urbanSTL

This HellbenderSTL guy on X has great vision for the riverfront.

whitherSTL wrote: ↑

3:50 PM - May 19

This HellbenderSTL guy on X has great vision for the riverfront.

taking the "Ai-ness" out of the some of the concepts, there's some good ideas here imo. Even if there was money for these concepts id assume doing most of them would be next to impossible purley bc of the arch grounds status as a national park right?

I came across this article primarily focused on John Clark (Boomers). Awesome story. 

https://www.losttables.com/clark/clark. ... 7i6DhOslsA

I am just amazed at how this STL gem of a neighborhood went from a regional/midwestern entertainment destination to an abandoned area to a now burgeoning residential area. I know that things change over time, but the Landing was uniquely St. Louis. Bars like Boomers (named after an Eads associate), Muddy Waters, Mississippi Nights, etc. These places were uniquely St. Louis & when people came to the Landing, it was all about the riverfront, cobblestone, the Arch, etc. We lost that & it is very sad. I know it had it's less desirable stuff that comes with a bar district, but it was a blast. Going to Sundeckers & watching the barges & tugs go by, riverboats and what not on a Saturday afternoon was so St. Louis. This all being said, I am not advocating for a return to a rowdy bar district. However, mixed in with businesses & residential should be a few pubs, breweries, more restaurants & places like Sundeckers where you can have a drink & watch the river. We always say that we might have the most under-utilized riverfront anywhere. Totally inexcusable considering we have the mighty Mississippi River, one of the most famous in the country, Gateway Arch National Park & TONS of potential. INEXCUSABLE! 

Currently there are ZERO bars on the Landing. A healthy neighborhood the size and density of the Landing needs at least a few.

We need somebody with a grand idea to take a chance & open a bar concept that can attract people back to the Landing. Maybe a unique music venue or a Sundeckers - type bar that has an awesome view of the river. The Landing should flourish based on Arch visitors alone. I just don't get it. The Landing needs to better connect to the Arch grounds. 

The no bars is by design. Casino doesn’t want them (they own the sundeckers building and a few other former bars) there may be a roof top bar coming to Greeley building

^Yep, the casino has been the dagger in the Landing as it was, starting with the totally ridiculous, senseless demo of Mississippi Nights. 

What's currently there is better for the long term health and prosperity of the city than what once was.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

^I think you can have a healthy residential population along with some drinking establishments. Wash. Ave. had a good mix & to some extent still does. Having this mix will attract & keep younger residents. It doesn't have to be a crazy bar district, just offer some light entertainment options for people that live there & those who want to visit. 

If there was going to be a true entertainment/music & bar district in STL, that was the place to do it. I get it. That ship has sailed, but that area should have remained a hub for entertainment, music, dining & some residential. With the craziness of the past toned down, it could have been a perfect multi-purpose neighborhood. Unfortunately, casinos are not designed to share the wealth in an area. They just suck it dry, unless the customer base is endless. Unfortunately, there is not enough foot traffic (shockingly considering the Arch is right there) to support an entertainment district & a casino with lots of amenities. 

DogtownBnR wrote:^I think you can have a healthy residential population along with some drinking establishments. Wash. Ave. had a good mix & to some extent still does. Having this mix will attract & keep younger residents. It doesn't have to be a crazy bar district, just offer some light entertainment options for people that live there & those who want to visit. 

If there was going to be a true entertainment/music & bar district in STL, that was the place to do it. I get it. That ship has sailed, but that area should have remained a hub for entertainment, music, dining & some residential. With the craziness of the past toned down, it could have been a perfect multi-purpose neighborhood. Unfortunately, casinos are not designed to share the wealth in an area. They just suck it dry, unless the customer base is endless. Unfortunately, there is not enough foot traffic (shockingly considering the Arch is right there) to support an entertainment district & a casino with lots of amenities. 

The foot traffic from the Arch gets filtered more into the Gateway Mall than to the north or south. Washington Ave also draws away from the Landing. The Landing is probably too segregated from the rest of downtown to be a serious option for people to walk to, it's just not natural to walk across multiple large streets and under a highway.

I also disagree that the Landing "should" be a bar district. There's bars in every neighborhood, but there's only one place you can live on the river, in a historically old building, with the Gateway Arch in your backyard, and a 5 min at most walk to a metro station. Today, you have apartments, office space, a couple restaurants/cafés, and some event spaces. Ofcourse the streets should not be blocked off like they are by the casino and the casino should not be holding properties just to disallow new development. But we have something far more valuable than a bar district today. It's literally one of the most unique and cool places you can live in America.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I was there recently. It was a ghost town. I hope that changes, but you need amenities to keep those residents there. Simple as that. There are some, but time will tell if the efforts down there will pay off. I am rooting for them. No matter what the use, it is massively under-utilized. 

I am not saying it has to become a bar district, but a healthy neighborhood should have some bars

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:21 PM - May 29

What's currently there is better for the long term health and prosperity of the city than what once was.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

That might depend on how you define "the Landing." Residential might be better than some of what was, but the idea that the soul-demolishing casino is better for the long term health of anything at all seems rather laughable to me, and it is absolutely in a part of what was once considered the Landing. (Though it's so isolated that it's easy to see why you might not believe that the area it occupies was once entirely organically connected to the fragment that's still there.) Does the casino employ more people than everything it replaced? Does it bring more joy? Does it do less harm? Does it generate more tax revenue? It certainly doesn't look as good. It's clearly less unique, less distinct from every other soulless casino in the western world. Truth be told I don't even think it's as good as the casinos it ran out of business, much less the bars and clubs. It's all water under the bridge now, and other clubs in other places are filling the void, and I'd hate to see them disappear. But I don't expect many people to mourn that casino when it goes.

symphonicpoet wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:21 PM - May 29

What's currently there is better for the long term health and prosperity of the city than what once was.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

That might depend on how you define "the Landing." Residential might be better than some of what was, but the idea that the soul-demolishing casino is better for the long term health of anything at all seems rather laughable to me, and it is absolutely in a part of what was once considered the Landing. (Though it's so isolated that it's easy to see why you might not believe that the area it occupies was once entirely organically connected to the fragment that's still there.) Does the casino employ more people than everything it replaced? Does it bring more joy? Does it do less harm? Does it generate more tax revenue? It certainly doesn't look as good. It's clearly less unique, less distinct from every other soulless casino in the western world. Truth be told I don't even think it's as good as the casinos it ran out of business, much less the bars and clubs. It's all water under the bridge now, and other clubs in other places are filling the void, and I'd hate to see them disappear. But I don't expect many people to mourn that casino when it goes.

Yes the on-brand casino, 5 star hotel, 4 star hotel, and multiple high end restaurants are better for the future health of the city pretty much any way you look at it.

The 21-acre casino and hotel complex has a 2026 appraisal of nearly $214 million, in 2025 it contributed nearly $6.9 million in property taxes. Not sure how I'd find sales or earnings taxes. This comes out to a property value of $10.2 million per acre and tax receipt of $328,000 per acre. Property tax revenue alone basically makes it a no-brainer, not even considering the jobs and reputation boost it brings.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Reputation boost? For a generic casino much like any other casino you could find in any other similarly sized city? There were plenty of casinos before and there will be more after. I doubt it increased local gambling any. It's like new shopping centers. They don't create new jobs, they just move them around. Every job there is one that isn't at another local casino anymore. Every dollar spent there would have been spent at a different casino before it. Nobody is coming to St. Louis for the casinos. This isn't Vegas. (I'm deeply grateful for that.) And unlike other nearby casinos that one very much shut down healthy businesses and destroyed part of our historic urban fabric. I simply cannot believe that monstrosity is in any possible sense beneficial. The company's financial statement isn't a full accounting of the costs and benefits of the thing. They internalize all the benefits, so you can see it on their sheet. But they externalize virtually all the costs, so it's really hard to measure those and they're absolutely not in your list. But they are, nevertheless, very very real.

symphonicpoet wrote:Reputation boost? For a generic casino much like any other casino you could find in any other similarly sized city? There were plenty of casinos before and there will be more after. I doubt it increased local gambling any. It's like new shopping centers. They don't create new jobs, they just move them around. Every job there is one that isn't at another local casino anymore. Every dollar spent there would have been spent at a different casino before it. Nobody is coming to St. Louis for the casinos. This isn't Vegas. (I'm deeply grateful for that.) And unlike other nearby casinos that one very much shut down healthy businesses and destroyed part of our historic urban fabric. I simply cannot believe that monstrosity is in any possible sense beneficial. The company's financial statement isn't a full accounting of the costs and benefits of the thing. They internalize all the benefits, so you can see it on their sheet. But they externalize virtually all the costs, so it's really hard to measure those and they're absolutely not in your list. But they are, nevertheless, very very real.

The city benefits greatly in the property taxes, sales taxes, and earning taxes from the complex, far more than whatever would be there today had it never been built. This is not debateable.

This reminds me a lot of the people who like to pretend that the Archgrounds were a thriving cosmopolitan district with tons of jobs and residents when it just wasn't at all.

It may be a tough pill to swallow, but the Landing was in decline with or without the casino. The most likely result today would be more vacant buildings and land and areas seen as sketchy, generating next to no tax revenue for the city.

-$6.9M in property taxes
-A 5 star hotel and a 4 star hotel
-A name brand casino
-4 restaurants, several bars
-700+ jobs according to the Cencus Bureau's On The Map tool, significantly more than the 250 in 2002 or 200 in 2005.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

^Glad you believe it. Have fun.

symphonicpoet wrote:^Glad you believe it. Have fun.

It's not a matter of belief. It's easily researchable facts.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I think a healthy music venue would be what is needed to really draw people back on a regular basis.

Whether that be an open air amphitheater that can host larger acts, or a 2k capacity place that can bring people down 3-5 nights a week, driven by a prolific industry mover and shaker who knows the right promoters.

Something like a Moshmellow/Red Flag/Pops heavy venue would do really well with the gritty vibes.  I feel like midtown has already a glut of venues, not that more isn't a good thing.  But I think the Landing just needs to be a destination again and the rest will follow.  There's just so much competition for pockets of vibrancy and entertainment corridors that it's hard for it set itself apart on the historical and legacy vibes alone.

If you have a high-end residential focused area, some high-end lounges, restaurants & even a nice corner tavern/sports bar would be great for the people that live down there. Those are typically part of any neighborhood. Some other shops would be cool. Obviously, this would be more for the residents to walk to the lower key places, especially if the Casino is not their thing.