urbanSTL

So if a stretch of road with no stoplights or crosswalks sees an extraordinary number of pedestrian fatalities every year, it's best to look at the corpses and move on?



Or should we recognize that it takes common sense to fix the problem?

^ This is St. Louis. Pile up the bodies and hope most are of your enemies.

Matt Drops The H wrote:So if a stretch of road with no stoplights or crosswalks sees an extraordinary number of pedestrian fatalities every year, it's best to look at the corpses and move on?



Or should we recognize that it takes common sense to fix the problem?

You learn from the past. You don't continue to whine about it.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:So if a stretch of road with no stoplights or crosswalks sees an extraordinary number of pedestrian fatalities every year, it's best to look at the corpses and move on?



Or should we recognize that it takes common sense to fix the problem?

You learn from the past. You don't continue to whine about it.

If we are learning from the past, then why aren't we building on the mall?

^Please explain.

JMedwick wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:So if a stretch of road with no stoplights or crosswalks sees an extraordinary number of pedestrian fatalities every year, it's best to look at the corpses and move on?



Or should we recognize that it takes common sense to fix the problem?

You learn from the past. You don't continue to whine about it.

If we are learning from the past, then why aren't we building on the mall?

Because no one wants to build there.



I'm sure that if you have a F100 company like Microsoft or Apple, Inc. say that they want to build their new global HQ and base of operations in two or three towers in Downtown StL, but these towers would be along the Gateway Mall, people would be tearing up the Mall with shovels and welcoming them in open arms. But that just isn't going to happen, not today.



What will happen first? Filling up the vacant buildings and parking lots with new buildings. Until it's either plant the new tower on the Gateway Mall footprint or lose the company to the County, nothing is going to change. Therefore, in the interest of best capitalizing on what we've got, support the $20M sculpture garden in the spirit of urban revitalization. You may say it's lipstick on a pig, but it's better than manure.



Find me a F100 company who was denied constructing its towers on this land by the City. Then complain. Until then, I know this great hole in the ground near the ballpark that is just begging for concrete and steel.

JMedwick wrote:^Please explain.

See the post following yours, from Gone Corporate. He(?) explains it perfectly.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

JMedwick wrote:^Please explain.

See the post following yours, from Gone Corporate. He(?) explains it perfectly.

Yeah, I'm a "he". I didn't think there was much doubt in that, was there.

Glad you appreciate the commentary.

Gone Corporate, you do realize that the Gateway Mall is more than just the two blocks where the sculpture garden is proposed right?



Oh and btw:



1. I think we can expand the definitions of potential developers of Mall properties beyond those listed in the F100. How about residences or even companies in the F1000.



2. Your response may be an argument for not building on the Mall, but it does not relate at all to the argument that this decision was based on learning from past mistakes.



3. If existing today, would the buildings torn down in the early 1980's be vacant?



3. Which came first, the offer from a corporation to build its HQ on the Mall or the City expressing its willingness to see development on the Mall? Seems to me like the order plays a role in assessing your argument.

^ Bingo.



I can think of three local corporations of sufficient size that were seeking to develop new HQ complexes (Brown, Centene, Express Scripts) in recent years. Based on the public comments by City leaders, downtown was considered and ultimately rejected in each case. Seems like it is pretty important that the public pronouncements by Mayor Slay and other City leaders throughout this period presented the Mall as off-limits to development.

JMedwick wrote:Gone Corporate, you do realize that the Gateway Mall is more than just the two blocks where the sculpture garden is proposed right?

Yes, I do know that. I’m looking over the part at Kiener Plaza right now.



But honestly, I don’t want to deal in semantics and hyperbole. Find me one, just one, legitimate development, whether it be corporate or residential, that in recent years wanted to build its new high-rise on the Gateway Mall and was denied by the City, and I’ll buy you lunch.



I’ve put up arguments before for turning the whole thing into a stretch of new construction for underground parking three stories or more deep, with ancillary development and, in turn, the demolition of the old parking garages. This is including and especially the monstrosities along Chestnut between Broadway and the Wainwright, for the construction of new towers in their footprints.



But I don’t have the cash to do it, and I don’t know anyone who does who’d want to. This isn’t Dubai, it’s Middle America.



Personally, I’m tired of it being a place for bums and garbage to fester, and I want an increase in pedestrian traffic that doesn’t involve crossing a mishmash of street grids and tall trees to walk past Larry Rice’s dependents sitting on the benches calling me a cracker-ass and yelling at each other. If we’re going to tear up the Gateway Mall, then I say it should start with the land West of Fourteenth and not yell foul over a $20M gift.

JMedwick wrote:Which came first, the offer from a corporation to build its HQ on the Mall or the City expressing its willingness to see development on the Mall? Seems to me like the order plays a role in assessing your argument.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the effort to get the Gateway Arch, and subsequently the Mall, built done by a private partnership with the City’s blessings? I don’t think the City put up the award prize for the winning entry in the plan to redo the riverfront, but agreed to go along with the efforts of the business community.

MattnSTL wrote:There may or may not be potential developments, but when the city explicitly says the Mall will not be built on, I don't know why a developer would bother to propose anything.

Such conversation can turn into a "chicken or the egg" circular argument and inherently dangerous & confusing. My position is that, with so many already vacant parking lots out there, they should be the primary targets for seeking new construction over the eastern Gateway Mall.

JMedwick wrote:I can think of three local corporations of sufficient size that were seeking to develop new HQ complexes (Brown, Centene, Express Scripts) in recent years. Based on the public comments by City leaders, downtown was considered and ultimately rejected in each case. Seems like it is pretty important that the public pronouncements by Mayor Slay and other City leaders throughout this period presented the Mall as off-limits to development.

The City was offering them the Dillards Building for the HQs, not spots for new construction. Find me drawings for new towers for Express Scripts or Brown Shoe in Downtown during their expansion days, and I’ll buy you dessert after that lunch.

*Centene doesn’t count, since it was only interested in BPV when considering Downtown.

Gone Corporate,



The chicken and egg problem is the whole point of this discussion. Given that we both know the location of any major corporate HQ downtown will receive huge subsidies from the City, its official and clearly stated public stance on whether or not to build on the mall is highly relevant. Consider the Express Scripts situation. When the City, in concert with developers, were evaluating possible sites to offer up as possible locations did it ever consider the Gateway Mall? We both know that the answer is no. Why were they not considered? Clearly because of the public policy of the current administration states that we should not fill the mall with buildings. The connection between the City's stated position and its impact on the proposals by private developers and major corporations to build on the mall is clear: the City's position acts as a constraining factor, removing the Mall from consideration before it gets to the point of proposals by anyone to build on the Mall. The constraint ensures that you never even get to that step.

we’re going to tear up the Gateway Mall, then I say it should start with the land West of Fourteenth

We do agree on this point. The portion of the Mall that should be built up is the area west of 14th street and the extraneous park spaces east and west of the Soldiers Memorial. This is not to say that the Plan for the Mall east of 14th is a good one (it contains major flaws that will likely ensure portions of it fail), simply that one continuous mall from Memorial Drive to The Civil Courts building (with the Gateway One removed) is the ideal outcome for the Mall, with major anchors at each end and the maximum amount of density surrounding it.

BTW, folks, remember back when they built Gateway One? The city was begging developers to build on the next two blocks (where the sculpture garden is now being built). Well guess what? Nobody came forward. Nothing was built. Nadda. And it left us with a horribly awkward building breaking up what should be a grand vista rivaling anything in the midwest.

If I remember correctly, the US economy was struggling when Gateway One was finished and the final two were being proposed (1993). At the same time the administration that supported the plan (Vince) was leaving and there was public blow back over the half-mall plan. SBC left around the same time. Seems like there is a lot more to the fact the later two buildings were not built than the City begging developers and getting blown off.

Framer wrote:I totally agree, dmmonty. And thanks, Corporate, for once again injecting a bit of rational thinking into this discussion.



BTW, folks, remember back when they built Gateway One? The city was begging developers to build on the next two blocks (where the sculpture garden is now being built). Well guess what? Nobody came forward. Nothing was built. Nadda. And it left us with a horribly awkward building breaking up what should be a grand vista rivaling anything in the midwest.



That's the mistake I want us to learn from.

Yeah, I never understood that whole Gateway One fiasco. I understand the arguments for and against creating the grand vista, but once they had it, they went and spoiled it! Who on earth made that decision?

The final two buildings were actually proposed well before 1993. The idea dated back to 1983 when in fact the economy was much better. Many were against this half mall idea, because, obviously, it obstructs the view of the arch.



The most recent problem with the theory behind the Mall is that it was largely targeted to attract ONLY large corporations. That's why functional Real Estate Row was demolished. The Buder building housed many small businesses, like one or two lawyer firms and such. Don Lipton, of Lipton Realty, proposed the rehab of the entire Real Estate Row, however Pride of St. Louis Redevelopment Corporation believed that older buildings were ugly, as did George Hellmuth, and that only new construction attracts large corporations.



The problem was that the heads of Pride of St. Louis were all large corporate executives, therefore possibly lacked the capacity to see the potential of mixed use, like lofts and cheap office which officials from HUD also proposed as far back as 1975. Market Preservation, the main lobby for saving Real Estate Row, believe that Pride wanted to demolish Real Estate Row also because they viewed cheap office space as a challenge to their existing higher rent buildings. Market argued that Pride viewed the rehab of Real Estate Row as a threat.



Leadership was and continues to be far too narrow sighted, conservative, and incremental when considering options for the Gateway Mall. As such it will continue to impress no one.



For more information go check out Larry Giles' Gateway Mall Scrapbook. You can read it at Missouri Historical Society's Library on Skinker.



You will especially enjoy Ray Hartman's fiery critiques of Pride's Plan and City Leadership. The Post, especially Robert W Duffey, was especially critical as well. I long for the days when the RFT was good.

DeBaliviere wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Yeah, I never understood that whole Gateway One fiasco. I understand the arguments for and against creating the grand vista, but once they had it, they went and spoiled it! Who on earth made that decision?

But really, the Civil Courts Building ensured that there would never be an uninterrupted vista, so what was the point?

I believe the uninterupted vista was supposed to be from the CC building to the Arch/Old Courthouse.

It was from the CC. That was one argument for demolishing Real Estate Row. It's baseless like the rest. Why don't we demolish the entire city then we can all sit around and masturbate to the arch?

Doug wrote:It was from the CC. That was one argument for demolishing Real Estate Row. It's baseless like the rest. Why don't we demolish the entire city then we can all sit around and masturbate to the arch?

Sounds like fun.