I'm fine that KC got one, but I'm angered, frustrated, and saddened that St. Louis has been determined by IKEA to not be a suitable location for one, if that makes any sense.
- 2,929
^ Not for STL as a whole, but because they're not getting a prime spot in a retail hub next to the major highways.
They were pursuing the Hadley neighborhood in Richmond Heights because it is in the center of the retail cluster that has developed in STL County over so many years. It has 64/40, 170, the Clayton Business District, and the Metrolink, and it's not too far from 44. It's the hub of hubs and where so many other retailers have set their stores. The area attracts shoppers from the City to Chesterfield. And, IKEA wanted a spot right in the middle of it, just off 64/40 along Hanley Road. The developer didn't close on all the land, and IKEA isn't going in there. They're very selective. Simple as that. For all we know, they were waiting to announce that they had established presences on both ends of MO on the same day.
They were pursuing the Hadley neighborhood in Richmond Heights because it is in the center of the retail cluster that has developed in STL County over so many years. It has 64/40, 170, the Clayton Business District, and the Metrolink, and it's not too far from 44. It's the hub of hubs and where so many other retailers have set their stores. The area attracts shoppers from the City to Chesterfield. And, IKEA wanted a spot right in the middle of it, just off 64/40 along Hanley Road. The developer didn't close on all the land, and IKEA isn't going in there. They're very selective. Simple as that. For all we know, they were waiting to announce that they had established presences on both ends of MO on the same day.
- 11K
^ STL announcement would have been months ago if Hadley Heights property acquisition had gone smoothly.
- 3,766
I understand how awesome the Hadley location is. I think it would have been
so cool to see the big IKEA sign as you approach Hanley. Perfect location!! However,
I do think if IKEA wanted to be in STL, they could have found a location that
works for them. Maybe they are holding out for Hadley to come through at some point.
in the future. What can RH do to get Hadley off the ground? Is this deal
really dead? Will RH use ED to take the properties at some point? Half of
the area is abandoned. What options does RH have at this point? With PACE
out, it does not look good. It may take a huge national developer to pay
3 times the value to homeowners. PACE offered 2 times, according to reports.
I still can't understand why anyone wouldn't take double the value to
get out of that hood.
so cool to see the big IKEA sign as you approach Hanley. Perfect location!! However,
I do think if IKEA wanted to be in STL, they could have found a location that
works for them. Maybe they are holding out for Hadley to come through at some point.
in the future. What can RH do to get Hadley off the ground? Is this deal
really dead? Will RH use ED to take the properties at some point? Half of
the area is abandoned. What options does RH have at this point? With PACE
out, it does not look good. It may take a huge national developer to pay
3 times the value to homeowners. PACE offered 2 times, according to reports.
I still can't understand why anyone wouldn't take double the value to
get out of that hood.
- 11K
^^ RH pledged not to use ED, but you're right, at some point - could be 10yrs though, it will be the target of another redevelopment plan. As the IKEA spokesperson said, they'll expand when they find the right spot. The traffic counts at I-170/I-64 are big, perhaps the largest in the metro? Location comes before just wanting to be in a metro - they're patient.
- 3,766
Pat wrote:
rather have a unique retailer/development, versus another strip mall with a
bunch of retailers that already have a large local presence. I think IKEA stores
are awesome. They are big, have a wide variety of goods, reasonably priced and
the atmosphere is just different from any other store I've been to. That being
said, I think the bigger issue is the fact that we have a prime retail location
that is currently a half-full mini-ghetto. Drive through there and you will
see, run down homes, abandoned homes and an area prime for development. To hold
up a major development and tax generator, to keep a few long time residents in
their homes, seems crazy. I understand, it would be hard to move, but giving me
double the value of my home, makes that so much easier. RH has to do something
to convince those people to sell. I think the potential taxes generated by this
project will greatly benefit the city and its residents. IMO, ED should be used
in that case. I know some hate ED for private projects, but this will generate a ton of revenue. It will benefit RH residents way more than a random road or a bridge. In that case most would support ED. If there are great benefits to residents, ED should be able to be used. However, I do believe the developers should be forced to pay AT LEAST double the homes value. That is fair!
I agree, we do not need an IKEA. However, I think we all acknowledge that we'dWhy is this still a big deal? We don't need an IKEA.
rather have a unique retailer/development, versus another strip mall with a
bunch of retailers that already have a large local presence. I think IKEA stores
are awesome. They are big, have a wide variety of goods, reasonably priced and
the atmosphere is just different from any other store I've been to. That being
said, I think the bigger issue is the fact that we have a prime retail location
that is currently a half-full mini-ghetto. Drive through there and you will
see, run down homes, abandoned homes and an area prime for development. To hold
up a major development and tax generator, to keep a few long time residents in
their homes, seems crazy. I understand, it would be hard to move, but giving me
double the value of my home, makes that so much easier. RH has to do something
to convince those people to sell. I think the potential taxes generated by this
project will greatly benefit the city and its residents. IMO, ED should be used
in that case. I know some hate ED for private projects, but this will generate a ton of revenue. It will benefit RH residents way more than a random road or a bridge. In that case most would support ED. If there are great benefits to residents, ED should be able to be used. However, I do believe the developers should be forced to pay AT LEAST double the homes value. That is fair!
- 11K
Well, what's not fair that the residents of that area have been told for literally a decade that a buyout was coming. A decade. 10 years of not knowing if it would be wise to invest in your home, not knowing if you can or should sell, 10 years of uncertainty. Residents there have been leaned on, cajoled, had their arms twisted - everything short of the state simply taking their homes. So first, that's what's not fair. Now, it may be said that it's not fair to those who wanted to sell (the vast majority), that a couple (1 or 2) residents stopped the process. Perhaps those residents who wanted to sell for 2x the (diminished) assessed value of their home could lobby RH to use ED.
- 3,766
^I think the Hadley deal is odd because it has stalled so many times.
It is not fair to those who sold out or want out, to kill the deal over a few holdouts.
I agree, in the Hadley case, several developers have come and gone, but it
must be emphasized that we are just climbing out of a recession and real estate
collapse that has not been seen in our lifetime. Many factors delayed this project.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the residents got jacked around, but to get offered double the value for that area, is too good to be true.
It is not fair to those who sold out or want out, to kill the deal over a few holdouts.
I agree, in the Hadley case, several developers have come and gone, but it
must be emphasized that we are just climbing out of a recession and real estate
collapse that has not been seen in our lifetime. Many factors delayed this project.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the residents got jacked around, but to get offered double the value for that area, is too good to be true.
- 516
For the most part, the holdouts were people who had signed options with prior developers, but tired of the process and were offended that the offers contained in the new option contracts were not quite as generous as the prior developers' offers. Of course, the prior developers could never make the numbers work so its hard to blame PACE for trying to come down from those levels a bit (offers were still way above market value). Too bad the neighborhood couldn't all agree that if 80% of the people wanted to sell, then they'd all go along with it.Alex Ihnen wrote:Well, what's not fair that the residents of that area have been told for literally a decade that a buyout was coming. A decade. 10 years of not knowing if it would be wise to invest in your home, not knowing if you can or should sell, 10 years of uncertainty. Residents there have been leaned on, cajoled, had their arms twisted - everything short of the state simply taking their homes. So first, that's what's not fair. Now, it may be said that it's not fair to those who wanted to sell (the vast majority), that a couple (1 or 2) residents stopped the process. Perhaps those residents who wanted to sell for 2x the (diminished) assessed value of their home could lobby RH to use ED.
So what other spots in the Metro area are reasonable for an IKEA, considering traffic counts, demographics, existing infrastructure, located near other retail, availability of land, etc.? The places that come to mind are (1) greenfields in Chesterfield Valley, (2) Northwest Plaza, (3) replacement of Kmart and other older retail across from South County mall? Any other ideas?
- 3,766
Chrysler Fenton is an obvious answer to any big idea in the region. I think the
area off 364/Page Extension is vast and underutilized. I'd much rather see IKEA in an
urban area or an area closer to the core though. North Park is a good area as well.
Even a site proposed years ago, the site off Hampton near 44 is prime. If they made the
IKEA sign high enough, you could see it from 64-40 and 44. As i said before, Hadley is the prime location!
area off 364/Page Extension is vast and underutilized. I'd much rather see IKEA in an
urban area or an area closer to the core though. North Park is a good area as well.
Even a site proposed years ago, the site off Hampton near 44 is prime. If they made the
IKEA sign high enough, you could see it from 64-40 and 44. As i said before, Hadley is the prime location!
- 3,429
The IKEA store in KC is in Kansas. It would be nice if Illinois would get something to attract Missourians to that side of the river. IKEA would be a good draw and IKEA already works with the state due to its other stores near Chicago. It would pay the state of Illinois to help subsidize IKEA to get Missourians over there to consider shopping and living there.
No, what wouldn't be fair is to force me to sell my house just because my neighbors want to sell theirs.DogtownBnR wrote: It is not fair to those who sold out or want out, to kill the deal over a few holdouts.
Based on the IKEA locations I've seen in other cities (2x Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh), I'd say the Fenton location, Wentzville around 40/64 & 70, or Edwardsville, IL are possible locations.south compton wrote:So what other spots in the Metro area are reasonable for an IKEA, considering traffic counts, demographics, existing infrastructure, located near other retail, availability of land, etc.? The places that come to mind are (1) greenfields in Chesterfield Valley, (2) Northwest Plaza, (3) replacement of Kmart and other older retail across from South County mall? Any other ideas?
(Not saying this is where I'd personally put the store, just where it seems like it "fits" based on locations in other cities.)
- 3,429
How about the Quarry at Manchester and I-270?justme123 wrote:Based on the IKEA locations I've seen in other cities (2x Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh), I'd say the Fenton location, Wentzville around 40/64 & 70, or Edwardsville, IL are possible locations.south compton wrote:So what other spots in the Metro area are reasonable for an IKEA, considering traffic counts, demographics, existing infrastructure, located near other retail, availability of land, etc.? The places that come to mind are (1) greenfields in Chesterfield Valley, (2) Northwest Plaza, (3) replacement of Kmart and other older retail across from South County mall? Any other ideas?
(Not saying this is where I'd personally put the store, just where it seems like it "fits" based on locations in other cities.)
Quarry has been restricted to pretty limited amount of retail by the City and surrounding neighbors.
Again, the Fenton Chrysler Plant and NorthPark are the best alternatives for IKEA or Nebraska Furniture Mart due to highway visibility, easy access from the region, cheap land, and a lot of city/county/state subsidies. What most people don't realize is that these retailers don't come in and pay market price for land (usually- unless its a high demand market or site that they really want). They (usually) demand free land and an enormous amount of money to build their building and parking lot. The developer uses the subsidies to foot a portion of the cost. Then the developer sells out parcels to restaurants, fast food, c-stores, etc and builds additional retail to retailers/restaurants who want to play off IKEA/NFM's traffic to make money on the overall development.
Again, the only other sites that fit the bill are NorthPark and Fenton Chrysler Plant. NW Plaza ( no highway visibility), Crestwood (no highway visibility), and Chesterfield Valley (due to land costs) don't work. Illinois is probably a last resort for them because its closer to the two stores in Chicago, away from the population and wealth of St. Louis, and the very important I44 (Rolla and Springfield)/ I55 (Cape, Sikeston, Pop Bluff, Farmington, Memphis)/ I70 (Columbia, Jeff City) corridors.
Again, the Fenton Chrysler Plant and NorthPark are the best alternatives for IKEA or Nebraska Furniture Mart due to highway visibility, easy access from the region, cheap land, and a lot of city/county/state subsidies. What most people don't realize is that these retailers don't come in and pay market price for land (usually- unless its a high demand market or site that they really want). They (usually) demand free land and an enormous amount of money to build their building and parking lot. The developer uses the subsidies to foot a portion of the cost. Then the developer sells out parcels to restaurants, fast food, c-stores, etc and builds additional retail to retailers/restaurants who want to play off IKEA/NFM's traffic to make money on the overall development.
Again, the only other sites that fit the bill are NorthPark and Fenton Chrysler Plant. NW Plaza ( no highway visibility), Crestwood (no highway visibility), and Chesterfield Valley (due to land costs) don't work. Illinois is probably a last resort for them because its closer to the two stores in Chicago, away from the population and wealth of St. Louis, and the very important I44 (Rolla and Springfield)/ I55 (Cape, Sikeston, Pop Bluff, Farmington, Memphis)/ I70 (Columbia, Jeff City) corridors.
- 5,433
Bloody fools. I love Kansas City, Missouri, but I hate the Kansas suburbs. People here b**** about Chesterfield and West County, but I swear they have a lot more soul than Lenexa or Overland Park. For one thing, there are hills and trees. And the houses sometimes have brick instead of three shades of stucco. And while the grid system of roads in the Kansas suburbs is convenient, it makes the monotonous built environment seem all the more monotonous. Oh, and then there's the high concentration of obnoxious Jayhawks fans. Give me St. Louis suburbs any day over KCK.DogtownBnR wrote:Sorry had to add to the KC complex/IKEA topic:
It is even worse than I thought.....
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/27/38 ... store.html
And in the category of regional bragging rights, Navarro said her colleagues were excited the Kansas City area had landed an Ikea before St. Louis.
“It was the talk of the office this morning,” she said, “that Kansas City was not second to St. Louis.”
And as for IKEA, I'll never understand why St. Louis has to wait. The Fenton Chrysler site is ideal, and you'd think the city and state would be in a hurry to throw incentives their way. And I'd also bet that IKEA has at least 62,000 customers in the Bi-State Area if not many more. First an MLS team, and now this. Screw you KC.
- 8,155
Regarding the potential use of eminent domain in that neighborhood, it is a historically black neighborhood and using ED there would be especially disturbing.
- 3,762
the fenton site may be off the table:
http://www.wholou.net/2012/08/09/utilit ... u-sources/According to WhoLou sources the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) is conducting preliminary studies at the former Fenton Chrysler site regarding a possible new power plant.
- 8,155
Here we go again... Channel 4 is reporting it has learned that IKEA is looking at 2 sites in the County and 1 in the City. But doesn't know actual locations. But will let us know when it finds out. Gee thanks!
- 11K
The city location could be great, but I haven't heard enough to know if it's a solid rumor.
- 8,155
No, it was just a brief copy read by the anchor and no reporter. btw, the newscast had stories on IKEA, Powell Square and BPV. They just might as well partner with nextSTL and have Alex on for a regular spot!
I'm sure it's evidence of little, but I did notice IKEA advertizing on stltoday.com this morning. Not sure if it was via adbot or if they intentionally bought space there...
-RBB
-RBB