Auto-oriented development patterns are unaffordable- they're bankrupting us. This isn't a matter of preference. The land has to be more productive in order to afford the services and infrastructure needed to serve it.
- 8,155
^^ Your comment completely flew over my head there.... you said the warehouse was an eyesore and that the development would be a "faaaar better sight." I disagree that the warehouse, which I think is mostly unremarkable and unnoticed, would be much worse than a ho-hum development from an aesthetic standpoint. That's a matter of personal preference, of course. The rest of your comment seems to be irrelevant to that... I just don't understand.
- 1,320
This is what the back of a 7 Eleven looks like. Nothing says "Welcome to St. Louis" like the back of a 7-Eleven.
- 1,299
Irrelevant? Which part:The rest of your comment seems to be irrelevant to that... I just don't understand.
I'm sorry but these sorts of comments just feel like tilting at so many windmills.
The fact of the matter is had the growth now happening in the Central Corridor not happened, then this project would never be done.
I guess one possible definition of an urbanist might be "one who continually moves back the goal posts of urban design and loves to set unattainable demands on would be developers today."
Look at it another way...
With the IKEA across the street, and the thousands of visitors it draws every day, what do you think the chances are that some of those shoppers will venture across the street and patronize the businesses in Pace's center? I'd say pretty high, and I'm betting more than half of those shoppers are new city shoppers.
I'll take it.
- 1,792
I don't think anyone has moved the goal post back. Several people were against IKEA because of it vast parking lot. Many hated the initial proposal for midtown station because of the same reason. That proposal included something along the lines of a target. This proposal is nothing to get excited about. Two more fast food joints are hardly anything to tout as transformational.I guess one possible definition of an urbanist might be "one who continually moves back the goal posts of urban design and loves to set unattainable demands on would be developers today."
To your second point on whether they support attainable development. You may have a point in some instances. People against the NGA headquarters for instance, or those who demanded more from the IKEA layout. But the thousands of visitors everyday that you sited are exactly why Midtown Station can be SO MUCH MORE than what is being proposed.
I don't know if the city can easily block this plan, but I think they should if they can. They need to demand better. (In this case ESPECIALLY)
- 8,155
^^ NN, all of it is irrelevant, imo. Maybe I'm just dense --- I usually am! -- but I don't see what any of your response has to do with whether the proposed site plan is a significant aesthetic improvement over existing conditions.
I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
- 1,299
No, I think I must be the dense one since I believe a new shopping center across from another new shopping center in the vicinity of thousands of new housing units is better than a dark, empty warehouse.I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
- 3,235
I agree with this.quincunx wrote:Auto-oriented development patterns are unaffordable- they're bankrupting us. This isn't a matter of preference. The land has to be more productive in order to afford the services and infrastructure needed to serve it.
- 8,155
Perhaps it will be better... that determination will involve a number of factors. But that doesn't mean the proposed project would be a huge visual improvement. That's all I was saying with respects to aesthetics.Northside Neighbor wrote:No, I think I must be the dense one since I believe a new shopping center across from another new shopping center in the vicinity of thousands of new housing units is better than a dark, empty warehouse.I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
I'm kinda surprised that Pace so far has only been able to muster $1.3 million in capital as per the biz journal. This seems low even for a site that should be or at least what I considered a premium location next to a major draw. Any with similar thoughts? Heck, I'm pretty sure you could not even build and fit out a McDonalds at $1.3 million.
The other thought that I can't get rid of, why haven't they actively pursued a hotel on this site or at least throw out some site renderings? maybe they have or maybe not. It seem like you can keep or expand the building footprint for the building along Vande, go vertical with the rooms/conference space and put structured parking behind it. You literally got a site that is in the middle of a large Hospital/Campus & growing job center in CORTEX, Ikea across the street and a university on the other side with Freeway visibility & access.
The other thought that I can't get rid of, why haven't they actively pursued a hotel on this site or at least throw out some site renderings? maybe they have or maybe not. It seem like you can keep or expand the building footprint for the building along Vande, go vertical with the rooms/conference space and put structured parking behind it. You literally got a site that is in the middle of a large Hospital/Campus & growing job center in CORTEX, Ikea across the street and a university on the other side with Freeway visibility & access.
Yeah seems really low. Is the alderman still against this plan or has he been greased?dredger wrote:I'm kinda surprised that Pace so far has only been able to muster $1.3 million in capital as per the biz journal. This seems low even for a site that should be or at least what I considered a premium location next to a major draw. Any with similar thoughts? Heck, I'm pretty sure you could not even build and fit out a McDonalds at $1.3 million.
The other thought that I can't get rid of, why haven't they actively pursued a hotel on this site or at least throw out some site renderings? maybe they have or maybe not. It seem like you can keep or expand the building footprint for the building along Vande, go vertical with the rooms/conference space and put structured parking behind it. You literally got a site that is in the middle of a large Hospital/Campus & growing job center in CORTEX, Ikea across the street and a university on the other side with Freeway visibility & access.
Guys -- you raise $1.3 million for the cash needed to get the loan. They're probably getting a 80/20 LTV loan. So, they'll get $6.5mil from the lender to complete the development.
Dredger -- hotels are pretty limited to what they can pay for dirt. Especially when there's a lot of site work and demolition like this site.
This is why you'll see hotels typically in secondary positions where they can get cheaper land. Obviously, there are exceptions to this statement but that's generally the case especially in St Louis.
This is why you'll see hotels typically in secondary positions where they can get cheaper land. Obviously, there are exceptions to this statement but that's generally the case especially in St Louis.
Will this take a lot of site work and demo? It looks like two relatively cheaply constructed warehouses are all that's there.
- 8,155
^ I believe there's only the one-story warehouse on the site (although the portion in the back may have been an addition).
Not sure if there are any special remediation needs for it; I assume that would be more of an issue for the Federated Mogul property further east.... which leads me to ask whether anyone knows if Pace retains an option on those parcels or what the deal may be for its potential redevelopment.
Not sure if there are any special remediation needs for it; I assume that would be more of an issue for the Federated Mogul property further east.... which leads me to ask whether anyone knows if Pace retains an option on those parcels or what the deal may be for its potential redevelopment.
Not sure if he's said anything publicly about the current iteration, but he's expressed disappointment about some previous renderings. From his Twitter:ImprovSTL wrote:Is the alderman still against this plan or has he been greased?
Pace properties drops option on Federal Mogal retail site. Disappointed but we need urban project that contributes to car optional 'hood.
KB, can understand your points and must have been a big reason why they dropped the Federal Mogul portion site without a big anchor tenant to make the numbers work on an expensive site to build on. But it might be a blessing if CORTEX/City success encourages an expanded more denser footprint and or someone like Green Street with its experience on the coke site using brownfield tax credit and other assistance from the city tackles the site.
.
As far as the basis for looking over an hotel development. I still believe the economics of demand from the immediate area make it still a viable option for hotel. I grant you, it might need to be a brand name that can justify a high room rate or a slim tower to increase room cout. Could very well be wrong but they are essentially proposal a small street facing box/retail on that corner. What your essentially telling me is that premium on the land purchase essentially leaves Pace only enough in the piggy bank/financing to do a cheap retail build with the hopes you can charge the highest rater on retail square footage in the immediate area. Would that be a fair statement?
.
As far as the basis for looking over an hotel development. I still believe the economics of demand from the immediate area make it still a viable option for hotel. I grant you, it might need to be a brand name that can justify a high room rate or a slim tower to increase room cout. Could very well be wrong but they are essentially proposal a small street facing box/retail on that corner. What your essentially telling me is that premium on the land purchase essentially leaves Pace only enough in the piggy bank/financing to do a cheap retail build with the hopes you can charge the highest rater on retail square footage in the immediate area. Would that be a fair statement?
Actually, the more expensive the land, the more density on the site is required to make the numbers work.
Retail tenants pay a lot of rent. Especially ground lease deals like they got for the free standing single tenant building. So, sometimes, even with expensive land -- you can go straight retail.
Otherwise, you'll see denser projects to make the return you need to pull the project off.
In this case, yes we all wish something larger was being built beyond street level retail only. Something like retail first floor with office or apartments above with structured parking.
Obviously Pace decided there was either (i) too much risk to go bigger or (ii) felt there was not enough demand for apartments or office. Probably combo of the two.
Retail tenants pay a lot of rent. Especially ground lease deals like they got for the free standing single tenant building. So, sometimes, even with expensive land -- you can go straight retail.
Otherwise, you'll see denser projects to make the return you need to pull the project off.
In this case, yes we all wish something larger was being built beyond street level retail only. Something like retail first floor with office or apartments above with structured parking.
Obviously Pace decided there was either (i) too much risk to go bigger or (ii) felt there was not enough demand for apartments or office. Probably combo of the two.
Email Pace's VP of Development Steven Heitz here to express your concerns: sheitz@paceproperties.com
This site plan is really bad, and it makes me sad that there are some people defending it. We have to demand better than crap like this.
Any even if one of these buildings is a Target, this is not what anyone has been asking for. A "City Target" (which I guess may not be an official distinction any more) is a Target adapted to an urban environment. Not an urban environment adapted to a suburban Target.
This site plan is awful and will accomplish a little good on a parcel that should accomplish a lot of good. And these aren't temporary buildings that will be replaced once demand goes up. We'll be stuck with these for decades.
This site plan is really bad, and it makes me sad that there are some people defending it. We have to demand better than crap like this.
Any even if one of these buildings is a Target, this is not what anyone has been asking for. A "City Target" (which I guess may not be an official distinction any more) is a Target adapted to an urban environment. Not an urban environment adapted to a suburban Target.
This site plan is awful and will accomplish a little good on a parcel that should accomplish a lot of good. And these aren't temporary buildings that will be replaced once demand goes up. We'll be stuck with these for decades.
^^^ no, I don't support that. Steve is not a public servant. He's a private developer that has every right to develop land that he owns within the zoning laws.
If you have an issue with the zoning laws, email the appropriate public servant.
If you have an issue with the zoning laws, email the appropriate public servant.
- 3,235
I don't disagree with you on having the right zoning in place but I do disagree with you on not contacting the developer. The community should provide input on how they want the community to look and contacting the developer is necessary to move forward. Just because he owns the land doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. The community is left with the structure while the developer is often off to another site they can scar.kbshapiro wrote:^^^ no, I don't support that. Steve is not a public servant. He's a private developer that has every right to develop land that he owns within the zoning laws.
If you have an issue with the zoning laws, email the appropriate public servant.
- 8,155
Anyone know why the rezoning is needed as its zoned unrestricted? Does special approval need to be given because of the drive-thru use?
I could support a ground-only retail project if it were well-designed, but this is not that project.... hopefully Pace is forced to change it. Something like the retail project on S. Grand on the block between Arsenal and Hartford with the chains would be okay... parking in back, entrances in front and with a strong pedestrian realm would be acceptable.
I could support a ground-only retail project if it were well-designed, but this is not that project.... hopefully Pace is forced to change it. Something like the retail project on S. Grand on the block between Arsenal and Hartford with the chains would be okay... parking in back, entrances in front and with a strong pedestrian realm would be acceptable.
kb, yes, Pace has the right to proceed with a legal project but of course private citizens who don't like it should be able to speak up to express their views to the company at the same time.... I'd submit companies truly seeking the good of the community would encourage feedback from the public.kbshapiro wrote:^^^ no, I don't support that. Steve is not a public servant. He's a private developer that has every right to develop land that he owns within the zoning laws.
If you have an issue with the zoning laws, email the appropriate public servant.
- 9,566
^ Roger-
maybe just in case in the future they dont want to deal with this.In the unrestricted district buildings and premises may be used for any purpose whatsoever not in conflict with any ordinance of the city regulating nuisances or Section 26.60.025, provided that motor fuel pumping stations shall meet the site requirements specified in Section 26.40.027 and carry-out restaurants that sell to customers in cars or who consume the sold products in cars parked on the carry-out restaurant premises, or sell products through a sales window, to customers who are in cars, for immediate consumption by the customer either on or off the premises shall meet the site requirements specified in Section 26.40.026 B 1 or 2 as appropriate. Provided, however, that no building shall be hereafter erected, nor shall any existing building be converted, reconstructed or structurally altered for dwelling purposes.
see my issue with this is yeah sure public input is good but reality is we have no freaking idea what we are talking about...we have things that we want and like but most of us are clueless in developing a site and whats possible and whats not possible...roger wyoming II wrote:
kb, yes, Pace has the right to proceed with a legal project but of course private citizens who don't like it should be able to speak up to express their views to the company at the same time.... I'd submit companies truly seeking the good of the community would encourage feedback from the public.