urbanSTL

^ The added sense of saftey makes a great deal of difference. We really got to do a better job of integrating the two.

Alex Ihnen wrote: I do think that the best pedestrian routes are also those with a decent amount of car traffic. I'd always rather walk down a street with others travelling that space as well (even if in a car), than a street with zero activity.

Agreed, a little bit of traffic is nice, it makes the walk feel safer since there is more activity and eyes on the street. I think it's better still when there's some separation from car traffic, and the more/faster traffic there is the more important that separation becomes. On a lot of busy roads (Kingshighway, Grand, Jefferson, etc) there's usually a lane of parked cars that provides a buffer, but that doesn't continue where there are bridges or interstate ramps. Being right next to fast-moving traffic is an unpleasant experience, but it's the way most pedestrian pathways on bridges in St. Louis are set up. A low median/planter with wider sidewalks might be enough here since parked cars are unlikely, but from what I can tell all that's planned is a 6-foot sidewalk, making the pedestrian experience similar to what it is on the Taylor footbridge now, but with the added complications of on- and off-ramps.

rbeedee wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote: I do think that the best pedestrian routes are also those with a decent amount of car traffic. I'd always rather walk down a street with others travelling that space as well (even if in a car), than a street with zero activity.

Agreed, a little bit of traffic is nice, it makes the walk feel safer since there is more activity and eyes on the street. I think it's better still when there's some separation from car traffic, and the more/faster traffic there is the more important that separation becomes. On a lot of busy roads (Kingshighway, Grand, Jefferson, etc) there's usually a lane of parked cars that provides a buffer, but that doesn't continue where there are bridges or interstate ramps. Being right next to fast-moving traffic is an unpleasant experience, but it's the way most pedestrian pathways on bridges in St. Louis are set up. A low median/planter with wider sidewalks might be enough here since parked cars are unlikely, but from what I can tell all that's planned is a 6-foot sidewalk, making the pedestrian experience similar to what it is on the Taylor footbridge now, but with the added complications of on- and off-ramps.

A good deal of traffic engineering studies have shown a decrease in speeding and general speed with the increased presence of street trees, parked cars, smaller lanes and curving roads. Smart design can do a lot to increase the perception of safety, as well as an increase in actual safety. Plus there are additional benefits of aesthetic appeal and sound dampering.

Alex, do you know if phase II still on track? A lot of talk at the beginning of the year for 2012 and then things went quiet over the summer. I thought they would have their historic tax credits in line by now.

Think CORTEX is a big piece of puzzle to sustain CWE/FPSE continued growth along with BJC expansion/Wash U. It will help to have some other players to anchor/bring more jobs to the area as well as provide users for Metrolink.

Did anyone make it to the meeting?

Are the Cortex expansion, BJC redevelopment, and STLCOP projects being developed together? When reading about the BJC developments, it looks as if it will stretch into the Cortex district...

As much as I appreciate everything that BJC has done for the city and the region, it would be encouraging to see more non-BJC developments in CORTEX. I'm also not entirely sure why the area needs a park. To me, Wexford's building is the most exciting aspect of Phase II.

^ At the Boyle MetroLink station meeting a couple of months ago, didn't they say that the current idea was that there might be some residential near Sarah? At a quarter-mile away, that won't help enliven this park.

Thanks, Alex.

If Cortex has any plans to develop residential, I hope they do something with their land between Vandeventer & Sarah just north of Forest Park. Especially if those Laclede Lofts come to fruition...

Alex Ihnen wrote:
The meeting last night and the new rendering show new residential development on Boyle at Clayton.

Kind of seems like a very isolated place for residential - an existing BJC building on the NE Corner, a new BJC building on the NW Corner, light industrial on the SW corner (Ronnoco Coffee?), all of which don't seem likely to go away anytime soon. The SE Corner has a BJC maintenance building and a big parking lot, which I guess BJC could relocate, but any residents of a development built there would have to either cross Highway 40 or walk around several BJC buildings and parking garages to reach any sort of neighborhood amenities.

My father has worked at St. Louis Metallizing at Sarah & Clayton for almost 40 years and has been involved in the discussions about the acqusition of SLM and the surrounding buildings. Apparently, Ronnocco has sold. SLM has not, and appears to be safe for at least another 5 years. Not sure when Ronnocco is supposed to move out. Could this be the future residential land?

^ i don't know. the CORTEX 1 parking lot seems like an odd place for residential. i suspect it's more likely an addition to the CORTEX 1 building (the facades in the drawing sort-of match the backside of CORTEX 1), or just rendering fluff.

also, not liking the massive surface parking lot in the lower left corner. it's like 1/4 of the total area of the district. they can't put up a garage?

Summary of the meeting is available on the Park Central Development website

I was at the meeting, and there wasn't much new presented about CORTEX 2.0 (new BJC office building, Heritage Lab building renovation). The only thing I recall being new was that the BJC office building was originally slated to go in the county and was moved to be part of the CORTEX development.

I think most of the new info, to me at least, was in how future stages of development are being envisioned, with more focus on making a mixed-used district than a pure research park (not too many details at this point, it was presented as a 20-30 year plan overall). In addition to ~1000 residential units they are also planning on ~350 hotel rooms as the district matures. It does seem like a slightly odd place for residential, but there are several residential buildings along FP Avenue already, so maybe it won't seem as strange as the district fills in. I also wonder if they are working with the Drurys on a hotel since the FPSE Drury hotel seems dead. They also mentioned trying to develop some retail along Vandeventer as the district expands from its current center around Boyle.

In the short-term they mentioned completing the first small study for a Metrolink station. A second, more in-depth study is due to be completed by next winter. My main frustration is with the development of the I-64 interchanges at Tower Grove and Boyle. Months ago I talked to Alderman Roddy about making them pedestrian-friendly so that any Metrolink station would allow safe and convenient access not just north to CORTEX but also south to FPSE/Manchester strip. He said he would look into it but I never heard back so I asked again at the meeting. Basically they said that MoDOT was too far along in the planning process to change much about the interchanges, but CORTEX was contributing money to make the new bridges more pedestrian and bike-friendly and would do its best to improve the interchanges if the Metro stop gets built. I was left with the impression that we shouldn't expect crossing the interchanges to be a pleasant experience in the near-term future. This frustrates me for a couple of reasons:

1. For years, people have been talking about a potential new station in this general area. Seriously, no one thought about this possibility as the interchanges were being designed?
2. Even if a Metro station isn't in the cards, shouldn't MoDOT design all interchanges in the city to be pedestrian friendly? Shouldn't that be the default setting in designing infrastructure, at least within urban areas?
3. If actual construction has not begun, how can it be too late to change? It's cheaper to do it right the first time (though maybe not to MoDOT, if CORTEX winds up being the one to cough up money for later improvements), and I don't think a delay of a few months is a deal-breaker, unless there are some funding deadlines I don't know about.

Overall I'm excited to see how things develop. They said to expect additional announcements within a year, so maybe Phase 3 will follow Phase 2 more quickly than Phase 2 followed Phase 1.

So where, and what, exactly is BJC building; is there a rendering?