stlmike wrote:Yes, I have lived in other cities and I currently live in Chicago. I can tell you that even in the most successful cities, for every Navy Pier there is a failed Chicago World Trade Center (complete with a rendering) and countless other skyscrapers that promote themselves with a rendering and never see the light of day.
All the positivism in the world couldn't have saved them. It also doesn't mean that no one wanted the project to be built. It simply means that a rendering is an early stage of development and not that they are necessarily committed to building.
Very true. The same holds true for St. Louis and many other proposed developments in most cities.
Nonetheless, many projects don't come to fruition for many different reasons or a combination of reasons - including ones in Chicago. That doesn't necessarily the intent wasn't good. I still submit, however, that NIMBYism is not as bad in Chicago. In St. Louis, people come out of the gates like gangbusters with their complaint registry. I have a sister who lives in Chicago. I visit Chicago often - although not in 2007 - and what is happening there on the development end, despite some projects that might never see the light of day, could not be achieved with poor civic pride and self image, poor leadership and lots of doubting citizens. I guarantee you that it simply could not. That's the difference between successful cities and other cities. This is my point.
Although there were many doubters regarding Washington Avenue, many St. Louisans and regional political leadership got behind Washington Avenue's redevelopment, despite the naysayers, and look at what happened. Although community support means a lot, sometimes leaders just need to be leaders. The energy focused on Washington Avenue, needs to be given to other projects as well. There are even people doubting the Mercantile Exchange District. In my opinion, St. Louis could do without the
predictable negative energy.
stlmike wrote:The way I see it, St Louisans are so unused to development that they either take every rendering for an actual commitment or they doubt everything. Both are pretty dense. I'm not saying I doubt that it will happen. I'd give it a 50/50 chance because I have no reason to believe one way or the other at this point.
I understand your assertion. However, a plan is a plan. Plans change. Even the plan for the Phase II model could change. People who have a misinterpretation or understanding of what is
a plan are setting themselves up for disappointment anyway. A plan is just that - a plan. Plans change. But I still submit, once again, that there's no need to rush to absolute judgment/skepticism the minute a (re)development plan is announced.
stlmike wrote:St Louisans may be prone to the things you describe, but I think that the members on this forum deserve a little more respect. Me or Jlblues wouldn't be on this forum if we didn't have hope for things like this to really work out. You don't have to call me a NIMBY or a typical St Louisan every time I'm not frothing at the mouth over a broad rendering.
I think you are being a little sensitive with this comment. Where were you called a NIMBY
on this thread? Where? Nonetheless, NIMBY is development board terminology that has been around for as long as there have been development boards. If NIMBY doesn't describe you, then you should not answer to it.
jlblues wrote:Just kidding, but you seemed to have glossed over the fact that everything I wrote in the reply which you have referenced, was in response to your mistaken belief that nothing was being developed, or ever would be developed, on that land until Pinnacle came along.
Nope. My point was that locals did nothing for decades to improve the North Landing. Let’s talk about the dinky Blues Museum that never came to fruition due to a lack of funding. Furthermore, I have been on development boards for eons. The Lincoln Properties project was listed on the city’s project development list – and who knows, it probably still is on the list. Nonetheless, I was one of the first to report on skyscraperpage.com (before the St. Louis Rising or Urban St. Louis boards existed) about Lincoln Properties proposed development for a sliver of North LL when it was first proposed, then reported when the city nixed the deal perhaps because it anticipated a better a project. In fact, I think that was the city’s plan. Many SSP’s St. Louis members were upset with the city – including myself.
However, I now say kudos to the leadership – particularly Slay and Crim. They stepped up and snagged a better deal for the city. Sometimes, the people at City Hall do know what they are doing.
jlblues wrote:Re: Bourbon Street: You do understand the concept of an analogy right? In any case, not that I would want that, but why couldn't the Landing have been developed into a Bourbon Street-like, or French Quarter-like (if you prefer) entertainment district??? Now who is being the Doubting Thomas??? And, for the record, you should visit New Orleans. Katrina did no damage to, and had zero lasting impact on, the French Quarter. If anything, it is better than it was before.
Honestly, I don’t want a French Quarter-like entertainment district in St. Louis. Not that the FQ is not a great place to be entertained, but St. Louis needs to create something unique and not something that bites off another city. And what other city has a world-class casino/hotel complex next to a major residential/entertainment complex (and district) next to a major river setting?
Also jlblues, I have visited New Orleans enough over the years and I know that Katrina did not damage the FQ, however, it was impacted in other ways because of Katrina. That was my point. Pedestrian activity did not pick up for months after Katrina hit.
jlblues wrote:Uh huh, and that is all that matters to you apparently - dollar investment. So, when Paul McKee proposes to level much of North St. Louis to build several golf courses next to Winghaven East, or proposes to build the world's largest warehouse/light industrial/distribution center, I guess you are going to be all for it, cuz hell, its dollar investment.
Naw. However, I do believe Lumiere Place (Phase I) is a quality, urban development. And the fact they invested $507-million without public support makes it all the better.
[Ironically I have never been to Atlanta, so I cant comment on their city]
