6424-36 Chippewa (2 new restaurants)

Discuss construction activity, major renovations, office projects, streetscape improvements, etc. in South City -- defined by the area south of Interstate 44/55.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 1-17r2.pdf

someone told me these 2 are 5 Guys Burgers and Smoothie King, guess we will find out Nov 1.
They would be follow Raising Canes chicken and Chik-fil-A as the latest fast food places to swarm deep south city.
Sounds Boring but I guess could be ok.
IIRC, the neighborhood successfully made the ATT store across the street at least try to look more urban-friendly, so what are they gonna do about this?
Is this the shuttered and demoed gas station next to the former Fazoli's and now IHOP?

I think I've said this before, but I've basically given up on this part of the city being urban. I don't like admitting that, but it is what it is.
I doubt you'll see pushback on developing what looks to be a vacant lot. Would be nice to just make them both standard storefronts though with similar setback to the AT&T across the street.
This will also see the demo of the medical building next the gas station. The current proposal shows the building being built even closer to the street than the att building across the street.
FerdinandIII wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:13 pm
This will also see the demo of the medical building next the gas station. The current proposal shows the building being built even closer to the street than the att building across the street.
The ATT building almost couldn't be closer to the street. Getting from Lindenwood Pl on to Chippewa is tough even with the setback. Especially considering if you're travelling south on Watson and want to get to Chippewa, you have to bail because there's no left from Watson to Chippewa. Kind of surprised this Lindenwood/Chippewa intersection isn't equipped with a traffic light, actually.
Jesus, Hampton Village is a disgusting sh*t show.

At the very least, that f*cking McDonald's needs to go away. What a god-damned waste of space.
Hampton Village is also the anchor to one of, if not the highest tax generating intersection in the city. I know that Hampton as a whole is the scorn of all urban development, but it's actually a pretty big asset to a city that is perpetually struggling to generate revenue of any kind.
jbacott wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:37 pm
Hampton Village is also the anchor to one of, if not the highest tax generating intersection in the city. I know that Hampton as a whole is the scorn of all urban development, but it's actually a pretty big asset to a city that is perpetually struggling to generate revenue of any kind.
that's a pretty low bar. it *might* be the highest-SALES-tax-generating auto-oriented intersection in a city with few alternatives. it's the scorn of urban development because urban development results in substantially more revenue per square foot than this kind of pedestrian-hostile parking lot sprawl. maybe that's why the city is struggling.

in any case i'm not arguing that Hampton Village go away, just that it's vast parking lot be put to better, more lucrative use.
urban_dilettante wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:01 pm
jbacott wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:37 pm
Hampton Village is also the anchor to one of, if not the highest tax generating intersection in the city. I know that Hampton as a whole is the scorn of all urban development, but it's actually a pretty big asset to a city that is perpetually struggling to generate revenue of any kind.
that's a pretty low bar. it *might* be the highest-SALES-tax-generating auto-oriented intersection in a city with few alternatives. it's the scorn of urban development because urban development results in substantially more revenue per square foot than this kind of pedestrian-hostile parking lot sprawl. maybe that's why the city is struggling.

in any case i'm not arguing that Hampton Village go away, just that it's vast parking lot be put to better, more lucrative use.
Oh, possibly. I was surprised to find out just how absurdly old the thing is. The first part of Hampton Village apparently dates to the depression. So . . . that's incredibly historic suburban auto-centric sprawl. A right and proper Route 66 landmark. Just . . . not one many people like very much. But you know what? I do actually shop there sometimes. (Once in a while. When on my way home from visiting my parents.)

I would love love love to see more urban friendly development there. I've even fantasized about how to make it happen without sacrificing what works about it. (Enclose the parking lots in a four sided strip mall, more or less. Maybe even put a deck on top with green space, solar cells, or more stores.) But . . . you know . . . it works. I might suggest many things, but tearing it down will not be one of them. Find a way to fill in the holes further in first. And then the rest will flow naturally. Before we can get rid of that (or better yet keep it and fix it) we need to make sure we have a transportation system that actually works: more frequent busses, more metrolink, car sharing, better ride sharing, maybe even form based design codes. If you want to get rid of that you really need more walkable neighborhoods generally. Which will require . . . a lot. I'm (mostly) with you. But I think we need other steps first. Honestly, what we need is a sea change in how people view their environment. And I think that's happening. It's just a little slower around here.
The challenge to integrating something like Hampton Village into a more walkable environment is the long term effects it has on the existing property from an investment standpoint. That's not expressing my preference, that's just observation from 15 years in real estate (specifically retail). If you were to encase the edge of the parking lot with multi-tenant outparcels that sit closer to Chippewa and Hampton, the look would be more attractive considering a vastly upgraded street wall, and you could lure some quality tenants b/c of the traffic counts but the owner would balk based on the collateral damage on the interior space. Schnucks would be fine b/c they don't rely on visibility from the main intersection, but when a tenant like JC Penney inevitably goes out of business, that becomes a significantly more difficult space to backfill if it's entirely blocked by street-facing buildings. Will an owner/investor spend millions to add 20,000sf of retail outparcel in exchange for devaluing the 50,000sf of shop space that already exists?

Again, that's not preference, that's just reality you deal with when you're talking about converting successful auto-friendly into pedestrian-friendly.

Obviously that corner would be ideal for a big mixed use development with Schnucks anchoring the ground floor, but it wouldn't happen unless the center was struggling. Even then sometimes it's difficult - Ex. A vacant lot at Hanley/Clayton that has been through about 5+ redevelopment proposals.

The Target lot on the other hand may be well-positioned to add some streetfront retail at the corner, but I don't think they are in any hurry to do it.
^ there are strip malls all over the place that have exterior parcels blocking views of interior parcels. take the Boulevard, for example. the new trend in strip malls seems to be drive into an interior space, park, and walk around in a simulated "neighborhood". what about indoor malls? you can't read any of their signs from street except for the big anchors. that's why a lot of these places have big billboards near the perimeter listing the tenants. and i'm sorry, but go to Google Maps and put the little guy at the intersection of Hampton and Chippewa and tell me that you can read any of the interior signs. i'm not buying that it would hurt business. maybe the owners believe that but there's no basis for it. the increased foot traffic/residential density would likely improve business.

i mean, again, all we have to do is look at examples of smart development in other cities--something that people here just seem to refuse to do.
The Market at McKnight in Rock Hill is another example (though I wish they'd allow for street-facing entrances:

https://goo.gl/maps/vHaaaWtqy1S2

^ Honestly something like that would be a great thing for Hampton Village, not that I think it'll happen. I really don't think Lucky's or Stein Mart faces too much difficulties because they can't be seen from Manchester.

Honestly I think the biggest barrier to building outbuildings along Hampton and/or Chippewa isn't going to be blocking the interior buildings (that's what adequate signage is for) or taking up valuable parking space (The lot is only even close to full during the height of Christmas Shopping), but rather whether there's enough retail demand to fill that much additional space.

-RBB
There used to be more outbuildings. The old Schnucks was in a fairly substantial outbuilding at the corner that had originally been a produce market, if I understand it correctly. And the old White Castle, small as it was, opened onto the sidewalk, I think. I won't deny that building high dollar street facing retail would devalue some of the interior retail, but how long that Penny's survives is anybody's guess. They're not so bad off as Sears, maybe, but it's not a healthy sector. Of course, I haven't been in that store since I was ten, probably. (And I think then it was where the Schnucks is now. Approximately. Maybe. Can't quite recall.) How's it holding up? My experience with Penny's elsewhere was that the slide has begun, making me suspect that ten or fifteen years from now that space will be different no matter what happens. It's not a good time to be in the department store biz. To some extent, it may already be an obsolete use. And it's already pretty easy to forget they're back there. They don't have a lot of visibility as is. If, on the other hand, you moved them to the corner and filled that space with office they might have a fighting chance against the discounters and e-tailers.

Anyway, I'm not saying it needs to be changed right this minute. It was a fantasy. Not intended in any way to be realistic. In reality, I was trying to defend the radical idea of not tearing the place down and starting over just because kids these days want more robot battery Ubers and carbon fiber smart bikes and fewer smoker cars.

And yes, the Target could stand for a little Hampton fronting something. But that particular site is already at least slightly more street friendly than a lot of other comparable purveyors of your finer flat pack I can think of.

Anyway, ignore my fantasy. Back to things actually getting built.
urban_dilettante wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:03 pm
^ there are strip malls all over the place that have exterior parcels blocking views of interior parcels. take the Boulevard, for example. the new trend in strip malls seems to be drive into an interior space, park, and walk around in a simulated "neighborhood". what about indoor malls? you can't read any of their signs from street except for the big anchors. that's why a lot of these places have big billboards near the perimeter listing the tenants. and i'm sorry, but go to Google Maps and put the little guy at the intersection of Hampton and Chippewa and tell me that you can read any of the interior signs. i'm not buying that it would hurt business. maybe the owners believe that but there's no basis for it. the increased foot traffic/residential density would likely improve business.

i mean, again, all we have to do is look at examples of smart development in other cities--something that people here just seem to refuse to do.
I'm aware of the trends in retail development. The faux urban development (Boulevard, Simon Outlets, etc.) is becoming more and more commonplace, although they're still rooted in the draw of old school big box retail anchors. City Foundry is a good example of advancements in urban retail trends as well that are happening in markets all over the country.

Regarding configuration of a retail center, we can debate it, but the market value of the small shop interior spaces goes down the minute their visibility from the road is compromised, it's a fact that I've witnessed firsthand repeatedly. The anchors are less sensitive to it. Pylon sign can mitigate that to a certain extent, but not enough that it isn't an issue the Landlord deals with. Certainly valid to question the logic behind it all, because retailers tend to assume customers are inherently dumb and only visit their store if they can see it.

My general point wasn't that a development like that can't be successful, it's that owners will be very stingy about proactively undergoing a dramatic overhaul of their center when it's successful in its current form - i.e. Hampton Village. It's relative to the larger conversation because the conversion of traditional retail centers into something more urban-based is a hurdle that isn't going away. And it's not unique to St. Louis at all. Take Chicago, which has ideal urban areas in downtown and inner ring suburbs. Even areas as progressive as Lincoln Park, Roscoe Village, Albany Park have developments exactly like Hampton Village dropped into the middle of them.

I know the conversation was based on hypothetical, but I think it's an interesting discussion to compare/contrast what is considered urban-leaning designs versus existing auto-friendly legacy properties and how they will interact going forward.
jbacott, thanks. I agree, it's a very interesting discussion.

-RBB
^ interesting and frustrating.
Did this meeting ever happen? Anyone know where to check on updates?
Board of Adjustment approved it on Wednesday. Its one building thats 4000sq ft that 5 Guys will take up 2,800 Sq Ft (+outdoor patio seating) and Smoothie King the other 1200- (no sit down seating there, just a counter to order + drive thru window)

the site is in some sort of 12 month monitoring period due to having underground gas tanks before. Developer said that can proceed with construction while being monitored.
Awesome. Thanks DB. This is the right part of town for those, I suppose. I'll just hope for the best possible when it comes to the actual buildings. The fact that it's a joint building usually means it will be better than if they were each stand alone. Likely not great, but better.
I found these on a Loop net listing from earlier this year for the site. I don’t know if these are what the building will look like, but it gives us an idea.
Image
Image
No parking in front of the building. At least a partial win.
Could be better. Could be a lot worse.