urbanSTL

wabash wrote:

roger wyoming II wrote:I think if we were a little bit more vibrant in our downtown recovery we'd have seen some significant action here with rehabs and infill.

Laclede's Landing does seem to be left behind in the downtown resurgence. If anything it's worse off than it was a decade or two ago. Lumiere may help with tourism and foot-traffic, but it doesn't add to the neighborhood's appeal as a residential option. Also, with the popularity of Wash. Ave. and the opening of Ballpark Village, Laclede's Landing is now a #3 option for drunken revelry downtown. Downtown development these days seems to generally be centered around the Old Post Office and radiating west, anchored by SLU Law, Park Pacific, Central Library, City Museum, and Schlafly along the route west.

I agree with some of the other posters (was it you RW?) who proposed making Laclede's Landing open container, and targeting it going forward for marijuana dispensaries. Just go full Bourbon Street/Hamsterdam with it. It's full embrace of vice is what can differentiate it from BPV and more upmarket/mixed-use parts of DT.

Could it make for a great place to live with charming shops and cafes, like a mini-Montreal? Yes. But is that likely to ever happen, especially the way renters, buyers, and developers are focusing their attention? No.

A lot of us have thrown the idea around. From earlier in this thread:
by dweebe » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:34 am
I do think they should explore the option of allowing open containers outside bars (no glass though) on the Landing on weekends.

^ Something that would go along great with getting "high" in the Landing is going on a ferris wheel. Anyone recall that proposal?

Single best possible thing that could happen for lacledes landing would be for the highway to be completely underground or demolished. Second best thing is for mixed use but mostly residential to fill in. Isolation hurts it a lot for tourism but isolation won't be as bad for residential. Soulard is isolated by highway and it does well. North riverfront could be like a soulard north if enough people lived there.

^ But do you think substantial (mostly residential) infill can happen on its own w/ just the current work being done? Or do we need another attraction(s) down there to stimulate demand? For example, do you think with the Arch/Central Riverfront Trail work and hopeful Drury Tower, that would be enough momentum to get more development? (I agree the elevated lane removal would be the best shot in the arm, btw, but I do look forward to the Third Street streetscaping.)

^^ a marina would be great, but I think it would be cost-prohibitive to engineer.

I agree the same problems that are being addressed by improving the Arch Grounds' communication with downtown are there with the Landing. It would be such a different feeling with the Landing if its west and south sides were an inviting, pedestrian friendly strip of historic buildings coaxing patrons from the Dome and Arch Grounds respectively. I would imagine the visual barriers, however, give a certain out of sight out of mind flavor to the Landing from the perspective of visitors which challenges current retail efforts. The casino, while not perfectly woven into the mix, communicates a little more naturally with the space, and there has likely been at least a little symbiosis between the Landing and Four Seasons. Another attraction like a new stadium and entertainment opportunity would potentially heighten interest and energy, but I don't think it would be as effective as more corporate investment downtown and job growth which would increase demand for (hopefully) young professionals to exhaust and expand downtown's residential offerings.

At that point the relative isolation of the Landing, as someone pointed out, could be a quick advantage. It is a hybrid of sorts combining a semi-organic "village" (which BPV wishes to create), yet is already intrinsic to downtown's identity. I would be on board with new residential to gauge demand/interest and go from there. I think the marketing efforts of the Landing could be very similar to BPV with a different, obviously more subtle aspect of local pride as the fulcrum. The proximity to the "Mighty Miss" would be unparalleled as well as sharing an address with the city's origins. There must be a sect of the population that would identify with that and find it attractive. The Port St. Louis project always intrigued me as a cool mix of modern living in a historical place.

^ Are there any TOD plans on the internet? The Central Riverfront Trail and Leonore K. Sullivan streetscaping should be a huge improvement over existing conditions and hopefully give a boost to development. The work will extend all the way to Biddle and terminate at the North Riverfront Trailhead.... it would be great if a creative redevelopment of the power building could happen.

Maybe someday the riverfront and Laclede's Landing will be a place to actually take a evening stroll, go on a date, get some gelato.


^^ Can you enlighten me on the Port St. Louis residential proposal?

^ We may see a Drury tower next to the Arch but I doubt we'll see the demand for a tower district anytime soon.... but it is a great location for mid-rise. And views of blighted East Saint Louis aren't a problem in Laclede's Landing. Dominate views to the East would be framed by MLK and Stan Span bridges and while the view across the river isn't anything to write home about, there is a lot of greenery.

goat314 wrote:The Laclede Landing TOD stakeholders called for a mixed use district, basically they are trying to move away from being the local watering hole and aspire to be a cool riverfront neighborhood. There is definitely a dearth of housing with river views in the St. Louis area, because of the industrial nature of our rivers. I'd imagine there would be a good demand for it.

Isn't there literally like only 1 or 2 residents on Laclede's Landing?

If I were a developer with money the Landing would be on the short list of places I'd be looking at first. Tons of untapped potential for residential.

RW II,

http://www.rodgers-group.com/psl/index.html

Not the greatest renderings but it's pretty much what I recall. It is mentioned on this site as well.