urbanSTL

vollum wrote:I'm thinking this may have a look more along the lines of the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden.

http://garden.walkerart.org/artwork.wac#head

I would be ecstatic if we could get a Claes Oldenburg!!! Although, the site might not be big enough for a CO and 20 other sculptures.

I remember the first time someone from the Twin Cities asked where I was from. I said I was from St. Louis. They then responded by saying that the Arch was pretty cool modern art and a world class symbol for the city. They then told that the Twin Cities had some great modern art too, and then proceeded to tell me how great that sculpture was and how it was a national symbol akin to the arch. I tried not to laugh in his face. I failed.

vollum wrote:The Garden started out as 7.5 acres. It was expanded to 11 acres in 1992. But the original space contained the Spoon along with at least 20 other sculpures. How large is the two block space being discussed on the Mall?

3 acres

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

stlmike wrote:I don't think Central is saying that he doesn't want to see the Mall built on EVER, I think he is saying that he doesn't think it's an idea to reasonably entertain until there is enough demand-- until the dozens of actual empty lots that aren't owned by the city get built upon. I would agree.

Exactly.



But even then, after all these other lots are filled, I think the mall will be a welcome feature for the thousands of residents. The reason it's dead now, is that there aren't enough people around to fill it.



If it gets built on now, I can foresee a time 50 years in the future when 60,000 people live downtown and find out there used to be this wonderful open space right in the middle of downtown. "What were they thinking when they allowed it to be built on?"

We have been down this road before, so all I will say just a few quick things.



1. Even with a downtown population of 60,000 I still think there would be both too much green space and too much green space all concentrated in one area. Scattered parks throughout downtown and its sub-districts would be far better than the current "strip mall o' green space model." The currently model is fundamentally flawed in that it is lined with institutional uses that will never create the pedestrian traffic needed to enliven the Mall. This is why the proposed restaurants for the sculpture garden are so important. They, not the art, will drive the activity in the area. Until we consider ways to line our grand boulevard (Market Street) with activities that create pedestrian traffic, the mall will fail. No number of sculpture parks and building on parking lots will change these factors. In fact, I would argue that development on lot around, but not adjacent too the mall will make the current situation worse, drawing those few people who do use the mall to more active and engaging environments. The barren nature of the mall will only stand in sharper contrast to streets like Washington, Locust, Walnut and Clark.



2. I think there is something of a chicken and egg problem facing the Mall and downtown office development (how do we develop the mall if we can't get the office development market started in downtown? how do we get the office development market started downtown if we don't have adequate subsidies to develop office space? how do we get the subsidies we need if we aren't willing to build on the mall?)



STLmike and CS both argue that building on the mall should represent the last option for development.



Here are the two problems with that line of thinking:



a. Downtown has momentum now; lets not squander it. Downtown has seemingly reached (or is darn close reaching) critical mass for residential development and retail is following closely behind. Only office development (particularly) lags behind. The City should be willing to step forward and make the critical moves necessary to bring all of downtown to the critical mass point, including office space.



b. Had downtown waited for the residential market to show it was demanding residential development before being willing to subsidize development, Washington Avenue would still be lined empty buildings. Only through aggressive tax subsidies did the City prove that a market for downtown residential development existed. Once proving the market existed, development along Washington Avenue slowly began to move forward. And now we are at today, where new development are proposed. The momentum started through heavy subsidy (combined with a shift in folks looking at living in downtown's).



Downtown has the opportunity to begin the same process with office development (with the residential developments so far downtown making locating downtown a more attractive than before), but this cannot begin without someone making the first step. Clearly without adequate subsidy, building office space downtown is not financially feasible (just as the case was with residential development prior to the historic tax credit), as no private developer has stepped forward to develop office buildings in downtown. The City has made clear that they are not going to sell mall land, so we have no idea what the impacts of the city giving way mall land would have on the feasibility of office development. It is time to find out and jump start office development in downtown.

stlmike wrote:I don't see how we can't take all of your arguments and use them toward encouraging building on many of the other undeveloped parcels of land. In other words, your arguments are not location specific. Why do they specifically apply to the mall? There are other large spaces of land. I agree with all of the steps you propose, with the same urgancy, except that I'm not convinced that all of this couldn't apply to, say, the lot between Busch and the Pet Building or one of the giant parking lots between Washington and Convention Plaza/ Delmar.

They are quite location specific STLMike. How many of the locations you named are owned by the city right now? Zero.



Because the City does not own the land, it can't give it away at a low cost to an office developer. That is what makes the mall locations unique.



For the City to acquire those properties you mention it would cost the City money. Then to pass those acquired properties on to a developer, the City would need loose money on the deal, swallowing the difference. That is a pretty unpalatable situation (in my mind more unpalatable than giving away unused already paid for parkland).



Sure the City did originally acquire the mall land and giving it away now would be taking a loss on the mall land transaction (though I do wonder if the mall land was bought with some combo of grants and gifts), but the City has already spent the money. Better to make the best use of what you already have than to go out and spend more to acquire more land to give away when you already have more than 10 blocks of space.



Right now the City does not have a method of providing sufficient subsidy to make office development work. They can throw TIF and tax abatement and some state funding at it, just like for residential projects. They problem is that there is nothing at the city's disposal comparable to the historic preservation tax credit. By essentially giving away the mall land, the land can act as a HTC substitute.

Well who owns the Mall? Why don't we take it through eminent domain? I would consider it a blight! Simply lining the Mall is completely ridiculous as it will take forever to create enough pedestrian traffic for that huge of an area. We need to at least reduce its size by selling, or giving away, some of the land. It's too big!

Doug wrote: It's too big!

AMEN.

If I were a multi-millionaire (or billionaire), I'd buy Gateway One, pay for the tenants move into a new tower, demolish Gateway One and make the Gateway Mall more congruent.



Great looking renderings, nonetheless.

Renderings make this look really cool.