I ate lunch down on the Landing today and it appears that DT prosperity just isn't finding its way under the interstate.



Filth reigns supreme and the planters under the interstate are full of dead plants. Why can't they fire hose the area down once a week? There were fountains under there at one time.



If this was the hand that you were dealt as your front door to ten of thousands of people, wouldn't you clean up, fix up, spruce up? It needs color, color, color and tons of lighting.



Christopher Lowell should be hired as a consultant.



After twenty years of redevelopment, I think I'm convinced that the Landing is it's own worse enemy. They just don't appear to ever get anything right.

God, I hate that overpass.



I wonder why it's been so hard for the Landing to lure additional investment. During the selection process for the new casino, Isle of Capri came to the table with Jerry Glick, the Roberts Bros., etc. who were interested in building infill housing on several of the empty lots in the district. Couldn't they be persuaded to build anyway, even though the IOC proposal wasn't chosen? The Landing really needs some housing in order to maintain long-term viability.

Would it ever be possible to do a 'Little Dig' to keep 70 below street level until it passed the northern most point of the Bottle District, and possibly extending the cap on 70 from just north of the PSB to Cass St...or at the very least, to Cole?

^I like that idea, but the MetroLink coming off the Eads Bridge would make that prohibitive.

The other option is to remove I-70 from the Poplar to the new Mississippi River bridge. Afterall, a new bridge will carry the relocated I-70. And the Poplar's ramps to I-70 and Memorial Drive are already planned to be lost for added lanes to the I-55 ramps off the PSB.



So, instead of renumbering (to I-44) the depressed and elevated sections of this highway cutting off access to the Arch and Landing, maybe just replace this whole section with an at-grade urban boulevard. No dig or lid would then be needed.

southslider,



I had never actually thought about that...I always tend to forget that the bridge will be coming in so much father north. But that makes a lot of sense. At the same time, I want a lid there, partially because I like tunnels.

That makes a lot of sense, Southslider - good idea.



I really like the Landing. It seems like a lot of people are unable to separate the built environment there from the party scene there. I don't really care for many of the bars there, but I think that with a little tweaking, the Landing could be an even greater asset to the city than it already is.



If I were looking for office space, I would definitely have the Landing near the top of my list - there are some really interesting offices there that would make for a cool place to work.

Really, look at this thread it shows how many diffrent ways people think of the Landing: office space, housing, bars/nightclubs. However, with the casinos coming in it is time for the landing to narrow that definiton and get development going. Frankly, the landing isn't much. Some of it might be the bridge from 70 and a nice wide boulvard might be nice, but the best hope comes from the pair of casions on the landing. With two, the landing might well be able to come the premier party spot in town in which case development could get moving on some of the vacant lots that encase the area.

You're right about the Landing in that it needs development. Right now, it's not really connected to anything, because there's just enough down there to go and stay down there (to party, or whatever)...but there's not anything that would draw you down there to walk down and hang out for a bit (aside from morgan street brewery).



Right now it's just not an attractive extension destination of downtown. And by that, I mean a place that you go through. I'm hoping that with both the Bottle District and the Ballpark Village that they will be through locations...as well as being a 'to' location. Just destinations that you don't focus on going to and staying put for the time you spend downtown...rather having the oppurtunity to go to other locations.



Now, with the Landing, you go and stay put. You don't venture around the rest of downtown.

Just some rambling thoughts but it seems to me that much more simple stuff could be done to make it an attractive destination. Maybe they have simply put it off in hopes of larger solutions...but this has gone on now for nearly 20 years.



Placemaking is based a lot on psychology. I-70 is a barrier but the area under I-70 could be broken down if it were cosmetically enhanced. For instance:

1. start with paint. perhaps the columns could be painted bright colors. Or, the columns could be wrapped in a red brick facade.

2. add more lighting. the lighting at night should be extremely bright, ala Las Vegas strip.

3. add streetscaping and water features.

4. make it a place that is appealing to sit at a table or on a bench, out of the sun, and eat your box lunch.

Hey, the price tag on this would be less than $50,000 and its worth a try..



Generally, the Landing has no welcoming public spaces. It looks neglected and this only invites trouble.

Only $50k for a streetscape enhancement?! That price alone may not pay for just the plantings planned for the nearby 3-block "lid" over I-70. Unless the water feature is a plug off an existing fire hydrant and the lighting some construction spotlights, I think Matt's estimate of $50k is a little overly optimistic. I too think this area could desperately use improvements similar to Matt's ideas. I just think a quality design would easily cost much more.

May be too optimistic but their are existing fountains that are either turned off or broken. Laclede's Landing has wonderful lighted signage that has been broken for going on 8-10 years. A little elbow grease and some merchant organizing can go a long way. Just look at the incredible impact of Charlie Brennan's effort to green-up/flower-up downtown. Those medians are breaktaking.

The Landing could also benefit from making a strong case to be THE destination for nightlife in STL. By that I mean going after more bars and clubs to open in the area. Expand...get rid of all the damn gravel parking lots and build some lowrise buildings with more entertainment options.



I like the idea of making it brighter, but not necessarily with streetlights or anything like that. More signs, more advertising, Big tacky ads on buildings. How about a giant neon 'Laclede's Landing' sign at the entrance, along with a couple more lining the streets.

I like the idea of some neon. A big, retro-industrial "Laclede's Landing" sign on a rooftop would be really cool, and it would help draw people, to let them know there's some excitement and life there. Make it a really big-ass sign, animated and fun.



If they ever build the new Pinnacle Casino, I think Lacledes Landing will make a big jump as a nightlife destination. That's really a major project. And if that other new Casino ( I forget their name, the ones that want to buy and replace the Admiral) gets built, then watch out! Two casinos in one area will really draw the crowds. Things will really start booming.

I think that the Landing should be its own neighborhood, not an entertainment district. The Landing should be marketed as a premier St. Louis address. Perhaps the residential component of the Pinnacle Casino will help this along.



Like Soulard and the Central West End, Laclede's Landing could be an urban neighborhood in its own right with a venerable night life while at the same time trying to attract and sustain a daytime crowd with restaurants and other retail. Its success does not hinge on its becoming (or staying, one could argue) a homogeneous entertainment district.

Matt Drops The H wrote:I think that the Landing should be its own neighborhood, not an entertainment district. The Landing should be marketed as a premier St. Louis address. Perhaps the residential component of the Pinnacle Casino will help this along.



Like Soulard and the Central West End, Laclede's Landing could be an urban neighborhood in its own right with a venerable night life while at the same time trying to attract and sustain a daytime crowd with restaurants and other retail. Its success does not hinge on its becoming (or staying, one could argue) a homogeneous entertainment district.

mattdropstheh,

great idea. Since the landing is so isolated from downtown anyway - why not capitalize on that physical issue (make it an amenity instead of the barrier it currently is).

Well, the Landing also suffers from its small size. If residential demand really picked up for this area, the underutilized/mostly vacant north portion of the Landing could finally see some life and could contribute to the Landing's becoming a full-fledged neighborhood.

Really, if you take out a building or two from the Landing, it really does become more of a neighborhood. Maybe I should clarify, not physically removing buildings (there are too few now), but rather losing a club or two. Because Morgan Street is a brewhouse, that could be marketted similar to the tap room. There are real restaurants there, and maybe out 5-6 hot nightlife spots. That are becomes an instant WashAv clone if you have 3-4 hot nightilfe spots.



That said, I like the fact that there are casinos downtown. Every so often, after partying after a Cards game or something, it's fun to head down and place a few bets. I would hate to lose that amenity.

Somehow, I still think the landing is going in the wrong direction. Everyone is correct in that the best thing the landing has going for it is how disconected it is. However, given the distance between the landing and many of the large vacant wearhouses to the north, I think the Landing with the addition of a new upograded casino is the perfect area to build into simply an entertainment district. Because it can be disconected, the landing is not as suseptable to the slow steady transformation washington has undergone as more residents move in and want to see the clubs move out. It should be an area crowded, loud, and packed; not upscale, quiet and tree lined. Yet, for all its remoteness, the landing is close to the convention center and proposed bottle district development. Sounds like the location for an entertainment area too me.



Either way, the Landing must decide now which direction it wants to go, because if Laclede's Landing will not become the entertaiment district, then let the area south of the arch grounds make a run at it, though sadly with fewer positives.

We don't want ALL clubs gone, just the trashy ones like Velvet. Peper, Rue, Nectar, LGP, Flannery's, even Formula and Europe(Soviets gotta party too!!) are more than welcome. After all, after a day of hard work to pay increasingly higher mortgages to live in this area, we want to unwind. So bring on upscale venues and boot the lower class one to the landing where they belong, next to "The $10 cover Sweaty Basement". And you know where I'm talking about.

MistaC01 wrote:We don't want ALL clubs gone, just the trashy ones like Velvet. Peper, Rue, Nectar, LGP, Flannery's, even Formula and Europe(Soviets gotta party too!!) are more than welcome. After all, after a day of hard work to pay increasingly higher mortgages to live in this area, we want to unwind. So bring on upscale venues and boot the lower class one to the landing where they belong, next to "The $10 cover Sweaty Basement". And you know where I'm talking about.

Out of those you listed, only two are clubs. Europe is the only techno club, and it's MORE trashy than Velvet. Rue 13 is a lounge, with a dancefloor, Same with Pepper (except Pepper doesn't really have a dance floor, just an open space where people dance sometimes). Lucas Park is a restaurant with a bar, Flannerys is a bar, Nectar is a lounge.



And your comparisons of Velvet to locations on the landing make me wonder if you've ever been to Velvet, at least on a night when they are having an event. There's a world of difference between Club Buca, and Velvet.

Anyone think that as the landing gains residents we will see the entertainment(clubs, etc.) venues pushed out, ala Wash ave?

Possibly, but I guess it depends on where most of the residential units will go. Right now, the only residential projects we know about Port St. Louis, the Switzer Building and the Pinnacle tower. Outside of those projects, the majority of the buildings on the Landing are mixed-use, with retail (restaurants, bars, shops) on the first floor and office space on the upper floors. It's been a while since I've seen vacancy rates for Laclede's Landing, but last I heard, the overall occupancy rate for office space on the Landing was 90%+. If that's still the case, we probably won't see any/many of the office buildings converted to residential use any time soon.



The Switzer lofts are the closest to the bars and clubs, and there aren't too many other areas in which to build new housing in the main core of the Landing (south of the bridge). The parking lot north of Raeder Place (Old Spaghetti Factory) would be a very good spot for housing, for instance. If a developer were to build, say 100-200 units of housing on that lot, it could have an impact on the Landing's nightlife. But even then, once the casino is built, it certainly isn't going anywhere, so maybe people will be willing to buy/rent residences on the Landing without the expectation that all nightlife should be eliminated.

I think the Landing could easily offer a housing product that is a cross between the Loft District and Soulard, balancing nightlife with residential.