urbanSTL

Yes, feeder roads. Whether we like it or not, this area is a retail mecca, and as such needs to support a high volume of vehicular traffic. Because most of the STL metro development to date in the county is of the sprawl variety, and because STL city public schools are apparently so brain dead and lacking in imaginative ways to make their product attractive, the majority of people in the region who aren't down with forced private schools will continue to live in the sprawling places where cars are basically a necessity.

mill204 wrote:

onecity wrote:Re the access problem, why aren't there better feeder roads? Like Manchester on the south should be a freeway, as should Lindbergh.

Eh, with mill on this one (obviously). There are "feeder" roads all around this area - which is why it's seen so much development. Brentwood and Hanley handle 40K cars/day. I-64 and I-170 are massive "feeder" roads. When I-64 was closed, Manchester, Ladue, Clayton and others roads absorbed all the previous I-64 traffic with absolute ease. Widening roads kills the communities they run through. Doing something as you suggest with Manchester or Lindbergh (which is only ever busy during rush hour) would be devastating. We simply cannot kill more neighborhoods and communities in the name of more traffic lanes. And it's not going to happen. Manchester/Hanely may get a new interchange and a "South County Connector" of some sort may happen in the area, but the original plan of extending I-170 south is dead. Why? The communities (you know, the people who live there) said "no". Simply put, we can't build our way out of traffic and by any real standard traffic isn't prohibitive in this area - proven by Menards, IKEA and other retail development coming soon.

Manchester as a freeway (which are high-speed, limited access routes) is impossible. The right-of-way costs would be prohibitive and of course hundreds of businesses and thousands of homes depend upon Manchester for access. These would all have to be bought out or some kind of frontage road built; again all impossible. Theoretically a lane or two could be added in the area, but again the costs would be enormous with little benefit and the societal disruption would be great.

downtown2007 wrote:1. High which I translated into end extravagant.
2. St Louis metropolitan area population growth was 4% last decade. However the amount of retail growth increased over 200% from a square footage perspective, mainly because if TIF’s. Bottom line is there are a lot more places to shop at and not enough people to support the retail. We are completely maxed out on big box retail developments in my opinion. I would like to see a switch to smaller type retail stores that serve neighborhoods or TOD type retail instead of the destination big box retail that is eating the region alive. STL is becoming more and more big box and less and less of a place to live. I have no need for a Menards or a Swedish furniture store.

4. We need to focus on growing our population and then the retail growth will follow.

downtown2007 wrote:1. High which I translated into end extravagant.

2. St Louis metropolitan area population growth was 4% last decade. However the amount of retail growth increased over 200% from a square footage perspective, mainly because if TIF’s.

Bottom line is there are a lot more places to shop at and not enough people to support the retail. We are completely maxed out on big box retail developments in my opinion. I would like to see a switch to smaller type retail stores that serve neighborhoods or TOD type retail instead of the destination big box retail that is eating the region alive. STL is becoming more and more big box and less and less of a place to live. I have no need for a Menards or a Swedish furniture store.

4. We need to focus on growing our population and then the retail growth will follow.

I understand your points, but I would say that you are both right and wrong.

1. St. Louis had been grossly under-retailed prior to last decade's retail boom, plus malls and large shopping centers had been aging all over the region. Upgrades, replacements and new ones were definitely needed.

2. The 'burbs and parts of the city boomed like crazy with retail, but downtown St. Louis is still under-retailed. Even with the MX District, downtown retail needs a boost with an infusion of national retailers - big and small.

3. The retail boom between 2000-2010 in metro St. Louis was unprecedented because the region was under-retailed. The phenomenal retail boom, in concert with the economy, likely did cause somewhat of a retail glut in St. Louis, which is why the number of retail jobs and developments have dropped off in the metro area.

4. For the record, a retail glut has occurred in every major metropolitan area except metros with steady population growth (Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York). St. Louis has not been alone. In fact, St. Louis, because of its conservative development habits, is doing better than most cities.

4. The retail market in St. Louis is correcting itself. For example, stores like Ross, Michael's and Stein Mart have been filling spaces vacated by other now defunct or downsized retailers. Malls such as the Galleria, Frontenac, West County, Chesterfield and The Meadows have been quietly adding new-to-the-area retailers - several that are high-end.

5. Retail development in St. Louis has come to a crawl compared to last decade - even though you have new developments such as MX District, Hadley, planned outlet center(s) in Chesterfield, Goodfellow & I-70 (North City) and St. Charles (Lindenwood Town Center).

6. While some centers have lost retailers or were not 100% leased, there have been no major bankruptcies by local retail developers/owners based in St. Louis, unlike other cities, that I know.

7. I agree that retail diversification is important, but it depends on what the municipality desires/plans. Compare Maplewood (along Manchester vs. Hanley) then Brentwood in the Promenade area to The Boulevard in Richmond Heights. I like all of those styles. I personally hate malls, yet others love them. I find them inconvenient. Different strokes.

8. Keep in mind too that there is a huge population outside of the metro area's population parameters (Springfield (Illinois), Cape-Paducah, Columbia-Jeff City, etc) to draw. These people come to St. Louis to shop at stores that don't exist in their communities.

An IKEA will thrive in St. Louis. Menards could too, but if not, oh well.

In retail, it is about the survival of the fittest and unique. I wouldn't worry about the St. Louis market being "over-retailed" with big boxes. THF Realty and others won't build them if there's no demand.

I think it's actually survival of the TIFs and retail subsidy, not survival of the fittest. If someone else pays for it, they will build.

Alex Ihnen wrote:I think it's actually survival of the TIFs and retail subsidy, not survival of the fittest. If someone else pays for it, they will build.

Of course. I would too. There's a mantra that suggests that you build wealth by using other people's money. But that is only true to an extent. Keep in mind the retailer still has to assess demand and demographics.

Retailers - especially big box - are trying to make money. They are not going to waste time stocking stores, distribution, training employees, getting permits etc. for a store to fail. Unfortunately for some retailers it happens, but that is never the initial intent.

Depending on the project, some public subsidies and incentives for public/private firms and developers are an evil necessity - ESPECIALLY in a region such as St. Louis, where population and economic growth tends to be slow. Everything in St. Louis would be old as Methuselah, more raggedly than Ann and the unemployment rate would be a little higher if it were not for some public incentivizing. Low wages or not, a lot of people became employed because of those big box strip centers that received TIF.

TIFs have their problems, however, in many cases they have helped to stimulate more investment.

While there should be regular policy reviews of TIFs, HTCs etc. in order to mitigate abuse or overuse, let's face it, if they didn't exist, we wouldn't have Washington Avenue as a "Great Street" or it certainly wouldn't have gotten the distinction so fast.

Further, I think a lot area cities have become more diligent in evaluating projects requesting TIF and other incentives. St. Charles recently shot down a big TIF for a developer and there's been others minimized or denied.

St. Louis City, for example, didn't give away the bank for the Cardinals/Cordish Ballpark Village.

^ no one's vilifying TIFs entirely - the Washington Avenue v. Hadley Heights comparison is worthwhile.

So what's the deal with the big splash page IKEA announcement a few weeks ago? Is it legit or not? Is Hadley getting the IKEA?

Proposed as a location by IKEA to the developers that own Hadley, or proposed by the developers interested in the Hadley site as a prospective tenant?

^ Until a lease/construction contract is signed, that's what they will continue to say.

Dead indeed. Maybe Union Station? I'm betting Fenton, I guess, assuming one is built here eventually. It's a multi-faceted issue at Hadley Heights, but I also feel for the people who had the 3x offer on their home and now can't sell, likely even for the appraised value.

^ Right. I don't blame those who decided not to sell, just pointing out that those who had a deal in hand are now out. AND after more than a decade, the city is saying that it won't entertain new development plans for the area. So what happens? Menards is going in, the neighborhood shrinks by half, the housing stock isn't like of the kind that will be significantly rehabbed/invested in, so...in another 10 years (or fewer) there will be another redevelopment plan. The hiccup could be that the commercial parcels along Hanley may get small site redevelopment in the meantime, hampering any future larger plans.