I like downtown Chicago. It is urban. They have the El. They have parking garages. Interesting.
The beating of the dead horse will continue until the day we prevent its death.
So you're telling me that you're just going to keep posting about this over and over again despite the fact that everyone agrees with you? I have never seen anyone on this board make the case that the Schnucks/Garage is a better scenario than keeping the Century. So this makes one wonder what your aim is in causing all of this noise...
Sitting here pining over the new Schucks "Oh downtown is back!!!" is like arguing over a will when the body isn't even in the grave. As Ray Hartmann referenced Real Estate Row, this was a murder. The Century and the Old Post Office District has been place erased permanently. This was one of the worst violations and we're complicit because now we have a Schucks. What if we demolished the Arcade for a Trader Joes!
From what I can tell, you are basically p*ssed off that we aren't all still so full of rage about the Century that we want to nothing less than complete and utter failure for anything else that fills this spot.
Seriously, it was a tragedy. It should never happen again. I think a better place for you to put your energy would be into those institutions that provide a condition for more demolition of historic buildings. Stop alienating the people who believe in your cause. I think we would all trade for the building back in a heartbeat, but that does not mean that there are some positives in a grocery store even if those positives aren't quite as positive as what was replaced. You may disagree on that notion. Fine. But you've made your point and I think the mature thing to do would be to take what you've learned and apply that to the future. I think its safe to say that we support your cause in building preservation. Don't squander the goodwill of your peers demanding that we all protest a garage that is already built. Go. Find the facts about how the Century was demolished. Write about it. Be proactive in a preservation society. Expose the problem and try to change it.
By the way, you can't "pine" over the new Schnucks. Pine means to spend a great deal of time grieving or mourning something that is gone.
- 2,772
Moorlander wrote:[rant]I'm hearing a lot of b*tching on here because some people may want to drive to a grocery store. OTH! Overly critical and naive much? Ya I said it! Sometimes when you go to the store you wanna purchase more than you can carry. Sometimes when you go to the store it's 5 degrees out, or 98 and humid, and sometimes it's raining. What if a nearby resident wants to get a case a beer, a couple 12 packs of Dr. Pepper and a gallon a milk and OJ? What if one of the residents needs to stock up for get together with friends? Not every trip to store is a quick in and out people. Let's also discuss that this store will appeal to not just people living/working in the CBD. How about those near dt workers south of 40 (ABI, Ameren) on the landing (meto, Lumiere) west of Tucker (you try crossing Tucker during the afternoon rush), and about 90k other office workers who don't want to (after a longs days work (GASP)) walk 6 blocks to the Schnucks and another 6 blocks back to their vehicle or residence with 2 bags of groceries in tow? Are we also forgetting that this store may apeal to the residents of Soulard, LS, DT west, and the area north of the dome? Are you expecting them to walk too? How about those who are disabled or live in one of the many senior/assisted living residences? Would you want your mother or gma lugging her goods 6 blocks even in perfect weather? DT does need more street life, a lot more street life, but not every customer, every time, will want to or be able to walk. How about the single mother who needs to bring two kids to the store with her? You try to carry a little wiggle worm in one arm and your groceries in another.
I imagine most of you posting here complaining about parking at a grocery store are just kids who read stuff and books and think it sounds good so you regurgitate it here. I agree with a decent portion of stuff slathered all over these pages, but some of you kids just don't know a damn thing about the real world![/rant]
I've said the same thing so many times. A walkable grocery store would be of no use to me. Sure, it would be nice, but I'm not getting a package of Ramen noodles, a gallon of milk, some Count Chocula and a 12 pack of Dr Pepper. I spend around $150 on groceries alone for my family every 2 weeks, then pepper in a visit here and visit there for things we run out of, like milk. Can anyone be happy for this Schnucks opening simply because DT residents won't have to go out of downtown to get their groceries?
stlmike wrote:Don't squander the goodwill of your peers demanding that we all protest a garage that is already built.
Why should we support such an establishment? Vote with your feet as suburbanites did as they showed dissatisfaction with our city. We do have an economic choice in the matter. If this involves a higher cost, of shopping at City Grocers, or making a longer commute to another city grocery store, then I say fine. I work in North St. Louis and this may be convenient for me, however I won't support a business which I find contradicts my values. I've parked in parking garages a total of 3 times since moving to St. Louis City three years ago. I will drive around looking for on street parking, and walk many blocks in all types of weather, because I refuse to park my car where an historic economic asset once stood. An analogy would be union members not supporting businesses that employ scabs. How can we reconcile our beliefs as urbanists with our desire to have goods and services readily available?
To me we should pay a greater cost, insofar as we already pay a higher cost in terms of goods and services by simply residing here already. We are already used to inferior schools and an unresponsive bureaucracy, but we pay that cost because we value city living, while the idealists amongst us want to change the corrupt systems that propagate these problems. I will shop at Macy's downtown instead of a mall, even though they don't have the selection I desire, because it's supporting the City. And I refuse to sacrifice my high goals for this City, simply for convenience, when it comes to this establishment. It's far below what we should demand of our leadership and for ourselves. We deserve better and I believe as urbanists especially, we should roundly reject this establishment as being below what we and our City require to compete and thrive.
If we accepted the inconvenience of not having a Schnucks today and another parking garage, then perhaps down the road we could have had both a rehabilitated mixed use Century Building, connected to the rehabbed Syndicate Trust, with another grocery store somewhere else downtown? Again there could have been a higher short term cost to residents, but the cost of demolition is higher as well as the long term benefit of the ideal.
There's simply no excuse for this demolition as we never needed a parking garage or a grocery store at this exact location. If demand exists for another grocery store downtown then place it in an urban location, whether an existing building or a vacant lot. Again as urbanists I don't believe this is lower than what we should expect. If we give in and sell out for development decisions which are less than what St. Louis deserves then we will never again approach the magnificence that was the gilded age 4th City. Selling out not only means supporting the decision, but also parking your car at the garage or going to the Schnucks.
My intensity and anger arises from the fact that St. Louis is constantly given less than what it deserves, not by the macroeconomy or suburbanites, but by our own leadership and those residents who are complicit in these horrendous mistakes. In a 1982 Post Dispatch article, Arts Editor Robert Duffy cites Landmarks Association which indicate that “In the last 20 years, some 90 buildings in the heart of downtown have either been razed or slated to come down...more than 30 have been for parking lots...others for garages.” How many more have fallen since then and what have we gotten in return? Continual population decline and divestment. This course of action has not reversed our decline but exacerbated it entirely. I'm not going to apologize and give in, because we've given enough to false promises of turn-arounds. They've not decreased our downward spiral and the Century demolition has not infused the Old Post Office District with pedestrian or economic activity. We can be assured, that with our plethora of existing garages, the demolition was completely unwarranted. It's certain that the demolition didn't need to occur.
If we needed a Schnucks, it's an absolute that it shouldn't have came about in this manner. I will not patronize this establishment and I would expect urbansits to do the same, if that is they believe in the values they profess. If alienation results then so be it. Like John McCain I'm not going to win the contest for Miss Congeniality. We've made far too many compromises and gotten nothing but failure in return.
- 6,775
Doug wrote:We didn't need to demolish the Century for a grocery store or for parking and I will never park in that garage or shop at that Schnucks...
I bet you will.
Doug wrote:Being complicit in the process and outcome, while posting on this forum, seems rather contradictory.
And yet, your desire to save the Century building made you complicit in the unnecessary destruction of the building that was there before it was.
- 729
JuiceInDogtown wrote:Moorlander wrote:[rant]I'm hearing a lot of b*tching on here because some people may want to drive to a grocery store. OTH! Overly critical and naive much? Ya I said it! Sometimes when you go to the store you wanna purchase more than you can carry. Sometimes when you go to the store it's 5 degrees out, or 98 and humid, and sometimes it's raining. What if a nearby resident wants to get a case a beer, a couple 12 packs of Dr. Pepper and a gallon a milk and OJ? What if one of the residents needs to stock up for get together with friends? Not every trip to store is a quick in and out people. Let's also discuss that this store will appeal to not just people living/working in the CBD. How about those near dt workers south of 40 (ABI, Ameren) on the landing (meto, Lumiere) west of Tucker (you try crossing Tucker during the afternoon rush), and about 90k other office workers who don't want to (after a longs days work (GASP)) walk 6 blocks to the Schnucks and another 6 blocks back to their vehicle or residence with 2 bags of groceries in tow? Are we also forgetting that this store may apeal to the residents of Soulard, LS, DT west, and the area north of the dome? Are you expecting them to walk too? How about those who are disabled or live in one of the many senior/assisted living residences? Would you want your mother or gma lugging her goods 6 blocks even in perfect weather? DT does need more street life, a lot more street life, but not every customer, every time, will want to or be able to walk. How about the single mother who needs to bring two kids to the store with her? You try to carry a little wiggle worm in one arm and your groceries in another.
I imagine most of you posting here complaining about parking at a grocery store are just kids who read stuff and books and think it sounds good so you regurgitate it here. I agree with a decent portion of stuff slathered all over these pages, but some of you kids just don't know a damn thing about the real world![/rant]
I've said the same thing so many times. An urban, walkable grocery store would be of no use to me. Sure, it would be nice, but I'm not getting a package of Ramen noodles, a gallon of milk, some Count Chocula and a 12 pack of Dr Pepper. I spend around $150 on groceries alone for my family every 2 weeks, then pepper in a visit here and visit there for things we run out of, like milk. Can anyone be happy for this Schnucks opening simply because DT residents won't have to go out of downtown to get their groceries?
I don't shop in bulk. I much prefer to buy fresh and cook fresh so find myself going to the market daily or every other day. The downtown Schnucks will be of great benefit to me as I will no longer need to get in my car to get my groceries, prescription drugs, and many other household needs. And I think time will prove out that this Schnucks will indeed spur not only more residential but more retail as well. Now I do agree with Doug and most others that say it was a true crime that the Century was brought down for a garage and grocery store. That building was beautiful! But I am not going to take my business elsewhere. Schnucks will be good for downtown and I, as a downtown resident will support it 100%. And I will also continue to support City Grocers. City Grocers for breakfast and lunch, Schnucks for shopping and dinner.
Here's a pic of the old Century building courtesy of the Missouri History Museum.
Doug wrote: In a 1982 Post Dispatch article, Arts Editor Robert Duffy cites Landmarks Association which indicate that “In the last 20 years, some 90 buildings in the heart of downtown have either been razed or slated to come down...more than 30 have been for parking lots...others for garages.” How many more have fallen since then and what have we gotten in return? Continual population decline and divestment. This course of action has not reversed our decline but exacerbated it entirely. I'm not going to apologize and give in, because we've given enough to false promises of turn-arounds.
I agree, agree, agree. But do you really think that if Schnucks fails that anyone will draw the conclusion "wow, we should really not demolish any more buildings"? I think they are more likely to (wrongly) conclude "maybe there wasn't enough parking" before that. Again, don't you think there is a better way to draw attention to this crime? Something that might actually require action?
Also, they offer parking, but I think that it is more for people coming from Soulard than for all of the residents downtown.
- 5,433
stlmike wrote:Doug wrote: In a 1982 Post Dispatch article, Arts Editor Robert Duffy cites Landmarks Association which indicate that “In the last 20 years, some 90 buildings in the heart of downtown have either been razed or slated to come down...more than 30 have been for parking lots...others for garages.” How many more have fallen since then and what have we gotten in return? Continual population decline and divestment. This course of action has not reversed our decline but exacerbated it entirely. I'm not going to apologize and give in, because we've given enough to false promises of turn-arounds.
I agree, agree, agree. But do you really think that if Schnucks fails that anyone will draw the conclusion "wow, we should really not demolish any more buildings"? I think they are more likely to (wrongly) conclude "maybe there wasn't enough parking" before that. Again, don't you think there is a better way to draw attention to this crime? Something that might actually require action?
Wow- this is quite the spirited discussion. Let me just say I agree with BOTH of you.
Doug, I think you're absolutely right to point out the importance of acknowledging our civic leaders' neverending and myopic pattern of sacrificing one of our greatest advantages (our built environment) to rehash misguided and obsolete urban renewal ideals and/or to kowtow to favored developers.
Mike, you and others are right to point out the need to move on from the unfortunately moot discussions about the loss of the Century Building to focus on preserving as much as what's left of our historic built environment as possible. Sadly, that isn't all that hard to do, as those of us who care about these things should join forces soon in an attempt to save the San Luis Apartments (aka DeVille Motor Hotel) on Lindell Boulevard west of the Cathedral Basilica. Those of you that haven't already weighed in on the San Luis and want to do so should check out this thread.
I'd also keep a close eye on anything that comes up for sale within a one or two mile radius of Saint Louis University these days.
I'm not happy about the fate of the Century Building, and I have mixed emotions about the subsidies Schnucks received, but I really want the downtown Schnucks to succeed. I believe it will be a net plus for downtown even if I wish it would've been done much differently. I also think City Grocers will hold its own by catering to whatever niche it decides to focus on, and I think it's a testament to its staying power since it wasn't intended to be a permanent solution for downtown residents and workers anyway.
I'm sure most if not all of us would love to erase so many of the bad decisions that were made in downtown and throughout the city over the last thirty or forty years. Because we know that's impossible, I think all we can do is to continue holding our leaders accountable whenever they advocate the senseless demolition of historic buildings. Someday these efforts may lead to the election of people that get it. Some of those people may even be among us on this forum.
And in the meantime, we have to keep working to convince our current elected officials since some of them don't exactly have to worry about credible opposition in the upcoming election.
- 8,912
[quote="JuiceInDogtown] We all know how many single mothers of 2 live in a loft downtown that's walkable to the new Schnucks. My comment was about urban grocery stores, not dt specifically, I guess I should have drawn a picture and posted it 
[/quote]
missed point. I don't know about lofts Juice but what about King Louis Square, that neighborhood north of the dome I keep forgetting the name of, or Plaza square.
[/quote]
missed point. I don't know about lofts Juice but what about King Louis Square, that neighborhood north of the dome I keep forgetting the name of, or Plaza square.
stlmike wrote:I agree, agree, agree. But do you really think that if Schnucks fails that anyone will draw the conclusion "wow, we should really not demolish any more buildings"? I think they are more likely to (wrongly) conclude "maybe there wasn't enough parking" before that.
I don't care what the ignorant general populous thinks as it's our duty to frame public opinion. We need to change the pervasive ideology which holds that parking equals economic development. As I pointed out before it clearly does not.
Schnucks will fail due to insufficient downtown residents, something a rehabilitated Century with mixed use would partially address. Soulard residents can support Schnucks but they can also park on the street, take the 30 Soulard Bus, or park in another garage or lot (hopefully not). As with St. Louis County and exurban Cardinal fans, we didn't need to demolish an entire building to accommodate Soulard residents. If we want to stimulate urban street activity we must promote residency and make parking more difficult not easier, while pushing alternate modes of transportation. This may be the "perfect storm" for urban development, but Vancouver did it well and I don't think we should settle for less.
A suburban Schnucks downtown, which I do consider this to be insofar it has a parking garage, will fail as it will not satisfy either urban residents who don't like garages and those suburbanites who visit and bemoan the fact there isn't a sea of parking. This hybrid tries to be Loughbourough Commons on one hand, attracting those passing on the highway providing them garage parking, while trying to serve downtown residents. We needed a Schnucks that primary to downtown residents. If we really want the density and walkable environment, then garages are anathema. They kill street activity by keeping people off our streets! They stymie our potential and prohibit the crowded streets we want.
We could have had a real, urban Schnucks. But we were given this mutant and the Century's gone forever.
- 5,433
Doug wrote:We need to change pervasive ideology that parking equals economic development. As I pointed out before it clearly does not.
Agreed.
Doug wrote:Schnucks will fail due to insufficient downtown residents, something a rehabilitated Century with mixed use would partially address. Soulard residents can support Schnucks but they can also park on the street, take the 30 Soulard Bus, or park in another garage or lot (hopefully not). As with St. Louis County and exurban Cardinal fans, we didn't need to demolish an entire building to accommodate Soulard residents. If we want to stimulate urban street activity we must promote residency and make parking more difficult not easier, while pushing alternate modes of transportation. This may be the "perfect storm" for urban development, but Vancouver did it well and I don't think we should settle for less.
A suburban Schnucks downtown, which I do consider this to be insofar it has a parking garage, will fail as it will not satisfy either urban residents who don't like garages and those suburbanites who visit and bemoan the fact there isn't a sea of parking. This hybrid tries to be Loughbourough Commons on one hand, attracting those passing on the highway providing them garage parking, while trying to serve downtown residents. We needed a Schnucks that primary to downtown residents. If we really want the density and walkable environment, then garages are anathema. They kill street activity by keeping people off our streets! They stymie our potential and prohibit the crowded streets we want.
I also agree that we shouldn't settle for less and that the glut of garages downtown limits our potential for street-level activity. That said, I don't see how this is a suburban Schnucks just because it has a parking component. Macy's, then Famous-Barr, built its own garage across the street in the early 1960s, so is it a suburban store by that definition? I figure Schnucks will add to street-level activity in Old Post Office Square, it will just do so in a far less attractive setting than what could've been. And the integrity of the 1999 Downtown Now! plan that recommended no parking garages facing the OPO was clearly compromised, and the area's potential is limited to an extent as a result.
We can talk ad nauseum about the senseless demolition of the Century Building and other notable downtown landmarks (the Ambassador Theater, Real Estate Row, etc.) but at some point we've got to frame the dialogue so we're working to prevent the same mistakes in the future instead of merely mourning what's been lost. As I said before, since certain politicians lack credible opponents in the next upcoming election, we've got to find a way as concerned citizens to point out the past mistakes made here and the best practices that were embraced elsewhere constructively. And while I agree with much of what you said, I still want the downtown Schnucks to succeed because I believe it will still be a net plus for downtown, notwithstanding the unfortunate decision to demolish the Century Building.
- 8,912
Good post doug, seriously, I just have one quesion for you: do you consider all street level retail stores located belowa parking structure to be suburban? If not, why is this any different?
People won't shop at Schnucks downtown for all their grocery needs. Won't the prices there be more expensive than standard Schnucks? I'll shop there for incidentals and trek to Sam's Club for the rest. And I could even take the Metro doing it.
- 5,433
innov8ion wrote:People won't shop at Schnucks downtown for all their grocery needs. Won't the prices there be more expensive than standard Schnucks? I'll shop there for incidentals and trek to Sam's Club for the rest. And I could even take the Metro doing it.
Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that prices would be similar to other Schnucks locations.
- 41
I think Doug needs to read (everyday) this blog post:
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cy-wake ... -workin-ya
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cy-wake ... -workin-ya
- 729
innov8ion wrote:People won't shop at Schnucks downtown for all their grocery needs. Won't the prices there be more expensive than standard Schnucks? I'll shop there for incidentals and trek to Sam's Club for the rest. And I could even take the Metro doing it.
I will shop there for all my needs and many others that I talk to will as well. Prices are supposed to be more inline with the rest of their stores. Guess we'll see how that plays out. I commend you for taking metro to Sam's Club but how feasible is that? You'd probably need a huge travel cart and something to keep frozen goods frozen. Not sure I wouldn't rather spend a few extra bucks for the convenience of the DT Schnucks. But to each his own.
Doug, let's make a distinction here.. There is, on the one hand, your thoughts and sentiment on the state in which we find ourselves and where we want to be. From what I have collected, I mostly agree with everything you are saying in assessing the situation that has led us up to now and then defining where we would like to be in the future. There is, on the other hand, the method that you use to reaching your goal. And here is where you are turning people away.
Exactly. You are right. This isn't what's being disputed. What is being disputed lies in that vague verb "to change". How? So far all I have seen from you is anger and an inability to see the forest for the trees. Your scope is narrow--you are kicking up dust on an internet forum because everyone doesn't agree with you on what is really an insignificant part of your point: that boycotting the Schnucks is the most effective way of "changing the pervasive ideology." You have an audience in which most people want to see a city where our leaders do NOT think that "parking equals economic development," an audience that wants to change that ideology, and you are condemning them because they disagree on how you choose to enact change.
I think you'll find that if you are open minded amongst people with like goals and DISCUSS a course of action (rather than dictating and demanding to others what you think you KNOW is the right way to go), then you will probably have more success. Instead, you come across more like you just enjoy being a rabble rouser. How can you expect to "frame public opinion" when you seem to alienate the people who share the same goals as you?
Doug wrote:We need to change the pervasive ideology which holds that parking equals economic development. As I pointed out before it clearly does not.
Exactly. You are right. This isn't what's being disputed. What is being disputed lies in that vague verb "to change". How? So far all I have seen from you is anger and an inability to see the forest for the trees. Your scope is narrow--you are kicking up dust on an internet forum because everyone doesn't agree with you on what is really an insignificant part of your point: that boycotting the Schnucks is the most effective way of "changing the pervasive ideology." You have an audience in which most people want to see a city where our leaders do NOT think that "parking equals economic development," an audience that wants to change that ideology, and you are condemning them because they disagree on how you choose to enact change.
I think you'll find that if you are open minded amongst people with like goals and DISCUSS a course of action (rather than dictating and demanding to others what you think you KNOW is the right way to go), then you will probably have more success. Instead, you come across more like you just enjoy being a rabble rouser. How can you expect to "frame public opinion" when you seem to alienate the people who share the same goals as you?
Heh, I don't take the metro to Sam's Club. I drive. And if prices are more competitive than City Grocer's, then I'll prob shop at the downtown Schnucks more. Like you say, time will tell.irocktheparty2000 wrote:innov8ion wrote:People won't shop at Schnucks downtown for all their grocery needs. Won't the prices there be more expensive than standard Schnucks? I'll shop there for incidentals and trek to Sam's Club for the rest. And I could even take the Metro doing it.
I will shop there for all my needs and many others that I talk to will as well. Prices are supposed to be more inline with the rest of their stores. Guess we'll see how that plays out. I commend you for taking metro to Sam's Club but how feasible is that? You'd probably need a huge travel cart and something to keep frozen goods frozen. Not sure I wouldn't rather spend a few extra bucks for the convenience of the DT Schnucks. But to each his own.
What does "similar" mean? Seems pretty ambiguous. Is that the same price? 5% more? 15% more? 25% more? I'll pay extra for convenience, but that only goes so far.ThreeOneFour wrote:
Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that prices would be similar to other Schnucks locations.
- 5,433
innov8ion wrote:What does "similar" mean? Seems pretty ambiguous. Is that the same price? 5% more? 15% more? 25% more? I'll pay extra for convenience, but that only goes so far.
Well, since I wasn't 100% sure about what I read and where I read it, I was being intentionally ambiguous.
I got the impression that prices at the downtown store would be the same as prices at any Schnucks in Greater St. Louis. That said, I'm not much of a comparison shopper since my wife does most of the grocery getting, so I can't tell you if a jar of mustard costs the same at the Schnucks in Loughborough Commons, Ladue Crossing, or the Waterloo location.
Until we hear anything from Schnucks, or see the prices in the downtown store with our own eyes, I suppose there's no way to know for sure. But surely Schnucks has to keep in mind what you said- customers will only pay so much for the added convenience.
Matt and Doug I completely agree with you. St. Louis has made some idiotic decisions over the years and will probably make more in the future. Just remember that St. Louis is not the only city that suffered from urban renewal, in fact we have a lot more historical structures than most cities. Things change guys......just look at the positive strides the city has made the past few years, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects that are heavily outweighed. The fact the Schnucks (a historically suburban brand) sees the potential in a Downtown market (just as many of us do) should make you 
because if they didn't believe in downtown's future sustainability they wouldn't be moving here. Schnucks may not share your vision of urban utopia, but they also have the financial clout to not give a damn what you think.
Century is gone and DOES it suck, but the new tenant on this lot will likely spur millions of more in rehabilitation than a empty Century building (waiting to be rehabbed
) would have.
In my most humble and naive opinion the new Schnucks SUPERMARKET! Will be a net gain for downtown in the long run, because it makes the rehabilitation of many other nearby historical buildings more economically feasible and viable.
because if they didn't believe in downtown's future sustainability they wouldn't be moving here. Schnucks may not share your vision of urban utopia, but they also have the financial clout to not give a damn what you think. Century is gone and DOES it suck, but the new tenant on this lot will likely spur millions of more in rehabilitation than a empty Century building (waiting to be rehabbed
) would have. In my most humble and naive opinion the new Schnucks SUPERMARKET! Will be a net gain for downtown in the long run, because it makes the rehabilitation of many other nearby historical buildings more economically feasible and viable.
I'm not negating the fact that Schnucks chose to invest in Downtown and that's an obvious sign that we are a good market. Well except for the TIF.
The Railway Exchange is an urban building in that it does not contain parking. It's garage is suburban, and autocentric at the least. Clearly the garage has not proved the wild card keeping Famous or Macy's at the top of their game. That's because we can't really do suburban downtown so if we want to compete we must promote urbanity, not some pseudo hybrid of both.
I do believe that mixed use cannot include parking insofar as parking is not a "use" that we should really allow in our City or at least welcome with open arms. If you define cities as architecturally diverse walkable environments, then they are more similar to blight. Perhaps I'm overly longing for something like Copenhagen, where residents are able to walk, in fact encouraged as there are streets teeming with life without cars entirely. Of course we are different from Europe in that we've stressed our autocentric culture for the past 75 or so years. But we've reached a point in time where it's clear that we have better alternatives and it's actually the opportune time to stress them, whether by promoting biking, street cars, or other forms of local transit. Combined with Regional transit like Light Rail, I don't see a need for the automobile. Of course this paradigm shift would take decades, and we really have no plan or vision for such a change, but a great way to start would be to actually start! Slay proposed removing meters after 4. I doubt this will happen due to opposition from parking companies, but if that happens we have a small starting point.
If we actually want a lively, vibrant downtown then we must stress walkability and not the automobile. We must emphasize our unique historic built environment as an alternative to suburbia and this walkable environment, where daily excitement arises from human interaction if only prepherial on the sidealk, offers something that cannot be had anywhere in our Region. If we continue down this path of promoting Downtown as a neighborhood, where people live and not simply park and exit after 5, then perhaps we could actually compete with Chicago and other cities. Yet our competition with other cities cannot begin until we actually have lively streets and something to offer. We can't hope to compete with 24/7 cities unless we are the same and that status does not occur with mass automobile driven exoduses. Regardless of pro-Downtown booster efforts at promotion, this pattern still occurs regardless of public relations and City Hall tweaked census estimates. The reason is parking and the relative ease of accessing Downtown via the automobile. If we decrease the cost of on street parking, while limiting the supply of garages thereby driving up their prices, we will see people walking or talking transit, and with residential like what could have been with the Century Building, residing Downtown.
Again I point to the wonderfully horrible garage which will be built at the former site of the Ambassador, and the suburban "allegedly going to be revised and urban" car pad which will be built at Locust and 10th, as clear examples of the wrong direction. We do not need yet another garage and if the market cannot currently support either new residential or office at the location of the former Ambassador, then we should wait until tides change and we are able to proceed with a true urban development. The Locust demolition, with the suburban annex and automobile turnstile, represents clearly that we do not yet understand how to proceed. Demolition of what could be one of the oldest buildings downtown, which could easily be recladded with a more palatable facade and turned into a quite unique Downtown bar or other establishment, can only be described as a huge loss. But these two developments are explained as money on the table and why wait for uncertain future development proposals at these sites.
Yet we should wait. We must plan. We must develop an agenda, a consensus and stick with it. We must have zoning and urban design codes which will bring about this human scaled liveable city. We must decry demolitions that are completely unnecessary and devalue our neighborhoods. We must consistently bring up these violations because we are the only ones that will! We cannot expect our politicians to move for urban developments on their own when they have louder, influential voices at the table.
If anyone is interested in getting involved with the effort to save the San Luis, formerly the DeVille Motor Hotel, from the Archdioceses' plan to create a gaping hole on Lindell, then I suggest you visit our website. We will be meeting sometime next week discussing strategy and ideas on how to proceed further and you are all welcome to join the process as we ultimately have the same goals despite healthy disagreements on outcome and methods.
Given the massive amount of attention and progress made Downtown, the time to act clearly is now. If organized we can make the changes we desire. I think we can all agree that crowded downtown streets for ourselves and grandchildren clearly are worth the effort.
The Railway Exchange is an urban building in that it does not contain parking. It's garage is suburban, and autocentric at the least. Clearly the garage has not proved the wild card keeping Famous or Macy's at the top of their game. That's because we can't really do suburban downtown so if we want to compete we must promote urbanity, not some pseudo hybrid of both.
I do believe that mixed use cannot include parking insofar as parking is not a "use" that we should really allow in our City or at least welcome with open arms. If you define cities as architecturally diverse walkable environments, then they are more similar to blight. Perhaps I'm overly longing for something like Copenhagen, where residents are able to walk, in fact encouraged as there are streets teeming with life without cars entirely. Of course we are different from Europe in that we've stressed our autocentric culture for the past 75 or so years. But we've reached a point in time where it's clear that we have better alternatives and it's actually the opportune time to stress them, whether by promoting biking, street cars, or other forms of local transit. Combined with Regional transit like Light Rail, I don't see a need for the automobile. Of course this paradigm shift would take decades, and we really have no plan or vision for such a change, but a great way to start would be to actually start! Slay proposed removing meters after 4. I doubt this will happen due to opposition from parking companies, but if that happens we have a small starting point.
If we actually want a lively, vibrant downtown then we must stress walkability and not the automobile. We must emphasize our unique historic built environment as an alternative to suburbia and this walkable environment, where daily excitement arises from human interaction if only prepherial on the sidealk, offers something that cannot be had anywhere in our Region. If we continue down this path of promoting Downtown as a neighborhood, where people live and not simply park and exit after 5, then perhaps we could actually compete with Chicago and other cities. Yet our competition with other cities cannot begin until we actually have lively streets and something to offer. We can't hope to compete with 24/7 cities unless we are the same and that status does not occur with mass automobile driven exoduses. Regardless of pro-Downtown booster efforts at promotion, this pattern still occurs regardless of public relations and City Hall tweaked census estimates. The reason is parking and the relative ease of accessing Downtown via the automobile. If we decrease the cost of on street parking, while limiting the supply of garages thereby driving up their prices, we will see people walking or talking transit, and with residential like what could have been with the Century Building, residing Downtown.
Again I point to the wonderfully horrible garage which will be built at the former site of the Ambassador, and the suburban "allegedly going to be revised and urban" car pad which will be built at Locust and 10th, as clear examples of the wrong direction. We do not need yet another garage and if the market cannot currently support either new residential or office at the location of the former Ambassador, then we should wait until tides change and we are able to proceed with a true urban development. The Locust demolition, with the suburban annex and automobile turnstile, represents clearly that we do not yet understand how to proceed. Demolition of what could be one of the oldest buildings downtown, which could easily be recladded with a more palatable facade and turned into a quite unique Downtown bar or other establishment, can only be described as a huge loss. But these two developments are explained as money on the table and why wait for uncertain future development proposals at these sites.
Yet we should wait. We must plan. We must develop an agenda, a consensus and stick with it. We must have zoning and urban design codes which will bring about this human scaled liveable city. We must decry demolitions that are completely unnecessary and devalue our neighborhoods. We must consistently bring up these violations because we are the only ones that will! We cannot expect our politicians to move for urban developments on their own when they have louder, influential voices at the table.
If anyone is interested in getting involved with the effort to save the San Luis, formerly the DeVille Motor Hotel, from the Archdioceses' plan to create a gaping hole on Lindell, then I suggest you visit our website. We will be meeting sometime next week discussing strategy and ideas on how to proceed further and you are all welcome to join the process as we ultimately have the same goals despite healthy disagreements on outcome and methods.
Given the massive amount of attention and progress made Downtown, the time to act clearly is now. If organized we can make the changes we desire. I think we can all agree that crowded downtown streets for ourselves and grandchildren clearly are worth the effort.
- 125
I live a few blocks down the street from the area Schnucks will soon be occupying. I am excited. I plan on making many trips by foot but on days like today, I will be thankful if Schnucks has parking! Like many, I would not mind coming in from work(yes, in my car, i commute out of the downtown area for work because there is no work down here for me) and picking up some groceries on the way home. Everybody has to think "Baby Steps" and we are not going to be a major city overnight so why start acting like one now when we are clearly not. This is why its more beneficial to provide transportation options for consumers in an area that is still taking shape. Plus, they have to draw as much business as they can to compensate for the 1% earnings tax.LOL.
Just received the new St. Louis Convention and Visitors 2009 Visitors Guide (magazine) and Schnucks has an ad in it for the downtown new store on Ninth. That is nice to see! City Grocers is also in the guide.
ironic... an article in Tuesday's PD paper is online now...
Here we go...
DOWNTOWN SCHNUCKS BEGINS CONSTRUCTION WEDNESDAY JANUARY 28
Insight on City Grocers plans in article too.
Schnucks to start downtown construction
By Gail Appleson
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/27/2009
Schnuck Markets Inc. will start construction on its upscale grocery in downtown St. Louis on Wednesday, providing a ray of hope among merchants who are currently struggling to attract customers.
"I think this will start breathing some life into downtown," said Sarah Coffin, professor of public policy studies at St. Louis University.
The timing is particularly important as a new stream of retail is now developing within blocks of the planned market at 315 North Ninth Street. Nearby, Left Bank Books and Charm jewelry boutique opened late last year, and a wine bar is set to open in late spring next to the bookstore. And in the summer, 20,000 square feet of retail space will be available in the Syndicate Building at 10th and Olive, said Craig Heller, owner and managing partner of LoftWorks, the building's developer. He said his group is in talks with five potential retailers.
"(The store openings) will clearly change the face of the neighborhood," Heller said.
Schnuck's decision to locate on Ninth Street not only adds services that will make downtown more attractive to potential residents and shoppers, it marks a vote of confidence by a large and successful grocery chain, experts said.
"The fact it's such a highly visible project makes it even more important," said Jim Cloar, executive director of the Downtown St. Louis Partnership.
Last February, Schnuck Markets announced it would open the two-level downtown store in late 2008 or early 2009. However, the new completion date is set for some time this summer.
The planning process — not the tough economy — delayed construction of the downtown location, said Lori Willis, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Heights-based chain.
"It's a challenging store for us to build," she said. "The two-story format is a departure from any store we've built before."
The store, which will occupy the ground floor of the Ninth Street Garage at Olive Street, will feature an overhead mezzanine with an extensive wine department and eating space.
The downtown Schnucks market will be a bit smaller than a typical 63,000-square-foot grocery. But it will be a full-service store with amenities aimed at nearby loft residents, many of whom are affluent, and daytime office workers.
About 29 percent of downtown residents earn between $100,000 and $200,000, according to a 2007 survey by the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. There are about 11,000 people living downtown now, the partnership said.
This presents a different kind of market for Schnucks, with many shoppers who will be walking rather than driving, Coffin said. There also will be fewer shoppers with small children.
"You won't see piled-up grocery carts. This will be more convenience shopping by urban dwellers looking for more upscale offerings," she said. "It's always a challenge when you're thinking outside the box. There's always a learning curve."
Survival downtown hasn't been easy for many retailers in the past year. Several businesses, including restaurants Beso Mexican Grill and Zaytoon opened and shuttered in 2008. Delmar Loop-based furniture store Good Works closed its downtown location in June after only eight months because of a lack of customers.
With the new Schnucks going up, City Grocers — at 10th and Olive — will have to change its focus, said Heller, an owner of the gourmet market. The 6,500-square-foot shop already canceled plans to expand into a 14,000-square-foot space adjacent to the Schnucks location.
"City Grocers will evolve with more emphasis on deli and prepared foods," he said.
"There will be more speciality foods but not things like Wheaties."
READ MORE/ENTIRE ARTICLE:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... 4B00075036?
Here we go...
DOWNTOWN SCHNUCKS BEGINS CONSTRUCTION WEDNESDAY JANUARY 28
Insight on City Grocers plans in article too.
Schnucks to start downtown construction
By Gail Appleson
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/27/2009
Schnuck Markets Inc. will start construction on its upscale grocery in downtown St. Louis on Wednesday, providing a ray of hope among merchants who are currently struggling to attract customers.
"I think this will start breathing some life into downtown," said Sarah Coffin, professor of public policy studies at St. Louis University.
The timing is particularly important as a new stream of retail is now developing within blocks of the planned market at 315 North Ninth Street. Nearby, Left Bank Books and Charm jewelry boutique opened late last year, and a wine bar is set to open in late spring next to the bookstore. And in the summer, 20,000 square feet of retail space will be available in the Syndicate Building at 10th and Olive, said Craig Heller, owner and managing partner of LoftWorks, the building's developer. He said his group is in talks with five potential retailers.
"(The store openings) will clearly change the face of the neighborhood," Heller said.
Schnuck's decision to locate on Ninth Street not only adds services that will make downtown more attractive to potential residents and shoppers, it marks a vote of confidence by a large and successful grocery chain, experts said.
"The fact it's such a highly visible project makes it even more important," said Jim Cloar, executive director of the Downtown St. Louis Partnership.
Last February, Schnuck Markets announced it would open the two-level downtown store in late 2008 or early 2009. However, the new completion date is set for some time this summer.
The planning process — not the tough economy — delayed construction of the downtown location, said Lori Willis, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Heights-based chain.
"It's a challenging store for us to build," she said. "The two-story format is a departure from any store we've built before."
The store, which will occupy the ground floor of the Ninth Street Garage at Olive Street, will feature an overhead mezzanine with an extensive wine department and eating space.
The downtown Schnucks market will be a bit smaller than a typical 63,000-square-foot grocery. But it will be a full-service store with amenities aimed at nearby loft residents, many of whom are affluent, and daytime office workers.
About 29 percent of downtown residents earn between $100,000 and $200,000, according to a 2007 survey by the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. There are about 11,000 people living downtown now, the partnership said.
This presents a different kind of market for Schnucks, with many shoppers who will be walking rather than driving, Coffin said. There also will be fewer shoppers with small children.
"You won't see piled-up grocery carts. This will be more convenience shopping by urban dwellers looking for more upscale offerings," she said. "It's always a challenge when you're thinking outside the box. There's always a learning curve."
Survival downtown hasn't been easy for many retailers in the past year. Several businesses, including restaurants Beso Mexican Grill and Zaytoon opened and shuttered in 2008. Delmar Loop-based furniture store Good Works closed its downtown location in June after only eight months because of a lack of customers.
With the new Schnucks going up, City Grocers — at 10th and Olive — will have to change its focus, said Heller, an owner of the gourmet market. The 6,500-square-foot shop already canceled plans to expand into a 14,000-square-foot space adjacent to the Schnucks location.
"City Grocers will evolve with more emphasis on deli and prepared foods," he said.
"There will be more speciality foods but not things like Wheaties."
READ MORE/ENTIRE ARTICLE:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... 4B00075036?