urbanSTL

moorlander wrote:Personally I don't understand your view. Just because it's IKEA you think we should throw all of our urban planning values out the window? I guess we're not all IKEA whores.

Yes they should have fronted it to Forest Park, but at least they put a lot of the parking under the store. Show me one suburban retail store that has parking underneath.

It's not a long list but its not unheard of...
Best Buy/Sports Authority in Brentwood
Dierbergs in Des Peres

I think mainly i'm surprised anyone is surprised at this site plan IKEA is not an urban development. ANYWHERE. I guess the CORTEX district plan made it sort of decieving but it seemed highly unlikely an IKEA could fit in that small an area.

Pushing IKE to FPP and diverting duncan to the tracks could be doable but i'd wager the swedes will say nah we like it this way and the city will roll over. The road circling the parking lot is just silly though. It has NO PURPOSE.

I'm surprised at the level of criticism for the IKEA site. The fact is IKEA targets a number of important, and more often than not, city-oriented demographics. So while the site plan itself may not be an "urbanist's" wet dream by any means, the mere existence of this IKEA points to the retailer's faith in the demographic trends we all know are happening in the City, and in that sense is very pro-city by providing a shopping destination these particular demographics covet, and which signals of "progress" to others in these demographics that do not currently live in the city. This in addition to the tax base and economic benefits that extend beyond the borders of the store's parcel of land. In short, it's almost unmitigated good.

^The Bloomington store's customers often park in surrounding MOA lots, which form a sort of "sea" of parking on the east side of the IKEA.

^Nor do they understand exactly how insanely busy, nor how large a physical volume of merchandise shoppers often leave the store with. The parking will be almost completely full all weekend, every weekend.

goat314 wrote:I'm starting to lose optimism that Cortex will be the "urban" district that it proclaims it wants to be. I thought the parcels facing FPA were being planned for mixed use residential. Does anybody know if that is still in play?

I wasn't expecting this IKEA to be urban, but does anybody think that Pace will build Midtown Station as a street oriented project now that the traditional big box model has been set?

IKEA plays by their own rules almost never abandons their model of big box with acres of parking in front. I mean their friggin New York City (Brooklyn) location is one of these.

Target has no problem with urban design stores. If they're truly the anchor of Midtown Station I hope/doubt they'll switch to a suburban design simply because of IKEA across the street.

dweebe wrote:

goat314 wrote:I'm starting to lose optimism that Cortex will be the "urban" district that it proclaims it wants to be. I thought the parcels facing FPA were being planned for mixed use residential. Does anybody know if that is still in play?

I wasn't expecting this IKEA to be urban, but does anybody think that Pace will build Midtown Station as a street oriented project now that the traditional big box model has been set?

IKEA plays by their own rules almost never abandons their model of big box with acres of parking in front. I mean their friggin New York City (Brooklyn) location is one of these.

Target has no problem with urban design stores. If they're truly the anchor of Midtown Station I hope/doubt they'll switch to a suburban design simply because of IKEA across the street.

I tend to agree, but I think it may take some leadership from City officials to ensure that's the case.

The good news is the City now has leverage because IKEA is already there. Target (and other retailers) are probably going to want a piece of the action that IKEA is sure to generate, so the City should consider itself in a position to make certain reasonable demands of the retailers that follow.

The parking lot front and center is awful and I too worry about the precedent being set her for other development. The retail symbolism of this is so incredibly huge for the city though that I am afraid to mess with it. IKEA is about the only big box that I would make the exception for and allow a dead-after-hours parking lot in the middle of the city. Its hypocritical and we should recognize that rather than coming up with excuses/explanations why IKEA simply has to build this way.

Fortunately there is a form based code for the lot on the other side of FPP.

Again the "something is better than nothing" approach.

We can still have an urban development in this site. Move the building to FP with parking behind bldg. Is really not that much to ask.

I think some people have not been to an IKEA and consequently don't grasp the IKEA dynamic. IKEAs are *almost* tourist attractions. People travel vast distances by car to get to them, often from places that are not urban at all. People that are used to parking in lots. Also, by the nature of what IKEA sells, and the vast distances people travel to shop there, it is not uncommon to see numerous vehicles with U-Haul trailers in the parking lot, packed completely full, process repeated a hundred times a day every day of the weekend.

The point being that this is not a neighborhood store, and it is especially not a neighborhood store in the sense that aside from CWE, there aren't a lot of fully or nearly fully realized neighborhoods surrounding it. Which is to say, IKEA plays a singular role that other big boxes like Target, Home Depot, WalMart, and so forth simply don't. It is a destination store writ large, and in many ways should be viewed and evaluated more along the lines of a stadium project than retail. A bit of an exaggeration, but if that makes sense.

Since this is the first big retail development in the area, there is still time to address how development should proceed from this point forward, and it is worth pushing harder now than ever for form based codes for the entire city and an end to parking minimums. Should IKEA be exempt? Don't know, but for our IKEA to work like the Hamburg concept, I think STL would need a significantly more developed transit system as well as a much more populous core. Chicken and egg?

It's also worth pointing out, for those who don't know, that all IKEA locations are designed such that you go int the main entrance, then it closes behind you (and you can't go through the closed door; it's sealed with one of those "FIRE ESCAPE/ALARM WILL SOUND" bars), and then you have to walk through a good bit of the showroom area (or else take "shortcuts") to go out the warehouse area/exit, which is on another side of the store, where you pick out what you want and check out and leave. It's not the kind of place pedestrians can go in, peak their heads in, look around for a sec, then leave the way they came.



It's built into their whole business model.

It's a design that is not very amenable to bending to the whims of we urbanists who demand easy-access street-front entrances and exits, and it's probably another big reason why most of their stores are located in big empty suburban areas.

Obviously other places like Target are nothing like this (especially with their urban-friendly "CityTarget" designs), so probably shouldn't worry too much about future retailers. I know it looks like IKEA is setting a bad precedent, but I think there's reason to believe further development won't necessarily follow IKEA's lead in many respects, if only because there isn't any other retailer in the world quite like IKEA.

I think you're splitting hairs.

There's a saying that suggests that we need to learn how to choose our battles.

Battling the IKEA parking layout, in my opinion, is not a battle I am willing to wage. IKEA is bringing so much to the table.

1. Urban setting. The only other urban concepts are located in south Philadelphia, Atlanta, New Haven, Conn., and Brooklyn, N.Y.
2. IKEA St. Louis will be a "super regional draw", according to IKEA, with customers from all over Missouri, Central and Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, metro Memphis, metro Nashville, Indianapolis and points in between - until one of those areas gets their own.
3. Hundreds of construction jobs
4. 300 hundred permanent jobs. Note: The average Target and Wal-Mart employs about 200.
5. New property tax revenue
6. Millions in sales tax revenue
7. 300 people paying an earnings tax.
8. Tourism with residual spending - hotel room stays, more local shopping, dining etc. etc.
9. IKEA also gives St. Louis City a major bargaining chip to lure other retailers to the city.
10. Parking underground, which a lot of IKEAs do not have. Good faith on IKEA's part.
11. Residual development throughout the Central Corridor, which could spread north and south.
12. A great land reuse.

I wouldn't be surprised if developers are already calling the city to scout immediate areas for retail, residential, restaurants etc. near IKEA.

Point is, with that kind of bang......YES, you must choose a different battle. And it is okay. It is not a double-standard. You simply weigh the pros and cons. The pros outweigh the cons by far with this project - and I am not even big on IKEA.

With that said, an ordinary run-of-the-mill power center like Midtown Station is not going to do #2, #3, #6, #7, #8. In its current proposed form, Midtown Station certainly will improve the area, provide jobs, tax revenue etc., but if Pace Properties knows what's good for it and their bottom line, it would build a quality urban scale, sustainable development at Midtown Station. Take a cue from The Boulevard, which was developed by Pace.

IKEAs don't have to worry sustainability. The St. Louis location would be getting business if it was located next to a landfill. IKEA is like Wal-Mart. Build it and they will come in droves.