urbanSTL

Would that be the tallest garage downtown? 10 stories seems pretty massive.

At least we don't have to read some nonsense about how the garage will revitalize downtown, like the MLS garage is promising to do.

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Mar 24, 2022

Sounds like this is as good a time as ever to dump some renderings in the "unbuilt St. Louis" thread 

Doing so for this and mentioning how the Koplar building was originally supposed to look would be a good way for me to burn bridges with those developers. Same goes for other stuff that has come and gone without people knowing. But I'm slightly considering breaking the rules to shame the city a bit into choosing a clusterf**k. 

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Mar 24, 2022

“Rob Orr, deputy executive director at SDLC, said in an email that his agency had also seen proposals for both a garage and a separate mixed-use tower.”

Oh

So, like, conforming to the requests of the RFP?

What the *****

Hmmm, I'd have to brush up on the city and state sunshine laws but, anyone can submit an open records request for the all of the received response submissions. 

The "Spirit" of St. Louis is no longer world changing flights, but Downtown Parking garages...  The irony is about as subtle as being hit in the head with a hammer.  No idea why the City would accept this proposal in an area that is already full of lots and garages.

Just submitted a request. We'll see if they respond / what they respond with.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Mar 25, 2022

Let me guess: after being built payment for parking in this monstrous city owned garage will remain cash only. (Checks for monthly parking.)

That’s always
1) irked me
and
2) made the think something funny is going on.

It's been a few years so I'm not sure if it's still true, but that city-owned garage at 421 S. 10th St. just closed up shop and opened the gates after 5pm and on weekends. So you could just park for free for months or years as long as you only retrieved your car during non-business hours. An absurd way to run a business.

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Mar 25, 2022

yeah Chris... if you can get it by Sunshine Requests, then there's no reason to hold it, lol... 

There were two plans. One was overly excessive with parking and was ugly. The other one was a nice, 12 floor apartment building with some ground floor retail space and a separate parking garage with a zig zag facade. The fault in that plan was that there wasn’t enough parking included in the garage. It fell short by about 400 spaces from the required 1200 in the RFP. Local development team too. Really a shame it wasn’t chosen.

It’ll be interesting to see if the city sends anything to you about the RFP since when I asked them about the first go around, a city lawyer got back to me and said it couldn’t be sent. But we’ll see.

This administration has shown they were not ready and has no vision whatsoever! I stick to my opinion and this has proven my point!! Politicians and government should at least be visionaries that want its city to prosper not fill them with parking spaces!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, the decision was made that 1,200 spaces were required. Any proposal that didn't provide the thneeded number of spaces was presumably immediately removed from consideration.

JJ Taino wrote: ↑

Mar 25, 2022

This administration has shown they were not ready and has no vision whatsoever! I stick to my opinion and this has proven my point!! Politicians and government should at least be visionaries that want its city to prosper not fill them with parking spaces!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The lack of vision certainly didn't start with this administration. Not even close.

Very unfortunate but again there was a requirement that they failed to meet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The requirement should've been waived and we all know it. Treasurer's office proposal should've been shot down too since it doesn't include the required residential component either. 

It costs $2-$3 to park all day in the lots two blocks to the west, just across Tucker along Convention.

This afternoon, there are plenty of open spots. Yet somehow we need more parking. When will it be enough?

Government entities shouldn’t even been involved in the competition for that lot…

If it was shy of 400 spaces you can find thousand s Downtown. If they stay in the suburbs tell them to ride metro.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Mar 25, 2022

The requirement should've been waived and we all know it. Treasurer's office proposal should've been shot down too since it doesn't include the required residential component either. 

Unfortunately, it's doesn't work that way once an RFP is opened.  If they waved the requirement to accept a proposal that wasn't otherwise compliant, that's just asking for whoever lost to protest.  Best case, they could have cancelled and re-released the RFP, but even then their goal is to maximize parking revenue here.

Good lord what a joke.  Turning down a development like this when it's so hard to get more new construction residential Downtown for a PARKING GARAGE, of which there are so many in the surrounding blocks is such a disappointment.

I get the RFP wanted 1200 spaces... that in itself was a failure, but when a proposal was made that was of this level for the site, that requirement should have been chucked out the window.

It just blows my mind that this site is being considered for a mega-garage even if it did have a residential component attached when there is a much better site for a large garage literally across the street from the dome. Why would you want to build a mega-garage in the middle of an active area when you could instead build one right next to the highway and still be across the street from the dome/convention center complex?

Can you imagine! Hey guys lets go eat at the parking garage!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ Yeah, the restaurant is a joke.

That being said, the view of downtown would probably be fairly nice, but that ain't gonna cut it.