Lumiere Place (Phase II Only)

jlblues · PostDec 31, 2007#262007-12-31T20:28+00:00

Arch City wrote:^With comments like that it's no wonder why big developments like this don't come to fruition in St. Louis often.

Wow, I had no idea my comments on UrbanStLouis.com could have such an impact.

Arch City wrote:I seriously doubt Atlantans doubted the grand plan for Atlantic Station, which is about 75% complete.

If St. Louis had even a tenth of the level of real estate investment that Atlanta does, I might not doubt it either. Someday, hopefully, but we are still a long way away.

Arch City wrote:Huh? jlblues, Phase I of Lumiere Place came with no tax incentives from the city or state and the expanded plans for Phase II were announced long after the city selected Pinnacle for the casino/hotel complex.

No, Pinnacle hasn't requested tax incentives for this project...yet, but just wait.

In any case, I'm quite sure Pinnacle made a lot of promises to city and state officials to win their two gambling licenses and there has been a whole lot of mutual backscratching on this project from day one, and there is a whole lot more to be done.

Remember the city putting endless obstacles in front of Columbia Sussex in their quest to take over the President Casino, thus securing a third license for Pinnacle? Remember how easily Pinnacle acquired all of that property east of 1st street, under threat of eminent domain, and how easily Pinnacle got permission to build their tunnel under Hwy. 70, on public land? Remember the city lobbying hard to get the loss limits repealed (which is where some of the future backscratching comes in)? And I don't remember the city raising any objections to Pinnacle's rape of the Landing with the design of their casino complex and their decision to level all but one of the few remaining historic buildings north of the MLK bridge to build a massive parking lot. Do you? No, Pinnacle hasn't received anything from the city in exchange for their promises.

Just wait until the loss limit issue comes up for vote again. You can be sure that model will be repeatedly paraded in front of every state legislator and will find it's way into every local news report around the state.

Alex Ihnen · PostDec 31, 2007#272007-12-31T21:32+00:00

jlblues wrote:And I don't remember the city raising any objections to Pinnacle's rape of the Landing

I wasn't sure, but now I know you're just crazy. This site is bounded by MLK to the south and I-70 to the west. Pinnacle kept 2nd St. as a through street. What would you have proposed? The Landing wasn't exactly prospering. IMO - the casino (and subsequent development) will be great for the Landing, but if it isn't then what's changed?

tysalpha · PostDec 31, 2007#282007-12-31T22:44+00:00

Grover wrote:
jlblues wrote:And I don't remember the city raising any objections to Pinnacle's rape of the Landing

I wasn't sure, but now I know you're just crazy. This site is bounded by MLK to the south and I-70 to the west. Pinnacle kept 2nd St. as a through street. What would you have proposed? The Landing wasn't exactly prospering. IMO - the casino (and subsequent development) will be great for the Landing, but if it isn't then what's changed?

I'm confused, too. Hasn't the Landing north of the MLK bridge always been light industrial? I'm not crazy about casinos, but Pinnacle's plan seems like an improvement to what was there.

Expat · PostDec 31, 2007#292007-12-31T23:54+00:00

Whoa, I wasn't expecting this. Looks great. I am keeping my finger's crossed. JMedwick's concern about access to the river is spot on and should be considered. But, I can understand why they would put a garage/seawall on the river side because of flooding. I am not concerned about a lack of through streets or fortress situation. The highway, river, and bridge already create a defined & enclosed area. From what I can see, it looks like the through streets will connect it with the Landing area.

arch city · PostJan 01, 2008#302008-01-01T09:07+00:00

jlblues wrote:Wow, I had no idea my comments on UrbanStLouis.com could have such an impact.

Not a real impact, just a few over-dramatic statements on your part, I think.

jlblues wrote:If St. Louis had even a tenth of the level of real estate investment that Atlanta does, I might not doubt it either. Someday, hopefully, but we are still a long way away.

Well, how can St. Louis get there if the region is generally anti-development, cautious about development and full of Doubting Thomases and Thomasinas? It can't or won't be an ATL. The difference between STL and ATL is that ATL is a real "can do" city. On the other hand, STL is full of doubters, NIMBY's and depressed types.

jlblues wrote:No, Pinnacle hasn't requested tax incentives for this project...yet, but just wait. In any case, I'm quite sure Pinnacle made a lot of promises to city and state officials to win their two gambling licenses and there has been a whole lot of mutual backscratching on this project from day one, and there is a whole lot more to be done.

Remember the city putting endless obstacles in front of Columbia Sussex in their quest to take over the President Casino, thus securing a third license for Pinnacle? Remember how easily Pinnacle acquired all of that property east of 1st street, under threat of eminent domain, and how easily Pinnacle got permission to build their tunnel under Hwy. 70, on public land? Remember the city lobbying hard to get the loss limits repealed (which is where some of the future backscratching comes in)? And I don't remember the city raising any objections to Pinnacle's rape of the Landing with the design of their casino complex and their decision to level all but one of the few remaining historic buildings north of the MLK bridge to build a massive parking lot. Do you? No, Pinnacle hasn't received anything from the city in exchange for their promises.

Just wait until the loss limit issue comes up for vote again. You can be sure that model will be repeatedly paraded in front of every state legislator and will find it's way into every local news report around the state.

Dude, you are mixing issues.

Yes, the city sided with Pinnacle in order to get the best casino development. Why wouldn't they? The bottom line is that it didn't take multi-million dollars in tax incentives from the public to make it happen. Who cares if the city threatened eminent domain? Who cares if the city lobbied the state. As long as it is was legal, who cares? The city was tired of that dinky low-performing casino development near prime real estate. That's nature of the business beast. Put up or shut up. Pinnacle ponied up and didn't come with a rinky dink proposal.

Initially, Phase II only included a $50-million condo development. Pinnacle is on the hook for that pretty much like the Cardinals owners are for their $65-million portion of Ballpark Village. The city did not pressure Pinnacle to morph Phase II into a $500-million plan. Pinnacle grew their plan, started acquiring land etc. because they saw the potential for the area plus the need to protect their investment. What city wouldn't back a firm with that kind of investment potential? Not even St. Louis could ***** that up. And let's remember that Pinnacle has delivered. It has delivered a $507-million investment – the biggest single investment in the city's history; and it was done WITHOUT direct public funding. And keep in mind that the original proposal started at about $425-million. I can't believe anyone would have the audacity to complain about that.

Yes, the city negotiated to have an additional residential development, but the city had nothing to do with how Pinnacle's plans expanded after the initial agreement. And if Pinnacle comes and ask for reasonable tax incentives for Phase II, as it appears now, there shouldn't be a problem.

jlblues · PostJan 02, 2008#312008-01-02T00:58+00:00

Arch City wrote:
jlblues wrote:If St. Louis had even a tenth of the level of real estate investment that Atlanta does, I might not doubt it either. Someday, hopefully, but we are still a long way away.
Well, how can St. Louis get there if the region is generally anti-development, cautious about development and full of Doubting Thomases and Thomasinas? It can't or won't be an ATL. The difference between STL and ATL is that ATL is a real "can do" city. On the other hand, STL is full of doubters, NIMBY's and depressed types.

Dunno, but I do know that being a bunch of naive, gullible morons that slobber all over ourselves every time somebody with a few bucks makes a couple of promises and trots out a pretty model and rendering ain't going to get us there either.

PostJan 02, 2008#322008-01-02T01:16+00:00

Grover wrote:
jlblues wrote:And I don't remember the city raising any objections to Pinnacle's rape of the Landing

I wasn't sure, but now I know you're just crazy. This site is bounded by MLK to the south and I-70 to the west. Pinnacle kept 2nd St. as a through street. What would you have proposed? The Landing wasn't exactly prospering. IMO - the casino (and subsequent development) will be great for the Landing, but if it isn't then what's changed?

What has changed is that (edit:) several decent, old, and use full buildings have been torn down - and I think the jury is still out on Sundecker's, despite Pinnacle's claims - for a %#$*@! gigantic sea of parking that is going to be there for at least a decade (despite what all of you are so ready and eager to believe). And, any hope of tying the Landing to the area of historic buildings north of Biddle (edit: I meant Carr) into a cohesive historic entertainment and residential district, with an intact street grid, is gone forever.

It is amazing how quickly we urban preservationists abandon all of our principles when someone waves a few dollars in our faces.

Question: Pinnacle is a resort and gaming company, no? What do they know about developing a pedestrian-oriented residential district in an historic area? What makes you people think they have any intention of learning? Because they told you so?

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 02, 2008#332008-01-02T01:24+00:00

The street grid is intact and speaking for myself, I'm not an urban preservationist.

[edit] I guess I should really say that I'm not aware that Pinnacle has closed any roads. I-70, the Arch grounds and the dome/convention center really did a number on the area, but the main north/south access is there . . . oh well, glad to see the development and looking forward to what's next.

tb1000 · PostJan 02, 2008#342008-01-02T01:45+00:00

If St. Louis had even a tenth of the level of real estate investment that Atlanta does, I might not doubt it either. Someday, hopefully, but we are still a long way away.

Yeah, but Atlanta S-U-C-K-S...big time.

jlblues · PostJan 02, 2008#352008-01-02T02:01+00:00

Grover wrote:The street grid is intact and speaking for myself, I'm not an urban preservationist.

Is it? Who owns Second Street between the MLK bridge and Carr?

Hint: It ain't the city of St. Louis.

Grover wrote:[edit] I guess I should really say that I'm not aware that Pinnacle has closed any roads. I-70, the Arch grounds and the dome/convention center really did a number on the area, but the main north/south access is there . . . oh well, glad to see the development and looking forward to what's next.

I-70 and the Dome will be gone some day in the not too distant future. Unfortunately, there will now be at least two casinos, probably more, taking up all of the space between Carr and the MLK bridge, from basically Broadway to the river, blocking north-south access and all hopes for a pedestrian-oriented residential/retail/entertainment district along the river, for the next 50 years or so, probably much longer.

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 02, 2008#362008-01-02T02:13+00:00

jlblues wrote:
Grover wrote:The street grid is intact and speaking for myself, I'm not an urban preservationist.
Is it? Who owns Second Street between MLK and Carr? Hint: It ain't the city of St. Louis.

Grover wrote:[edit] I guess I should really say that I'm not aware that Pinnacle has closed any roads. I-70, the Arch grounds and the dome/convention center really did a number on the area, but the main north/south access is there . . . oh well, glad to see the development and looking forward to what's next.
I-70 and the Dome will be gone some day in the not too distant future. Unfortunately, there will now be at least two casinos, probably more, taking up all of the space between Carr and the MLK bridge, from basically Broadway to the river, blocking north-south access and all hopes for a pedestrian-oriented residential/retail/entertainment district, for the next 50 years or so, probably much longer.

I guess it depends on your definition of intact. It will be interesting to see which exists longer, the casino or I-70.

arch city · PostJan 02, 2008#372008-01-02T18:14+00:00

jlblues wrote:Dunno, but I do know that being a bunch of naive, gullible morons that slobber all over ourselves every time somebody with a few bucks makes a couple of promises and trots out a pretty model and rendering ain't going to get us there either.

Not naive or gullible, but hopeful and optimistic. What do you think would get "us there"? It certainly won't be negativity or shooting down every developer that has a genuine plan for making St. Louis a better place. St. Louisans don't like change, which is why even with the I-64 rebuilding you'd think the sky was falling. The near inability to accept change is one of the reasons why it's been at the bottom or near the bottom of nearly every list imaginable.

Nothing was being done there - absolutely nothing. Much of the land had been sitting vacant since the chickens. Then an outsider with a good track record and deep pockets comes and tries to enliven a moribund area, yet people complain.

Part of the problem is community negativity. You reap what you sow. If you don't think anything will happen, it probably won't. If you are constantly satisfied with the way things are, your community cannot grow and be attractive to others.

jlblues · PostJan 02, 2008#382008-01-02T18:34+00:00

^So, your solution is to just bend over and take whatever some wealthy developer wants to give us? Yassir, nossir, pleasir, may I have another??? Them outter-town deevelopers is so sefistikated, they must knows wuts better fer us then we do, fer sure.

If we wanted a cheesy, half-assed casino on the Landing with a bunch of half-hearted commitments for future cheese, we should have accepted Donald Trump's proposal over a decade ago. At least he would be more likely to get something done besides a sea of parking - hell, he wanted to build an aquarium on the Landing! By now, we would probably have a whole mountain of cheese on the Landing that I'm sure would make you very happy AC.

My solution? Hint: It starts with something called n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-i-o-n.

gatechie · PostJan 02, 2008#392008-01-02T18:46+00:00

To each its own, but it kills me to hear how people on this blog think Atlanta is the greatest thing since sliced bread. St louis has the bones to be so much better than Atlanta and already is in so many ways. Its projects like Lumiere phase II that will make Stl more like Atl and not in a good way. I find it a bit unnerving to see a project that large where every building looks the same. If you want to know what that looks like see "Atlantic Station" in Atlanta. It's the variety of downtown Stl that contributes to its appeal. Atlanta has at least five buildings built within the last 3 years that have the exact same color of glass with concrete. St Louis can do better.

smsplanstu · PostJan 02, 2008#402008-01-02T19:15+00:00

The construction of 375 condos in new buildings is in tandem with the new era of downtown residential construction in St. Louis (Roberts Towner, SkyHouse, BPV). Although, the gains in new construction residential are needed to create a self-sustaining downtown community, commercial office space is becoming more important. Vancouver, Canada already experiences more downtown residents leaving downtown for suburban jobs.

This represents a big push for riverfront redevelopment.

arch city · PostJan 02, 2008#412008-01-02T20:49+00:00

jlblues wrote:^So, your solution is to just bend over and take whatever some wealthy developer wants to give us? Yassir, nossir, pleasir, may I have another??? Them outter-town deevelopers is so sefistikated, they must knows wuts better fer us then we do, fer sure.

If we wanted a cheesy, half-assed casino on the Landing with a bunch of half-hearted commitments for future cheese, we should have accepted Donald Trump's proposal over a decade ago. At least he would be more likely to get something done besides a sea of parking - hell, he wanted to build an aquarium on the Landing! By now, we would probably have a whole mountain of cheese on the Landing that I'm sure would make you very happy AC.

My solution? Hint: It starts with something called n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-i-o-n.

Umm. Come jlblues, don't be silly. The city has negotiated and landed one of the best new casinos in the Midwest. Plus, $50-million in guaranteed residential. Furthermore, if a business buys land or property, it is perfectly within its right to do what the hell it wants to do within the context of exisiting laws and approvals.

Dem der out-of-towners sure have done a better job with the property in question than the in-towners.

And it's interesting that you appear have more confidence that Donald Trump would have followed through with his LaClede's Landing plans although his casinos have gone bankrupt pretty much like St. Louis-based President Casinos, Inc.

Regardless, not to be mean, but look in your own pockets and see what you can produce besides lint balls. If you can come up with $507-million, I'll jump, with an attached bungy cord, off the top of the Four Seasons light box.

southcitygent · PostJan 02, 2008#422008-01-02T20:57+00:00

Oooohhh a Trump Casino…….now that would have been a much more tasteful architectural choice……..NOT! Maybe Pinnacle isn't so bad after all.

arch city · PostJan 02, 2008#432008-01-02T21:08+00:00

Gatechie wrote:To each its own, but it kills me to hear how people on this blog think Atlanta is the greatest thing since sliced bread. St louis has the bones to be so much better than Atlanta and already is in so many ways. Its projects like Lumiere phase II that will make Stl more like Atl and not in a good way. I find it a bit unnerving to see a project that large where every building looks the same. If you want to know what that looks like see "Atlantic Station" in Atlanta. It's the variety of downtown Stl that contributes to its appeal. Atlanta has at least five buildings built within the last 3 years that have the exact same color of glass with concrete. St Louis can do better.

I personally don't think Atlanta is "the best thing since sliced bread". Trust me, I visit there enough. However, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Atlanta is a more confident and prosperous region, despite flaws, than St. Louis because Atlanta is a "can do" region. Talk to and observe the people and leadership there.

I don't care if there are carbon copy buildings all over Atlanta, they get built and NIMBYism is not as acute. If St. Louis wants to do things differently, that's okay too, just do it and do it well!!

Atlanta's population, GDP, business community etc. has surpassed St. Louis'. Its airport blows Lambert out of the water in every capacity and this was a city (no, town) that was barely a blip on the map compared to St. Louis fifty years ago.

St. Louis can get it together, but it's gonna take some people dying off first.

MattnSTL · PostJan 02, 2008#442008-01-02T21:21+00:00

Separate the attitude from the built environment is what Arch is saying.

gatechie · PostJan 02, 2008#452008-01-02T22:04+00:00

I see your point AC. It's interesting that you talk of the airport. If it weren't for the airport, Atlanta would still be that blip on the map. Birmingham and Atlanta were roughly the same size and fighting for southern supremacy until Atlanta decided it needed a world class airport. Look at the difference now. I would liken that kind of attitude to what Stl needs even more than what Atl posesses now.

stlmike · PostJan 02, 2008#462008-01-02T22:07+00:00

Not naive or gullible, but hopeful and optimistic. What do you think would get "us there"? It certainly won't be negativity or shooting down every developer that has a genuine plan for making St. Louis a better place. St. Louisans don't like change, which is why even with the I-64 rebuilding you'd think the sky was falling. The near inability to accept change is one of the reasons why it's been at the bottom or near the bottom of nearly every list imaginable.

Arch, this is true about many St Louisans, but with all due respect, none of this is really attributed to his quote. Optimism is one thing, but a revulsion to any skepticism about these renderings is unhealthy. It is certainly not a far-fetched idea to think that Pinnacle might be trying to drum up crowds to their new casino with a bluff-commitment, or at least something that they are not sure about. That kind of thing happens all the time in business. Speculating that this might be the case is not "shooting it down." It is saying "Hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's just a rendering." Renderings and models are very often not committed plans, but potential visions.

jlblues · PostJan 02, 2008#472008-01-02T22:41+00:00

stlmike wrote:It is certainly not a far-fetched idea to think that Pinnacle might be trying to drum up crowds to their new casino with a bluff-commitment, or at least something that they are not sure about.

Or, trying to drum up support for the repeal of the loss limit. Step right up ladies and gentlemen! See our wondrous vision for the Landing! And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Ok, mixing metaphors, er, references, but you get the idea, or well, some of you do...

arch city · PostJan 02, 2008#482008-01-02T23:00+00:00

stlmike wrote:Arch, this is true about many St Louisans, but with all due respect, none of this is really attributed to his quote. Optimism is one thing, but a revulsion to any skepticism about these renderings is unhealthy. It is certainly not a far-fetched idea to think that Pinnacle might be trying to drum up crowds to their new casino with a bluff-commitment, or at least something that they are not sure about. That kind of thing happens all the time in business. Speculating that this might be the case is not "shooting it down." It is saying "Hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's just a rendering." Renderings and models are very often not committed plans, but potential visions.

It's all relative actually. People can be skeptical. But it is, like I've said so many times before, more acute in St. Louis. Why is that? Have you ever lived in other cities? I have and I am speaking from experience.

As I see it, a region cannot live up to its fullest potential when negative bugaboos are out in force on a consistent basis - yacking away about every development. Yes, people can be reasonably skeptical and/or critical, but what has Pinnacle done to cultivate skeptism other than build a $507-million development? I submit absolutely nothing. Furthermore, I say when skeptism is ubiquitous - it is unnatural. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

Nonetheless dude, you are preaching to the choir.

Atlantic Station in Atlanta started off as a vision. Navy Pier in Chicago started off as a vision. The Kemah Boardwalk on Galveston Bay near Houston started off as a vision. The Power and Light District in Kansas City started off as a vision. The Empire State Building started off as a vision. Hell, that ugly ass building planned for downtown Louisville started off as a vision. And guess what? These visions are either under construction or completed.

St. Louisans, I think, need to start supporting and believing in sound visions so something can be completed for once. It makes the region look really bad when every development has to be hemmed and hawed over until it dies. Every vision brought to the public doesn't need to be hacked, doubted and shot down with negativity. Because the truth of the matter is, not every vision/development will be completely pleasing or acceptable to everyone.

goat314 · PostJan 02, 2008#492008-01-02T23:36+00:00

St. Louis has the potential to be a world class city. Given its location, unique characteristics, and history it should already be on top. People in this town are extremely pessimistic and in the end this is what will make or break us. We cant expect people to discover and invest in us if we don't have faith in our own community. Atlanta obviously doesn't have the cultural or historical significance as St. Louis, but its attitude of progression has taken it to the next level of becoming world class, despite its lacking in other areas like planning. Coming to St. Louis kind of feels like coming to skeleton of a bigger city or living in the shoes of a once prominent destination. I think we have what it takes to recapture that, but we need good leadership to guide the people in a direction of progression.

Here are some of my opinions of what St. Louis should head towards as the basics.

1. St. Louis/St. Louis County Merger (In my opinion this is one of the biggest reasons for non progressive behavior, a severed unit cannot move forward. This should be on the ballot every time.)

2. Curving development from sprawl and a complete transportation plan for the whole region. We should invest in a greenbelt around the urban areas to contain sprawly growth and preserve the natural environment around use. Could you imagine going from a totally urban St. Louis and driving or riding metro 45 minutes to Ozark like area without Eureka style development cluttering it WOW!

3. Better building and development codes. I'm actually out in Los Angeles today and I realized what makes Los Angeles world class (despite amenities). In LA they have found away to incorporate development with the nature around it. They also have pretty strict development codes, you cant just throw up something that doesn't match its surroundings. So why do we let non-brick development go up in the city. Most progressive cities have would not let new developers wreck the historical

development they would force the new developers to conform.

4. Better promotion, if people don't know where were at or what we are about nobody new will come. St. Louis seems almost like a secret city, that only a few know about.

little egyptian · PostJan 02, 2008#502008-01-02T23:43+00:00

Arch City wrote:
stlmike wrote:Arch, this is true about many St Louisans, but with all due respect, none of this is really attributed to his quote. Optimism is one thing, but a revulsion to any skepticism about these renderings is unhealthy. It is certainly not a far-fetched idea to think that Pinnacle might be trying to drum up crowds to their new casino with a bluff-commitment, or at least something that they are not sure about. That kind of thing happens all the time in business. Speculating that this might be the case is not "shooting it down." It is saying "Hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's just a rendering." Renderings and models are very often not committed plans, but potential visions.
It's all relative actually. People can be skeptical. But it is, like I've said so many times before, more acute in St. Louis. Why is that? Have you ever lived in other cities? I have and I am speaking from experience.

As I see it, a region cannot live up to its fullest potential when negative bugaboos are out in force on a consistent basis - yacking away about every development. Yes, people can be reasonably skeptical and/or critical, but what has Pinnacle done to cultivate skeptism other than build a $507-million development? I submit absolutely nothing. Furthermore, I say when skeptism is ubiquitous - it is unnatural. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

Nonetheless dude, you are preaching to the choir.

Atlantic Station in Atlanta started off as a vision. Navy Pier in Chicago started off as a vision. The Kemah Boardwalk on Galveston Bay near Houston started off as a vision. The Power and Light District in Kansas City started off as a vision. The Empire State Building started off as a vision. Hell, that ugly ass building planned for downtown Louisville started off as a vision. And guess what? These visions are either under construction or completed.

St. Louisans, I think, need to start supporting and believing in sound visions so something can be completed for once. It makes the region look really bad when every development has to be hemmed and hawed over until it dies. Every vision brought to the public doesn't need to be hacked, doubted and shot down with negativity. Because the truth of the matter is, not every vision/development will be completely pleasing or acceptable to everyone.

Arch, there is a reason it is called the show-me state. I agree with your assessment that people are typically more negative toward developments here than in other cities (I can speak for Indy and Denver), but I think it is in their nature. That said, I like the Phase II proposal. Not everything has to be organic. Sure, just like everything else it will probably look better in a model than it will in actuality, but if they build anything remotely like it, it will be fine. That part of the riverfront was largely undeveloped anyway and Lumiere is talking about bringing serious residential numbers to it? I think I will take my chances. Having people living on the riverfront is the best thing we can do to develop the riverfront.

Lumiere Place (Phase II Only)

Choose Display Mode