urbanSTL

A burlesque theater and bar will be opening up in the old Jakes' spot:

https://twitter.com/708stl

Also, a restaurant/music venue, Marcell's, also opened up a few months back and was not on the Post-Dispatch list of open/closed establishments.

The closing of Sundeckers still stings like a b*tch.

^I was never been regular on the Landing, however it always seems like it's usually in the summer for things like Big Muddy or random bar hopping downtown or out for dinner. Whenever I drove or walked past Sundecker's I always pictured hanging out there before a Rams game someday. Sadly, we always park west of the Dome and end up on Washington pre or post game. Sad that I missed an opportunity to make it to that place.

It has been driving me a bit nuts that we haven't heard anything about the parking garage project that was awarded to Drury for their Third Street parcel as a replacement for the demolished Arch grounds garage.... but now that Metro has moved its headquarters out of the Landing, I'm thinking maybe the replacement project got called off as the number of spaces is now reduced.

Anyone know what's going on? If there is no official replacement garage, I wonder how that might impact the thinking of the parking operators in the Landing.

The selection was a little over a year ago, but I haven't heard anything specific since that time.

roger wyoming II wrote:It has been driving me a bit nuts that we haven't heard anything about the parking garage project that was awarded to Drury for their Third Street parcel as a replacement for the demolished Arch grounds garage.... but now that Metro has moved its headquarters out of the Landing, I'm thinking maybe the replacement project got called off as the number of spaces is now reduced.

Anyone know what's going on? If there is no official replacement garage, I wonder how that might impact the thinking of the parking operators in the Landing.

Are you saying someone else builds a garage somewhere else on the Landing?

My thought is the lack of urgency to build a replacement for the Arch garage is to see what happens when you "force" visitors to park in downtown.

^ I don't think that is it as Drury was officially selected to build the new garage last February and meant to open by October.... and the merchants certainly want one.

If what was supposed to be a 540 space garage isn't moving forward, I do think Saint Louis Parking will probably be evaluating what makes sense for its considerable holdings in the Landing. Its proposal, btw, was to demo and replace the existing garage on LKS behind the elevated rail and build a new garage with street-level retail on its surface lot on First adjacent to the Eads.

I'd love for Saint Louis Parking to develop the First Street lot w/o a garage and replace the old LKS lot with a new garage that would have apartments stacked on top of it and above the elevated rail line and maybe even street level retail in the rear, (which I think abuts an alley and not a formally named street but still could be an activated area.)

^ Downtown garages are definitely part of the plan for Arch visitors.... that's been part of the plan from the beginning. And the fact that Metro is relocating to the CBD and no longer in need of parking spots in the Landing is why I think that the official replacement garage may have gotten nixed.


edit.... here is a good article on the garage proposals and how the one from Drury (which was ultimatley selected last Februrary) also was tied into its potential tower project.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... c5980.html

roger wyoming II wrote:^ Downtown garages are definitely part of the plan for Arch visitors.... that's been part of the plan from the beginning. And the fact that Metro is relocating to the CBD and no longer in need of parking spots in the Landing is why I think that the official replacement garage may have gotten nixed.


edit.... here is a good article on the garage proposals and how the one from Drury (which was ultimatley selected last Februrary) also was tied into its potential tower project.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... c5980.html

How many suburban folk and out-of-town visitors tore straight for the Arch Garage, visited the Arch, went right back to the parked cars and then got out of the area as fast as possible?

^ Whatever the percentage, it's a lot. Also, planners have been pointing out that with the new entry, the CBD garages will be just as close as the old garage was to the old entrance.

The new arrangement will help bring people to downtown and hopefully spend more $$.... hopefully the new Central Riverfront Trail, the Arch ground's North Gateway treatments and the Landing reinventing itself will also help the Landing stay afloat as well.

debaliviere wrote:Went for a walk through the Landing today, and was really amazed at how desolate it is right now. Empty storefronts and for sale/lease signs abound. Very little foot traffic. So many vacant lots (although that really isn't anything new). Being able to remember the way the Landing was back in the 90s, it was kind of depressing.

But there's a shuttle bus that runs every 30 minutes! It will fix everything! [/sarcasm]

I know this sounds very tinfoil hattish: but I almost wonder if the City and State governments are trying to cripple/kill the Landing so someone connected can buy stuff cheap and develop it?

^^And yet the proposed stadium site is supposed to just drop profits on the city left and right with organic development if no stadium goes there. The Landing has exponentially more infrastructure than the near north riverfront and struggles. So why would it be any different in a place farther from the downtown core?

This is not meant to be a stadium discussion. Say the stadium was not being proposed. Why is the thought process that so much good will come from it while the Landing is on life support?

I'm not saying my question justifies building the stadium. Forget the subsidy debate.

I'm trying to ask a group of people who know more about urban physiology than I do why there is the thought that the near north riverfront, if left to its own natural course, will prosper. The Landing is struggling and Chouteau's Landing never went anywhere.

I'm obviously missing something about this site compared to our other examples and it's potential to become the oasis that some are prognosticating.

^ If the stadium doesn't move forward, we'll likely see incremental improvements continue on the Near North Riverfront over time but it shouldn't be the focus on redevelopment for now.... it'll eventually find its glory but likely will take time. And that is fine. I think what would be a cool placeholder is if a developer undertook some of those warehouses for a bare-bones residential conversion... something like that is being undertaken in a somewhat similar environment of KC's West Bottoms industrial area where rents are planned for 400 bucks or so, McGowan Bros. had plans for one pre-recession and my understanding is developers were beginning to look at the area again so who knows.

I also look forward to seeing how the Central Riverfront Trail improves the area up to the power building and also what comes of the substantial GRG study.

^ I think it will prosper in due time if there is no stadium. I can see it emerging first as a little Brooklyn-esque arts district of yesteryear when there was such a thing as low rents (hello, Detroit!) and then maturing into something more upscale with time. How much GRG invests in the riverfront and how willing state officials are willing to prime it with tax credits (allocation of brownfields, etc.) will also be a factor in the speed of redevelopment.