You can always demand retail but at what point do you have too much commercial space for demand? Does empty commercial space make things any better? You also have to consider size of households, which have change significantly downward when the city population had peaked fifty or so years ago. Think these are new normals in urban area.STLEnginerd wrote:Should have demanded first level facing Clayton would be retail.
I think one of the big issues STL needs to settle, planning-wise (besides adopting a plan), is where the major cross street retail nodes that anchor the surrounding residential areas SHOULD be. You look at the intersection of Clayton and Graham - it isn't a beautiful intersection or section of road by any stretch of the imagination - honestly it looks like a small town's downtown to my eye - overhead wires, snaky highway that becomes main street road, weedy, cracked cement features and all. Is this intersection in the right place to serve as the neighborhood's center? The STL street grid is a mess - with the carving up of 44 and 40-64, the radiating highways (Flo, NB, SCRR/MLK, Page, Olive, Chouteau/100, Gravois, Bway) - and it seems like it would serve everyone well for a regional planning authority to identify and put resources into the key intersections about a mile or so apart both N-S and E-W, and establish general guidelines for how to develop these high-density retail/residential nodes of the surrounding neighborhoods so this argument doesn't have to repeat itself every single time a new high density development is built. I think there probably are differences in how you approach the parking issue within the neighborhood versus at the retail/residential core of the neighborhood. I don't know the old streetcar system at all, but in terms of n-hood level business districts, how well do the old streetcar intersections (which I assume drove the development of store fronts and higher density corridors) correspond to intuitive "this is where the retail/residential hub should be" areas? Some of those are rhetorical questions, but this thread got me to thinking about these issues.
- 10K
Personally, I would have liked to see something like the Six North Apartments at Sarah and Laclede - a small amount of retail space at the corner, with apartments (with terraces) taking up most of the first floor space.dredger wrote:You can always demand retail but at what point do you have too much commercial space for demand? Does empty commercial space make things any better? You also have to consider size of households, which have change significantly downward when the city population had peaked fifty or so years ago. Think these are new normals in urban area.STLEnginerd wrote:Should have demanded first level facing Clayton would be retail.
- 1,792
I was thinking Clayton Tamm interection should be a retail zone. I guess most retail is oriented along Tamm, but I still think orienting retail along Clayton is a solid idea. I mean it could be a Chipotle or something. Basically once the zoo decides what to do with their investment I am sure there will be a lot of tourist dollars to spend in an eclectic little residential neighborhood strip. Dogtown could be like The Loop with an Irish bent.
As far as the parking issue for retail I am pretty sure that was a little tongue in cheek but there is street parking on Clayton not to mention the parking garage about a block away that I hope will be available at some point when development extends that far.
As far as the parking issue for retail I am pretty sure that was a little tongue in cheek but there is street parking on Clayton not to mention the parking garage about a block away that I hope will be available at some point when development extends that far.
- 11K
yesSTLEnginerd wrote:As far as the parking issue for retail I am pretty sure that was a little tongue in cheek but there is street parking on Clayton not to mention the parking garage about a block away that I hope will be available at some point when development extends that far.
- 1,320
One of the things I like most about the Clayton-Tamm intersection is that it feels like a small town main street. As I think about it, many of the best retail clusters in St. Louis are a block or so away from the main arterial streets. Think Euclid, a narrow little street a block off of Kingshighway. Or think DeMun, Clayton-Tamm, Shaw on The Hill. These clusters form the heart of quite a few neighborhoods. The narrow streets combined with higher density help provide a human scale and sense of place. Efficient or not, I'd hate to see the retail redirected to Hampton.
A note on parking:
Our zoning requirements are actually not driving overbuilding parking. The basic residential req is one spot per unit, which I've actually amended to an optional .9 spots per unit after I passed the bike parking rules. The commercial req is something like 1 spot per every 700 square feet of floor space, so a Walgreens only needs about 20 spaces. Downtown, there is no off-street req for commercial or residential. None.
For this apartment, 63 spaces is not overkill. Its a lot better than the 400 some odd spaces for the 202 unit Aventura.
The problem is that there are no parking maximums, and commercial spaces are the big culprit. You've seen it everywhere, I don't need to explain, developers build to one day of the year standards on parking, and there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.
Secondary problem, which is a much bigger problem in the county, and colossal county failure: No requirements for development around metro stations or bus depots.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Our zoning requirements are actually not driving overbuilding parking. The basic residential req is one spot per unit, which I've actually amended to an optional .9 spots per unit after I passed the bike parking rules. The commercial req is something like 1 spot per every 700 square feet of floor space, so a Walgreens only needs about 20 spaces. Downtown, there is no off-street req for commercial or residential. None.
For this apartment, 63 spaces is not overkill. Its a lot better than the 400 some odd spaces for the 202 unit Aventura.
The problem is that there are no parking maximums, and commercial spaces are the big culprit. You've seen it everywhere, I don't need to explain, developers build to one day of the year standards on parking, and there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.
Secondary problem, which is a much bigger problem in the county, and colossal county failure: No requirements for development around metro stations or bus depots.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Ridiculous...
If someone wants to file a suit to reduce the parking requirement I will get behind that.
If someone wants to file a suit to reduce the parking requirement I will get behind that.
- 11K
^ That would be awesome. What statute would be challenged. Surely we can have a lawyer draw something up - make it pro-market. Who's the big govmint to tell us how many parking spaces a private investor must build?!?!
- 3,766
Has any one heard what the status is of this project? I've heard from multiple people I know that this project has been killed by the local opposition. I hope that this is not true, but several people who went to the neighborhood association left saying that the project will likely be killed. Anyone have any scoop? If this project is killed, does any other group have interest in developing the site?
- 3,766
^damn shame!!!
I guess scaling back the project would make it not feasible or not profitable?
Let's hope another developer comes in and develops the property. It is so unfortunate to have such Close minded NIMBYS
ruin a great development like that!
I guess scaling back the project would make it not feasible or not profitable?
Let's hope another developer comes in and develops the property. It is so unfortunate to have such Close minded NIMBYS
ruin a great development like that!
- 1,792
Hopefully an alderman fron another district approaches these guys and volunteers to help push it through in a neighborhood like The Grove, East Loop CORTEX, Midtown,heck even downtown. Although not enough to oppose its building I alway thought it would fit in a a little better in one of these area anyway. Make minimal changes to design to fit whatever new lot could be found, just built at another site.
- 6
Phew! I was worried the Dogtown commercial district would lose it's acclaimed abandoned lumber yard. Regression averted!Alex Ihnen wrote:It's not moving forward.
- 1,610
Nope, that was torn down over a month ago.juSTLovely wrote:Phew! I was worried the Dogtown commercial district would lose it's acclaimed abandoned lumber yard. Regression averted!Alex Ihnen wrote:It's not moving forward.
^LOL! Jokes aside...... I don't know what is the problem. This was not a proposed landfill or nuclear waste dump site. This wasn't even a proposed 10-story tower.juSTLovely wrote:Phew! I was worried the Dogtown commercial district would lose it's acclaimed abandoned lumber yard. Regression averted!Alex Ihnen wrote:It's not moving forward.
This area could have used some additional residents and pedestrian activity to enliven some of those empty storefronts.
The city is potentially losing out in so many ways, unfortunately.
-Residents
-Construction jobs
-Permanent jobs
-Improved property taxes on the site
-New commercial development
-Taxes from new businesses
-Taxes from new employees
It's unfortunate this project isn't happening. But if developers want to build in a desirable neighborhood they should be prepared to make some concessions on materials, design, parking spaces, etc... I'm generally against NIMBYism, but in this instance it doesn't sound like the demands were exaggerated or unrealistic.
- 11K
^ Well, I think the demand that killed the project was for it to be scaled back. A smaller development just didn't make economic sense, I imagine.
I asked one coworker who lives in Dogtown about this and he confirmed that's what he'd heard.Alex Ihnen wrote:It's not moving forward.
He also said the developer went into major "jerk mode" when people started asking questions about parking, building appearance and who'd they would be renting to. He also claimed the developer has a track record of maintaining very low standards on renters and actively courts Section 8.
Take this with a huge grain of salt. Like every story, there's many truths and versions. My guess is some NIMBY really didn't want this place built.
I think it is a double-edged sword.
While developers should be respectful of the communities where they are planning to build, on the flip side, the neighborhood should be willing to make some exceptions and concessions too (or) the neighborhood could continue to have a bigger eyesore in the vacant lumber yard for years to come.
Perhaps some other developer may come in, but I think the NIMBYS have made it harder for this parcel of land to be redeveloped.
In the meantime, their property values continue to either stagnate or drop because of the idle eyesore property and empty storefronts nearby.
Over the years, neighborhood NIMBYS in St. Louis City have killed some really good and decent residential proposals. Sad.
While developers should be respectful of the communities where they are planning to build, on the flip side, the neighborhood should be willing to make some exceptions and concessions too (or) the neighborhood could continue to have a bigger eyesore in the vacant lumber yard for years to come.
Perhaps some other developer may come in, but I think the NIMBYS have made it harder for this parcel of land to be redeveloped.
In the meantime, their property values continue to either stagnate or drop because of the idle eyesore property and empty storefronts nearby.
Over the years, neighborhood NIMBYS in St. Louis City have killed some really good and decent residential proposals. Sad.
- 11K
The developers are relatively new and have no track record of courting low income tenants. That said, I do think they were a little miffed at the neighborhood push back - perhaps not as political as they needed to be. IMO - it was a good project and they were right to defend it.