Clayton restaurant/retail

Tim · PostDec 02, 2025#1762025-12-02T02:41+00:00

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑
Dec 01, 2025
I would be interested in studying the idea of Clayton annexing some of its surrounding municipalities. U-City, Richmond Heights, and Brentwood seem like obvious places to start. Maybe include places like Maplewood, Ladue, or even Frontenac.

It would potentially make things easier to eventually merge these into STL if the great divorce is ever reversed

For the sake of friendly banter: Clayton would never accept us U City folk...at least those of us living north of Delmar. Its also worth noting that (just had to look it up) that U City has a population exceeding that of Clayton, Brentwood, and Richmond Heights combined. So, maybe we should annex THEM!

Topic for a different thread: But yes, at a minimum, all the tiny north county "cities" need to go. Also, I'm pro universal city-county unification.

stlgasm · PostDec 02, 2025#1772025-12-02T02:46+00:00

Yeah, remember when Clayton, Richmond Heights and Maplewood considered merging and calling the new combined city "Claywood Heights"? LOL!

The glut of vacant land on the east end of downtown Clayton is a real head-scratcher. The Centene-owned parcels are the most glaring voids, and seem to be cursed because every proposal has fizzled out. Two high-rise residential towers- Fountain Place, and later Trianon- both got as far as pre-selling units before abruptly being canceled. The Clayton Hole seems cursed, but there are several other parcels that are just as puzzling:
-The former Vic Tanny site (technically U. City), just north of the Forsyth Metrolink station - What??
-The empty land and small parking lot at Forsyth & Lyle, acres the street from Centene - Come on!
-The empty lot on Lee Ave just north of Forsyth where a really cool Art Deco apartment building was demolished about 5 or 6 years ago - duh.

Why aren't developers clamoring to build on these prime lots?? I think the bottom line is that stagnant regional population growth drags down every part of the metro, even the most desirable areas. If people aren't moving to the region, we're just playing musical chairs.

framer · PostDec 02, 2025#1782025-12-02T19:02+00:00

Not to mention the NE corner of Hanley and Forsyth. Underneath all that gaudy purple is an extremely handsome Mid-Century-Modern office building. I'd love to see that restored.

Miss Shell · PostDec 02, 2025#1792025-12-02T19:54+00:00

framer wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
Not to mention the NE corner of Hanley and Forsyth. Underneath all that gaudy purple is an extremely handsome Mid-Century-Modern office building. I'd love to see that restored.

Where can we find photos of the building before it was uglified?

moorlander · PostDec 02, 2025#1802025-12-02T20:34+00:00

Miss Shell wrote:
framer wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
Not to mention the NE corner of Hanley and Forsyth. Underneath all that gaudy purple is an extremely handsome Mid-Century-Modern office building. I'd love to see that restored.
Where can we find photos of the building before it was uglified?

Here is what it was before the MCM and you can see the MCM in the top of this aerial.

dweebe · PostDec 02, 2025#1812025-12-02T21:03+00:00

Tim wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑
Dec 01, 2025
I would be interested in studying the idea of Clayton annexing some of its surrounding municipalities. U-City, Richmond Heights, and Brentwood seem like obvious places to start. Maybe include places like Maplewood, Ladue, or even Frontenac.

It would potentially make things easier to eventually merge these into STL if the great divorce is ever reversed
For the sake of friendly banter: Clayton would never accept us U City folk...at least those of us living north of Delmar. Its also worth noting that (just had to look it up) that U City has a population exceeding that of Clayton, Brentwood, and Richmond Heights combined. So, maybe we should annex THEM!

Topic for a different thread: But yes, at a minimum, all the tiny north county "cities" need to go. Also, I'm pro universal city-county unification.

Clayton would never accept the scum from anywhere else. Certainly not U City and defenitely not Maplehood.

moorlander · PostDec 02, 2025#1822025-12-02T21:52+00:00

As someone who lived in Clayton for 17 adult years, served on the Economic development board, the Community Foundation, as our neighborhood association president and have helped dozens of clients buy and sell property in Clayton I always laugh at these types of comments. I attend church in Clayton and my kids go to school in Clayton. The people are no different than anyone else in Richmond HeightsX University City, Kirkwood or Webster. These stereotypes simply are not true and make me eye roll every time. Carry on….

Echo_216 · PostDec 02, 2025#1832025-12-02T22:43+00:00

moorlander wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
As someone who lived in Clayton for 17 adult years, served on the Economic development board, the Community Foundation, as our neighborhood association president and have helped dozens of clients buy and sell property in Clayton I always laugh at these types of comments. I attend church in Clayton and my kids go to school in Clayton. The people are no different than anyone else in Richmond HeightsX University City, Kirkwood or Webster. These stereotypes simply are not true and make me eye roll every time. Carry on….

Fully agree. Former resident of Clayton that didn't grow up in the St. Louis region and working in the world of land development / land-use. The snobs I have worked with in Clayton were usually architects, never the residents. Any problem clients were no different than problem clients in other municipalities.

Tim · PostDec 03, 2025#1842025-12-03T00:11+00:00

Respectfully, there would be a lot of pearl clutching if our public school demographic were suddenly integrated into Clayton's school system. Is everyone in Clayton racist? Definitely not. Would those tendencies rear their ugly head if this were to happen? You betcha.

Like SLPS, our district is deemed "too scary" for the majority of the non-disadvanted residents, which further fuels the negative feedback loop of declining district attendance and academic performance.

dweebe · PostDec 03, 2025#1852025-12-03T02:47+00:00

Tim wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
Respectfully, there would be a lot of pearl clutching if our public school demographic were suddenly integrated into Clayton's school system. Is everyone in Clayton racist? Definitely not. Would those tendencies rear their ugly head if this were to happen? You betcha.

Like SLPS, our district is deemed "too scary" for the majority of the non-disadvanted residents, which further fuels the negative feedback loop of declining district attendance and academic performance.

One of the reasons the full merger of Clayton, Richmond Heights and Maplewood parks departments to a single entity fell apart was because Clayton wanted to keep Shaw Park pool for 63105 residents only.

JaneJacobsGhost · PostDec 03, 2025#1862025-12-03T13:54+00:00

I wonder which kind of people Clayton wants to keep out of its pool? A real head scratcher

framer · PostDec 03, 2025#1872025-12-03T14:01+00:00

Miss Shell wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
framer wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
Not to mention the NE corner of Hanley and Forsyth. Underneath all that gaudy purple is an extremely handsome Mid-Century-Modern office building. I'd love to see that restored.
Where can we find photos of the building before it was uglified?

Today all you can see of the original is some of the brickwork on the lower level facing Forsyth.

Debaliviere91 · PostDec 03, 2025#1882025-12-03T14:59+00:00

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
I wonder which kind of people Clayton wants to keep out of its pool? A real head scratcher

You don’t have to be a resident of Clayton to get a pool membership currently.

dweebe · PostDec 03, 2025#1892025-12-03T15:16+00:00

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
I wonder which kind of people Clayton wants to keep out of its pool? A real head scratcher
You don’t have to be a resident of Clayton to get a pool membership currently.

They also expressed concerns about pavillion rental at Shaw Park and keeping that Clayton residents only.

Non residents can go as long as you work in Clayton, provide proof and pay a higher rate. Then you have to re-prove every year you still work in Clayton to keep the corporate rates/access.

Clayton and Maplewood used to have an cross exchange program in August when the pools went down to reduced hours/days as the college kids working left. But that no longer exists.

Debaliviere91 · PostDec 03, 2025#1902025-12-03T17:53+00:00

dweebe wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
I wonder which kind of people Clayton wants to keep out of its pool? A real head scratcher
You don’t have to be a resident of Clayton to get a pool membership currently.
They also expressed concerns about pavillion rental at Shaw Park and keeping that Clayton residents only.

Non residents can go as long as you work in Clayton, provide proof and pay a higher rate. Then you have to re-prove every year you still work in Clayton to keep the corporate rates/access.

Clayton and Maplewood used to have an cross exchange program in August when the pools went down to reduced hours/days as the college kids working left. But that no longer exists.

You don’t have to be a resident or work in Clayton to get membership to the pool, Shaw Park amenities, or the fitness center currently.

jshank83 · PostDec 03, 2025#1912025-12-03T18:05+00:00

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
dweebe wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
You don’t have to be a resident of Clayton to get a pool membership currently.
They also expressed concerns about pavillion rental at Shaw Park and keeping that Clayton residents only.

Non residents can go as long as you work in Clayton, provide proof and pay a higher rate. Then you have to re-prove every year you still work in Clayton to keep the corporate rates/access.

Clayton and Maplewood used to have an cross exchange program in August when the pools went down to reduced hours/days as the college kids working left. But that no longer exists.
You don’t have to be a resident or work in Clayton to get membership to the pool, Shaw Park amenities, or the fitness center currently.

Did they change the rules? I am almost positive my wife had looked into it but you had to buy a platinum membership to the pool and center of Clayton to use it. But now I see there is a season pass option. Or maybe it was just more than she wanted to pay. Still no day passes though for non residents.

DogtownBnR · PostDec 03, 2025#1922025-12-03T19:02+00:00

moorlander wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
Miss Shell wrote:
framer wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
Not to mention the NE corner of Hanley and Forsyth. Underneath all that gaudy purple is an extremely handsome Mid-Century-Modern office building. I'd love to see that restored.
Where can we find photos of the building before it was uglified?
Here is what it was before the MCM and you can see the MCM in the top of this aerial.

Amazing! All of those surface parking lots!

beer city · Post4:29 AM - Jan 22#1932026-01-22T04:29+00:00

framer wrote: ↑
Dec 03, 2025
Miss Shell wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
framer wrote: ↑
Dec 02, 2025
Not to mention the NE corner of Hanley and Forsyth. Underneath all that gaudy purple is an extremely handsome Mid-Century-Modern office building. I'd love to see that restored.
Where can we find photos of the building before it was uglified?

Today all you can see of the original is some of the brickwork on the lower level facing Forsyth.

I worked across the street in 1996 when they were doing this - Unfortunately they saw cut big portions of that overhang off to accommodate the new design - Shame

Clayton restaurant/retail

Choose Display Mode