^ well, sure, some comments are going to be more informed than others -- that holds true for just about anything of some complexity -- but that doesn't mean people shouldn't express opinions to the principals. I just think it is wrong to say that it is okay to share an opinion with a public officeholder but not the person actually proposing a project that will have important impacts upon the community.
roger wyoming II wrote:Here is the most recent image, btw, it's a more detailed site plan than the one last posted:
Just guessing based on the layout, but it appears this (currently theoretical) drive-through restaurant would be configured like this Chik-Fil-A, where there's signage, an appearance of the front of the building, and a front door (hence the sidewalk leading to it) on the street-facing side of the building, and a drive-through wrapping around the back of the building:wabash wrote:It look like it would have its back fronting the street - with no entrance facing Vandeventer.
As a rule you're not wrong. But do keep in mind this is next to an IKEA. People will be coming to St. Louis from all over the Midwest to shop here, and the vast majority are not taking the bus. I'm sure this site in particular is being designed to attract folks driving here to shop at IKEA; and folks driving cars are going to be the vast majority of IKEA customers. looking at it strictly from a revenue-generating perspective, a developer would be smart to target folks like that there.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.
That said, PACE can still be held to a higher standard of design, even if they're targeting auto traffic. Take for example, The Market at McKinley. Again, it's not ideal from an urbanist's standpoint, but at least it has the outbuildings pushed up to the street, presenting the most urban part of Manchester west of Maplewood (well, half of it, anyway). Take that and add sidewalk entrances to the fronts and you have something to work with. It looks like that's where they're going with the largest building, though again I see no street-facing entrances for pedestrians walking along Vandeventer
Drive-through restaurants have their limitations, though. The Market at McKinley has a Wendy's and a Starbucks on the west end, and they're decidedly less urbane than the outbuildings. I understand the desire to have a fast food joint there, though, and there's only so much you can do to make one of those look urban.
Both of the smaller buildings have drive-throughs, so I'm guessing they're both restaurants. Maybe the larger one would be something like a Panera Bread co on Chippewa, which is a sit-down place that also has a drive-through. I still think the site can be arranged a bit better, though, and there's a lot of green space there too.
Are we certain that the buildings proposed are already purposed? Say they can't attract two restaurants, or say Walgreens and Sprint both express an interest in the site and are willing to pay more than a Wendys franchisee or a Chik-fil-A. Are they set on food, or will they repurpose the side if the retailers who express interest require different structures?
-RBB
- 8,155
^ The issue to me is having a good design for the uses that will serve not only the IKEA super-regional attraction but also the burgeoning district surrounding the site.... it's less than 2,000' from the planned dense US Metals site and only about a 1/2 mile from the planned Metrolink stop and the large Green Street development on Chouteau. And of course there is the easy access from SLU. So making it a decent, if not great, pedestrian experience is vital.
I think I mentioned before that something like the developments on Forest Park Ave would be great... i.e. the Metropolitan Lofts with the ground floor BreadCo. and/or Parkway Hotel with ground floor Applebee's. But even w/o the above ground uses, a retail only development could still be designed much better for its surrounding land use context.
I think I mentioned before that something like the developments on Forest Park Ave would be great... i.e. the Metropolitan Lofts with the ground floor BreadCo. and/or Parkway Hotel with ground floor Applebee's. But even w/o the above ground uses, a retail only development could still be designed much better for its surrounding land use context.
And as a private citizen, I have every right to contact him and share my opinion. I'm not sure why you think that crosses some kind of line.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.
If we only depend on government to solve the problems, we'll get nowhere. We have to have respect for each other, and part of that is sharing our opinions with each other, and hopefully taking them into account when making decisions.
Be respectful when you contact him, but absolutely contact him. That's precisely what I did.
How about this: Turn the Pace entrance into a proper two-lane street, and orient the fast food to it. This allows you to add another street-facing retail building (or leave the plot vacant for now for future development if there's not sufficient demand now) to Vandeventer, building a proper street wall:
![]()
This would involve turning the alleyway into a proper street too, which would either involve nibbling into the adjacent property or perhaps shortening the northernmost building a skosh to fit in the current plot. But you'd get more parking this way, and some of that surface parking could even be built on later if demand exists.
Just a thought,
-RBB
This would involve turning the alleyway into a proper street too, which would either involve nibbling into the adjacent property or perhaps shortening the northernmost building a skosh to fit in the current plot. But you'd get more parking this way, and some of that surface parking could even be built on later if demand exists.
Just a thought,
-RBB
^Well done RBB. A small step in the right direction and seemingly reasonable and consistent with Pace's otherwise awful vision. Right out of the Lindell CVS playbook.
JStriebel - what do you do for a living?
RBB - I understand what you're doing. Urbanists want buildings up against the road. Issue is, you could never lease the two buildings hidden behind the two buildings along the road at new construction rent pricing, if you could lease them at all. Pace's plan was designed to leave some view corridors to the buildings behind.
RBB - I understand what you're doing. Urbanists want buildings up against the road. Issue is, you could never lease the two buildings hidden behind the two buildings along the road at new construction rent pricing, if you could lease them at all. Pace's plan was designed to leave some view corridors to the buildings behind.
Why don't urban developers here see the value in creating a destination rather than this generic exurban shlock? There's an opportunity here to help write the next chapter for Midtown St. Louis-- to make a statement and to set the tone for an urban future. The current proposal is straight up laughable-- no city that considers itself halfway progressive would let this fly in such a high-profile location. It's awful- we need to call it out for what it is. It's embarrassing and we deserve better. This junk belongs off an interstate exit in Warrenton.
I'll be happy to share this with you, but first I'm curious why it's relevant?kbshapiro wrote:JStriebel - what do you do for a living?
^ just curious because if you call Steve Heitz who develops retail properties for a living and you're a IT guy or a physical therapist -- I don't think he's going to listen to you. Obviously, do what you want. just saying there are more appropriate people to voice your concerns with (public officials) and better times to do it (like the public comment portion of P & Z meetings).
STLGasm-- I think there are sites for large mixed use projects (like Federal Mogul or within CORTEX). This site isn't one of them. This is a car centric site. It shares a signalized intersection with a car centric IKEA and it's right off a major interstate that carries 100,000 plus cars a day. Just off FPP which is an expressway. Vandeventer is a major roadway.
There is nothing around IKEA that people will walk to. Is a SLU student going to walk to IKEA, buy a couch and carry it on his back to his dorm? Again, this site is car centric and designed as such.
I know everyone wants a multi-level mixed use building on every piece of property in the City -- but that's not realistic. Got to look at the positives -- new businesses coming to the City, most of the parking is off the street, new buildings replacing old crappy warehouses, and more tax rev for city.
I'm not here to defend Pace. They are our largest competitors. The above is purely my unbiased opinion
There is nothing around IKEA that people will walk to. Is a SLU student going to walk to IKEA, buy a couch and carry it on his back to his dorm? Again, this site is car centric and designed as such.
I know everyone wants a multi-level mixed use building on every piece of property in the City -- but that's not realistic. Got to look at the positives -- new businesses coming to the City, most of the parking is off the street, new buildings replacing old crappy warehouses, and more tax rev for city.
I'm not here to defend Pace. They are our largest competitors. The above is purely my unbiased opinion
- 3,235
We shouldn't sacrifice our built wnvironment just for a few tax dollars.
BTW - I live it what was once deemed to be a crappy warehouse. Now it's a beautiful residential building.
BTW - I live it what was once deemed to be a crappy warehouse. Now it's a beautiful residential building.
- 8,155
^^ KB, there is no particular reason that the scaled-down site can't serve mixed-uses and be pedestrian friendly. Yes, Forest Park is an expressway to the east, but not here.... its a 30 m.p.h. zone (I believe) and the crossing is not particularly an issue. Also, SLU students already are crossing to IKEA... are you kidding me that you think they wouldn't? (Do you even know what IKEA sells/offers?)
We just have to determine if we want to be a proper urban city moving forward or not. There is no reason the area south of FPA can't be more like a smaller version of Atlanta's Atlantic Station district in Atlanta... with time it could be dense enough to even warrant a look at another Metrolink stop. But that will never happen if we remain firmly devoid of imagination and refuse to look at the changing context of the area.
We just have to determine if we want to be a proper urban city moving forward or not. There is no reason the area south of FPA can't be more like a smaller version of Atlanta's Atlantic Station district in Atlanta... with time it could be dense enough to even warrant a look at another Metrolink stop. But that will never happen if we remain firmly devoid of imagination and refuse to look at the changing context of the area.
- 1,864
I have personally witnessed SLU students carrying large boxes and a couch across FPP from IKEA to SLU. So that argument holds zero weight.
- 8,155
jstriebel is twitter besties with the likes of Mozeliak and Gabe Lozano... I admire his passion.
Unpossible! Frankly, It's amazing to me that someone would think a little thing like Forest Park Avenue would stop young students from getting their IKEA fix and enjoying cheap eats, picking up knick-knacks, and hauling the occasional heavy item back to their apartment or dorm room. (There's also delivery.) Heck, I remember my undergrad days lugging lumber a mile with my dorm mate about a mile to build a loft... and the lumber store didn't even have $4.99 swedish meatball w/ mashed potatoes dinner and free coffee. The olden days were rough times, kids!chaifetz10 wrote:I have personally witnessed SLU students carrying large boxes and a couch across FPP from IKEA to SLU. So that argument holds zero weight.
- 1,864
^Agreed. Rather than use FPP as an excuse to build drive through type developments and telling us not to contact the developer... Let's try to actually break the status quo mold of St. Louis development for once! We have a major university, a destination retailer, and a booming tech district! Why shouldn't we contact the developer and ask for better development at this site?!
Kbshapiro- with all due respect, most of the established retail developers in St. Louis are completely out of touch with modern trends in retail design. Go to other cities and you'll see much more imaginative, place-based retail centers that fit in with their urban context. St. Louis is woefully lagging in this regard. There are ways to build Midtown Station that wouldn't sacrifice a single parking space yet would respect the urban surroundings. This intersection has the potential to become an urban mixed-use district. It's your defense of suburban development in our urban core that has relegated St. Louis to the bottom of the list of cities that people want to live in. when are we going to wake up and realize that the way we've been doing things (cheap, auto-dependent suburban design) hasn't been working too well. Just take a look at St. Louis Marketplace on Manchester Ave.
downtown - I think the warehouse re-dev you live in is much different than the warehouse on this site.
Roger and Chaifetz -- I'm sure there are kids walking to IKEA from SLU. Scary that they're crossing FPP with couchs and boxes but whatever. I get your point. The IKEA store is for people from a 150 mile radius. Those people obviously are 98 percent of the traffic to IKEA. Pace is building a project for the 98 percent. Not the 2 percent.
Again for the 100th time -- I want to see a mixed use, iconic development. We are all on the same page. I'm just explaining why Pace is doing what they're doing.
Roger and Chaifetz -- I'm sure there are kids walking to IKEA from SLU. Scary that they're crossing FPP with couchs and boxes but whatever. I get your point. The IKEA store is for people from a 150 mile radius. Those people obviously are 98 percent of the traffic to IKEA. Pace is building a project for the 98 percent. Not the 2 percent.
Again for the 100th time -- I want to see a mixed use, iconic development. We are all on the same page. I'm just explaining why Pace is doing what they're doing.
- 8,155
^ KB, I understand that, and actually I have no real qualms about the IKEA site. But it also seems like you are missing our point entirely. FPA just isn't a big deal as a barrier and just because IKEA came to that particular spot doesn't mean the surrounding area can't become an increasingly dense, vibrant, mixed-use district that balances autos and bike/ped/light rail/bus transportation.
I think this is a short-sighted way to to approach development. It ignores the ever-growing Cortex district, which aims to attract top talent from around the world. Do you really think smart, educated workers from the coasts who fly in for a job interview at Square, CIC, etc want to live next to a suburban strip mall? How are we positioning St. Louis to compete with other cities, and to attract top talent? The scars of building for the "98%" can be seen all over the city, designed to get people in and out as quickly as possible, and that's why 98% of the people are forced to drive everywhere in this heavily suburbanized metropolitan area. All the more reason why its crucial to distinguish the CITY from its suburbs, especially in these highly visible locations. As long as St. Louis tries to compete with its suburbs, it will lose. I find it hard to believe that shoppers won't come simply because the stores are built up to the sidewalks, with parking behind (or underneath, or above).kbshapiro wrote:
Roger and Chaifetz -- I'm sure there are kids walking to IKEA from SLU. Scary that they're crossing FPP with couchs and boxes but whatever. I get your point. The IKEA store is for people from a 150 mile radius. Those people obviously are 98 percent of the traffic to IKEA. Pace is building a project for the 98 percent. Not the 2 percent.
- 3,235
KB you are telling us why they prefer the site plan in the rendering which is appreciated.
What not appreciated is you telling us not to flood the developers email chastising the site. By doing so you are enabling the status quo. Profits far over exceeding place.
What not appreciated is you telling us not to flood the developers email chastising the site. By doing so you are enabling the status quo. Profits far over exceeding place.
I voice my opinions with all types. All respectful conversation helps.kbshapiro wrote:^ just curious because if you call Steve Heitz who develops retail properties for a living and you're a IT guy or a physical therapist -- I don't think he's going to listen to you. Obviously, do what you want. just saying there are more appropriate people to voice your concerns with (public officials) and better times to do it (like the public comment portion of P & Z meetings).
I'm a graphic designer. I don't think that limits me from having valid concerns and opinions on other industries.
I expressed my concerns to Mr. Heitz and I noted that I'm certain there are industry reasons for the decisions. I asked him to correct me where I was wrong and to inform me where I needed to be informed, and to hopefully engage me in a conversation over my hopes for that plot of land.
The notion that you can only have a reasonable opinion on something if you're trained in that industry is complete hogwash. Yes, there must be some deference to those "in the know." But we can all have valid opinions.
I deal with this every day a graphic designer, and yes, sometimes it's annoying, but other times it's needed.
By the way, and I tried to express this to Mr. Heitz, but I fully understand how you end up with an auto-centric development on this site.
That doesn't mean it's the right call. But understanding that business is business, there is absolutely room for a compromise.
It's not hard to put the parking in the back with the store front facing the street. It's a simple solution that is unlikely to sacrifice any business. Not doing so is simply lazy and holds back our city.
That doesn't mean it's the right call. But understanding that business is business, there is absolutely room for a compromise.
It's not hard to put the parking in the back with the store front facing the street. It's a simple solution that is unlikely to sacrifice any business. Not doing so is simply lazy and holds back our city.
- 1,792
Personally I think the biggest flaw in the site design is the fact that the plan doesn't accommodate Duncan passing all the way through the federal mogul site and connecting to Spring. The second fast food joint gets in the way. The fact that it doesn't connect means the redevelopment of Federal Mogul is a lot more limited in its options.
IKEA's auto oriented design should not have been viewed as a no-brainer. It has its negatives but the draw factor was a big reason to allow it despite the massive parking crater it necessitates. Nothing in this Plan will be a draw factor. This site will squeeze a little more out of the visitors to IKEA, but if it were not built they would most likely find food options nearby. Lindell and Grand have fast food, the Grove, CWE, and Midtown have neighborhood options. The net tax dollar increase from this development are minimal IMHO so that can't be used as a cudgel. If we were talking something a little more of a regional draw, like a Dave & Busters it'd be a little different.
IKEA's auto oriented design should not have been viewed as a no-brainer. It has its negatives but the draw factor was a big reason to allow it despite the massive parking crater it necessitates. Nothing in this Plan will be a draw factor. This site will squeeze a little more out of the visitors to IKEA, but if it were not built they would most likely find food options nearby. Lindell and Grand have fast food, the Grove, CWE, and Midtown have neighborhood options. The net tax dollar increase from this development are minimal IMHO so that can't be used as a cudgel. If we were talking something a little more of a regional draw, like a Dave & Busters it'd be a little different.