^ This begs the question of how the City will pay for Mall improvements. Clearly the Gateway foundation will pick up the tab for much of the sculpture garden, which helps a lot. The question is how will the City pay for the rest. I can only assume asking for hand-outs. Seems like a few dollars from the sale of such land would help a bit.
- 6,775
southslider wrote:As a pilot project, the City could first sell off the two least controversial blocks of the Mall-- those two blocks not even located between Chestnut and Market Streets. I'm talking about the blocks either side of the Soldier's Memorial between Chestnut and Pine Streets. Then, if those developments were successful, perhaps there would be wider public support for selling off lesser blocks actually along Market Street, but still keeping a half-mall along this visual axis.
And someone would build on those properties as opposed to dozens of other currently empty lots because......?
Scrutinizer, we have been over this before. Go back and read any number of pages in this thread and you can figure out why those blocks would work. 
- 6,775
JMedwick wrote:Scrutinizer, we have been over this before. Go back and read any number of pages in this thread and you can figure out why those blocks would work.
I keep asking because you either don't answer, or give an answer that makes no sense. Duly noted.
Everything they want to build already exists in other areas. People won't move down here for it. They will not come if they build it.
They need to build new residential. Give away a few blocks as a test. Then if that is successful, the rest can be developed in a piecemeal fashion as to not flood the market with units. What remaining green space would then be much better served with the increased residents and pedestrian traffic.
This current plan is simply a pipe dream and political citation for the upcoming election. It will not attract people even from the City because all of these aspects exist in surrounding neighborhoods. People are not going to drive downtown to get what they can have in a short walk or 2 minute drive.
They need to build new residential. Give away a few blocks as a test. Then if that is successful, the rest can be developed in a piecemeal fashion as to not flood the market with units. What remaining green space would then be much better served with the increased residents and pedestrian traffic.
This current plan is simply a pipe dream and political citation for the upcoming election. It will not attract people even from the City because all of these aspects exist in surrounding neighborhoods. People are not going to drive downtown to get what they can have in a short walk or 2 minute drive.
- 6,775
Doug wrote:They need to build new residential. Give away a few blocks as a test. Then if that is successful, the rest can be developed in a piecemeal fashion as to not flood the market with units.
So there are no other city owned blocks that can be given away as a "test"? I suspect there are. I suspect there are a lot of them.
They are not going to build on the mall. Get over it.
^ Well then Scrutinizer, I am all ears.
If you know that there are other City owned parcels (either by the City outright or the LCRA) in downtown that can be sold as I and others have discussed, please let us know where they are.
Btw, just a general question. If this plan fails Central, will you then "get over it" and be willing to consider options for partial development of the mall?
If you know that there are other City owned parcels (either by the City outright or the LCRA) in downtown that can be sold as I and others have discussed, please let us know where they are.
Btw, just a general question. If this plan fails Central, will you then "get over it" and be willing to consider options for partial development of the mall?
Central is blindly following the status quo even though it is disastrous and has a clear record of failure. We shouldn't settle for Mayor Slay's low planning standards, which arise from his network of friends that he doesn't wish to alienate.
Regarding vacant lots, the City won't even give away LRA property, specifically in the 19th Ward. Instead they demolished 3 buildings for condos that have not been built. In fact they are planting grass seed.
Moreover, the City won't even address Paul McKee and Blairmont.
Thus, Central is right that giving away land is unlikely. But again, being complacent only propagates the failure of the status quo.
We have a serious problem in this City when it comes to vacant lots and developing them. The LRA actually blocks development, as this would lead to the end of the organization, whereas aldermen serve the developers at will, because citizens are not organized in a formal lobby. Thus, politicians will try to keep opposition at a minimum in order to not create a crisis. They keep the decision making process closed as this protects their collusion.
Given its history of failure, and the debunked planning ideology surrounding the Mall, the obvious solution is to give away some land. We have too much. If our officials won't, then the citizenry should lend their democratic voice by attending meetings, giving their opinion, and demanding their inclusion in the decision making process. The reason those homes on Washington Blvd. were demolished in the 19th Ward is because the citizens are not active. Thus, the broad goal should be the formation of a watchdog lobby when it comes to all aspects of development within the City of St. Louis.
The planners, and the Mayor, should not ignore these recommendations. They need to realize that their closed traditionalistic political culture only alienates those with ideas and vision. What will result from this plan is continuing failure. This is why people leave for other cities which take advantage of their talents. St. Louis, if it wants to compete with other cities, needs to realize that its traditionalistic political culture is an economic and social barrier, as it stymies innovation and pushes away our advocates and entrepreneurs.
Regarding vacant lots, the City won't even give away LRA property, specifically in the 19th Ward. Instead they demolished 3 buildings for condos that have not been built. In fact they are planting grass seed.
Moreover, the City won't even address Paul McKee and Blairmont.
Thus, Central is right that giving away land is unlikely. But again, being complacent only propagates the failure of the status quo.
We have a serious problem in this City when it comes to vacant lots and developing them. The LRA actually blocks development, as this would lead to the end of the organization, whereas aldermen serve the developers at will, because citizens are not organized in a formal lobby. Thus, politicians will try to keep opposition at a minimum in order to not create a crisis. They keep the decision making process closed as this protects their collusion.
Given its history of failure, and the debunked planning ideology surrounding the Mall, the obvious solution is to give away some land. We have too much. If our officials won't, then the citizenry should lend their democratic voice by attending meetings, giving their opinion, and demanding their inclusion in the decision making process. The reason those homes on Washington Blvd. were demolished in the 19th Ward is because the citizens are not active. Thus, the broad goal should be the formation of a watchdog lobby when it comes to all aspects of development within the City of St. Louis.
The planners, and the Mayor, should not ignore these recommendations. They need to realize that their closed traditionalistic political culture only alienates those with ideas and vision. What will result from this plan is continuing failure. This is why people leave for other cities which take advantage of their talents. St. Louis, if it wants to compete with other cities, needs to realize that its traditionalistic political culture is an economic and social barrier, as it stymies innovation and pushes away our advocates and entrepreneurs.
We're currently reporting that an aldermanic committee has already approved the "urban garden."
And therein, I submit, lies the problem. A few weeks ago, we got notice that there would be a public meeting to discuss a "new vision" for the mall. Shortly thereafter, the "urban garden" was submitted as a fait accompli, a "basis" for the "new vision." No public discussion, no public input -- simply review by "local civic, business and arts leaders." (Almost none of whom were specifically named.)
Now the garden has been rubber-stamped by the alleged representatives of the people. I'm sure the whole board is not far behind.
Public input? We don't need no steenkin' public input! We'll tell you what to think, and we'll tell you what ideas are good, and while we're at it, we'll tell you what's good art and what isn't. And people will flock to it!
And therein, I submit, lies the problem. A few weeks ago, we got notice that there would be a public meeting to discuss a "new vision" for the mall. Shortly thereafter, the "urban garden" was submitted as a fait accompli, a "basis" for the "new vision." No public discussion, no public input -- simply review by "local civic, business and arts leaders." (Almost none of whom were specifically named.)
Now the garden has been rubber-stamped by the alleged representatives of the people. I'm sure the whole board is not far behind.
Public input? We don't need no steenkin' public input! We'll tell you what to think, and we'll tell you what ideas are good, and while we're at it, we'll tell you what's good art and what isn't. And people will flock to it!
- 687
Doug wrote:They will not come if they build it.
And what makes you think they will come if you build blocks of residential on the mall?
IMO the residential supply is already starting to out pacing the demand. Look at all the projects that will be available soon and all the ones already planned. Look at all the listings for downtown lofts being resold.
Bonwich, thanks for the heads up. Whoa, this is coming fast!
For those people that think STL can't get things done, take note
.
For those people that think STL can't get things done, take note
.buckethead wrote:Doug wrote:They will not come if they build it.
And what makes you think they will come if you build blocks of residential on the mall?
IMO the residential supply is already starting to out pacing the demand. Look at all the projects that will be available soon and all the ones already planned. Look at all the listings for downtown lofts being resold.
How fast did the Park East sell? These wouldn't be lofts. They would be modern towers with condos and apartments, office space, and store front retail.
- 1,044
I like the "urban garden" it’s formulated by 2 groups (the MBG and the Gateway Foundation) that almost always do quality work. I recently read where Central Park was estimated to be worth $528 Billion to New York, mostly because of increased real estate values of properties located around it. Perhaps one day our mall will have the same result.
I like it, too. But it wasn't a suggestion or a part of a public input process -- it was the Great White Fathers telling us what was going to happen. Which is exactly how the Gateway Mall got into the shape that it is currently.
You want to trust them (if you can figure out who "they" actually are), fine. Maybe history just doesn't matter.
You want to trust them (if you can figure out who "they" actually are), fine. Maybe history just doesn't matter.
Everything they want to build already exists in other areas. People won't move down here for it. They will not come if they build it.
I don't think that bringing in large sums of people to live downtown is necessarily the goal of the mall project, nor does anyone claim it to be. I think the goal is aimed at keeping tourists, sports fans, and visitors busy and feeling safe as they traverse from the south end of downtown to the north when they see activity in a clean and trim area with more kiosks and attractions. It fills continuity that is lacking. While I would obviously support someone building a tower of residential on these blocks, I do recognize that there are other areas to try it out first, like the park in front of the Eagleton or the space near the Roberts Orpheum that has yet to be turned into a new park.
- 6,775
JMedwick wrote:Btw, just a general question. If this plan fails Central, will you then "get over it" and be willing to consider options for partial development of the mall?
Sure. But "failure" will probably take 5-10 years to determine.
bonwich wrote:We're currently reporting that an aldermanic committee has already approved the "urban garden."
And therein, I submit, lies the problem. A few weeks ago, we got notice that there would be a public meeting to discuss a "new vision" for the mall. Shortly thereafter, the "urban garden" was submitted as a fait accompli, a "basis" for the "new vision." No public discussion, no public input -- simply review by "local civic, business and arts leaders." (Almost none of whom were specifically named.)
Now the garden has been rubber-stamped by the alleged representatives of the people. I'm sure the whole board is not far behind.
Public input? We don't need no steenkin' public input! We'll tell you what to think, and we'll tell you what ideas are good, and while we're at it, we'll tell you what's good art and what isn't. And people will flock to it!
Of course, one could argue that we already have public input. It's called an election.
Seriously, that is why we have elections. To vote people into office to make decisions on our behalf. Otherwise, we would need an election for every issue that came up. "Should we locate that recycling dumpster in the 4100 or 4200 block of Grand?". "I don't know, I guess we'll have to have an election!"
Doug wrote:How fast did the Park East sell? These wouldn't be lofts. They would be modern towers with condos and apartments, office space, and store front retail.
Park East is not downtown. In case you didn't realize that.
bonwich wrote:I like it, too. But it wasn't a suggestion or a part of a public input process -- it was the Great White Fathers telling us what was going to happen. Which is exactly how the Gateway Mall got into the shape that it is currently.
You want to trust them (if you can figure out who "they" actually are), fine. Maybe history just doesn't matter.
Where are the Great Black Fathers?
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:JMedwick wrote:Btw, just a general question. If this plan fails Central, will you then "get over it" and be willing to consider options for partial development of the mall?
Sure. But "failure" will probably take 5-10 years to determine.
My guess would be around 5 years, though you are correct that any assessment of success or failure will take a bit of time.
- 6,775
JMedwick wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:JMedwick wrote:Btw, just a general question. If this plan fails Central, will you then "get over it" and be willing to consider options for partial development of the mall?
Sure. But "failure" will probably take 5-10 years to determine.
My guess would be around 5 years, though you are correct that any assessment of success or failure will take a bit of time.
And then we will also have to define "failure".
- 687
Doug wrote:buckethead wrote:Doug wrote:They will not come if they build it.
And what makes you think they will come if you build blocks of residential on the mall?
IMO the residential supply is already starting to out pacing the demand. Look at all the projects that will be available soon and all the ones already planned. Look at all the listings for downtown lofts being resold.
How fast did the Park East sell?
I don't think you can take one example in the CWE and extrapolate that to prove your theory.
Doug wrote:
These wouldn't be lofts. They would be modern towers with condos and apartments, office space, and store front retail.
Kind of like BPV?
- 1,610
stlmike wrote:
Agreed, except those blocks traversed by tourists and sports fans are east of 7th Street. The Arch, Old Courthouse, Edward Jones Dome and Busch Stadium all fall east of 7th Street. Hence, the block to focus on improvements you mention for tourists and sports fans is Kiener Plaza/May Amphitheater, not these blocks off the beaten path.
stlmike also wrote:
I'd like to see development on these blocks too. However, the park in front of the Eagleton is now sadly a federally funded park, giving it restrictions to even modifying its trees, let alone building on it. Hopefully, a future building at 9th and Clark will better frame this park, which by the way was designed by a nationally respected artist of award-winning designs. But like this dead zone in front of the Eagleton, award-winning designs in sculpture and/or landscaping don't bring in the foot traffic.
Likewise, I think the urban plaza by the Roberts Tower and OPO is not needed, especially when this could have been the site of the garage-mahal instead of the Century. However, pocket parks are more desirable than linear blocks of wasted space. For example, this new urban plaza will be framed much better than any block of Gateway Mall in scale and activity.
I think the goal is aimed at keeping tourists, sports fans, and visitors busy and feeling safe as they traverse from the south end of downtown to the north when they see activity in a clean and trim area with more kiosks and attractions.
Agreed, except those blocks traversed by tourists and sports fans are east of 7th Street. The Arch, Old Courthouse, Edward Jones Dome and Busch Stadium all fall east of 7th Street. Hence, the block to focus on improvements you mention for tourists and sports fans is Kiener Plaza/May Amphitheater, not these blocks off the beaten path.
stlmike also wrote:
While I would obviously support someone building a tower of residential on these blocks, I do recognize that there are other areas to try it out first, like the park in front of the Eagleton or the space near the Roberts Orpheum that has yet to be turned into a new park.
I'd like to see development on these blocks too. However, the park in front of the Eagleton is now sadly a federally funded park, giving it restrictions to even modifying its trees, let alone building on it. Hopefully, a future building at 9th and Clark will better frame this park, which by the way was designed by a nationally respected artist of award-winning designs. But like this dead zone in front of the Eagleton, award-winning designs in sculpture and/or landscaping don't bring in the foot traffic.
Likewise, I think the urban plaza by the Roberts Tower and OPO is not needed, especially when this could have been the site of the garage-mahal instead of the Century. However, pocket parks are more desirable than linear blocks of wasted space. For example, this new urban plaza will be framed much better than any block of Gateway Mall in scale and activity.