nice if planned correctly.

stlmike wrote:Everyone on this board is "for" residential. Retail is simply a side benefit to our main point. The main point is that everything benefits when neighborhoods are connected properly. We're talking about walkable roads lakes, office buildings, retail, bars, etc. vs. psychological barriers like highways and train yards and huge swaths of wasted land.



On a side note, I don't understand why a lot of people think its so black and white: either dingy, cool, underground clubs and independent stores OR a huge g-d-mn Walmart.

Stlmike never suggested putting a walmart or anything of the sort in that space. He only said Walmart to demosrtane the other side of the extreme spectrum. Black(dingy, cool, underground clubs) or White(a huge g-d-mn Walmart)



I also don't understand what exactally you are arguing here. Trent and stlmike have made thier points pretty clear.

That walmart comment was in reference to yours. You suggested that the logical conclusion to wanting retail is big box retail. I'm saying it's not that black and white. Any major city you can name has a healthy mix of national chains, local chains, and independent shops. Often within a few blocks. Wanting a Borders downtown isn't a crime. They aren't as cool as a great independent bookstore, but they are reliable and serve a certain purpose. I shop at both kinds of places. When I know exactly what book I want and want it "today," I usually go to Borders. When I want to browse for some good used deals to discover (in bulk, usually) a bunch of surprise purchases, I go to an independent used bookstore. What about an upscale clothing store or two? I think the city does need these types of places SOMEWHERE inside the city limit. A city can't run entirely on thrift stores and we can't settle for making a trip to the galleria.



And no, I'm not a Wal Mart fan.

with this project situated relatively close to the CBD, and the general lack of high quality class A office space, I don't understand why some nice mixed-use office/hotel/retail buildings wouldn't work. Residential would be and probably will be the first concern (with first floor retail), but along the lake, with great views and a great site, this would be prime land for wooing in some big corporations. That is my understanding for why there is so much excitement over the MW tower proposal. Needed space, great location (possibly), iconic architecture...great idea.

Personally, I'd like to see the lots along Fourth and Broadway developed in such a manner so as to blend in with the original buildings (Eugene Field Museum, B.B.'s, Broadway Oyster Bar, etc.), creating a seamless "bridge" from downtown to Soulard. The Chouteau's Landing project that the Murphys have undertaken should help out a great deal in this regard, adding small retail and office space and residential space to the mix.



To the west of Broadway - in the Chouteau's Pond area - is where I'd like to see the larger-scale developments described in this thread and elsewhere.

I hate the disconnect between Downtown and Soulard. Does anyone else think that parking lot owners that make money from ballgames may be a part of the problem?



Broadway and 7th should both be filled in from Soulard to Downtown. I walk/ride my bike down both those streets and the disconnect is quite depressing, and doesn't make any sense given the amount of people that would use each corridor if they were filled in. Hopefully the Chouteau Lake District/Ice House District will come to fruition and take advantage of the amazing opportunity that exists in this area. I'd like to see rowhouses and bars line 7th from Chouteau to the new Busch, and have retail/residential line Broadway.

SouldardD,



I don't think that those parking lot owners are to blame. Right now, that area isn't in high demand except for parking. When the market demand changes, those owners will either sell or try to develop something. It's all about the market demands. It's not their fault that there's no density in the near southside, and 40k people drive to baseball games 81 times a year.

Fire&Ice7981 wrote:with this project situated relatively close to the CBD, and the general lack of high quality class A office space, I don't understand why some nice mixed-use office/hotel/retail buildings wouldn't work. Residential would be and probably will be the first concern (with first floor retail), but along the lake, with great views and a great site, this would be prime land for wooing in some big corporations. That is my understanding for why there is so much excitement over the MW tower proposal. Needed space, great location (possibly), iconic architecture...great idea.

I have seen the argument that Downtown needs more office space several times throughout the forum. Please explain the need for more office space when there is 452,000 sf of vacant Class A office space and 1,792,000 sf of vacant Class B/C office space in the Downtown area as of Q1 2006.

FloInSoulard wrote:
I have seen the argument that Downtown needs more office space several times throughout the forum. Please explain the need for more office space when there is 452,000 sf of vacant Class A office space and 1,792,000 sf of vacant Class B/C office space in the Downtown area as of Q1 2006.

Flo,



I think the argument is that the Class A available DT can't compete with the Class A available out West, and to draw a large company that would make its presence felt Downtown, we need more/better quality class A office space. I have no idea if that's really true or not.

And, the total amount of vacant space is irrelevant when there is a lack of large, contiguous blocks of space available. It was the main reason that a firm like Husch & Eppenberger left downtown.



There are other examples where there is a large amount of space available, but the building may have issues that make it tough to lease - 500 N. Broadway, for example, has several floors available but major asbestos issues at the same time. The space will require a lot of work in order to be leasable, but the building's ownership does not seem to be too interested in getting it ready, so it will probably sit vacant for a long time.



Class C space is generally "functionally obsolete" and is virtually unmarketable and really shouldn't be considered in office leasing statistics. According to the methodology we used to incorporate, downtown will soon have little to no Class C space left as most of it is being converted to lofts (we considered the Paul Brown Building to be Class C, for example. The Pet Building, was Class B).



EDIT: I was typing while JMedwick made his post - sorry to repeat some of the same info.

I guess my concern is that by building new office there won't be actual growth; you will have companies moving from other downtown locations as mentioned by JMedwick. I think there might be too much focus on landing a large corporate tenant for the city when landing multiple smaller tenants could have the same desired effect

FloInSoulard wrote:I guess my concern is that by building new office there won't be actual growth; you will have companies moving from other downtown locations as mentioned by JMedwick. I think there might be too much focus on landing a large corporate tenant for the city when landing multiple smaller tenants could have the same desired effect

And that's a very, very valid concern. That's why I would be more in favor of building smaller new office buildings - to avoid the game of musical office chairs that occurred when Met Square was built. Taking the approach that the Cupples Station developers are taking seems to be a smart, conservative move - they'll draw tenants without (hopefully) draining the other downtown buildings. Smaller, but very high quality buildings such as the Deloitte and Equitable Buildings seem to consistently maintain low vacancy rates.

I've said this before - everyone seems set on retail. The last few posts are concerned with providing commercial space / office towers.



Build the neighborhoods and the rest will fall into place.

It's not as simple as that. We want downtown to be the center of the region. Business districts draw residents just as residential districts draw businesses.



I'd say that public transportation is one of the biggest issues. The problem with the current metrolink is that it goes mostly to a spread out assortment of business, educational, cultural and retail areas, and of course the airport. It's no wonder that East St. Louis uses it the most--It actually hits a lot of their residential areas. The idea is that we should be connecting residential with the business, cultural, etc. This is precisely why the South Side/ North Side Extension is so important. We want people to say "hey, I want to live In Soulard (or south grand, or wherever) because I can walk to the Metrolink and it will take me to where I work." It's no wonder why the CWE is getting all the highrises.

I've said this before - everyone seems set on retail. The last few posts are concerned with providing commercial space / office towers.



Build the neighborhoods and the rest will fall into place.

This quote about build residential and everything else will follow is flawed with Vancouver, Canada being the prime example. The July 2006 issue of Governing magazine highlights that Vancouver has "A Downtown Dilemma: What if the central city becomes a more attractive place to live than to work?." Out of 560,000 people in Vancouver 100,000 of them live in less than five square miles of the downtown peninsula and work in the suburbs. Vancouver relaxed its zoning laws in 1991 to attract residents and now it has to force a moratorium on residential in a remaining section of its downtown peninsula to make it available for offices again. Do we really want this? Downtown a resort community?



St. Louis's downtown or city a suburb of Chesterfield, Earth City, Creve Coeur? In many cases it has already happened and as a result the City would be wise to create incentives for building office buildings along with credits for lofts.