urbanSTL

If stuff like this will continue to be the redevelopment of the city, then count me out. This is ridiculous. The city CAN and SHOULD demand higher quality developments. Copying Richmond Heights or (insert any suburban garbage) should not be in the city's future. Just landing a Target or whatever in a horribly designed strip mall doesn't equate to a strong new urban core. I will say, I think IKEA is different, so i'm not trashing that store, but to complement the whole area with big box doesn't serve the city well.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:^I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but just to better understand, how specifically does it not serve the city well?

I think there is a difference between not serving the city well, and not serving the city well in a more urban fashion. I'll take the more dense, street/pedestrian friendly, and smartly designed options every time. In objective terms, however, how are they superior in a way that someone that doesn't care about urban design could look at the economics and say, "your right, that doesn't work."

Because we've seen the results of auto centric development patterns.

It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of what is more likely to lead to a healthier city.

kbshapiro wrote: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.

I genuinely appreciate the feedback. And I'm certainly not saying my idea is the best possible use for the site; I'm just kinda throwing stuff out there I whipped up (mostly) on my lunch break at work.

That said, those two restaurants on my doodle *are* technically street-facing; they're just not facing Vandeventer. They're instead facing a new street I'd build on the property. Maybe it can be designated an extension of IKEA way?

I'd think if Pace's goal is visibility, then they'd want visibility from the highway more than they'd want it from Vandeventer, no? If so, then why not do it the old-fashioned way - with massive pylon signs:



Signs like that would be visible both from I-64 and from the IKEA parking lot (over the frontage buildings) if they're tall enough. And that's who they'd be targeting - people arriving via the highway to go to Swedish furniture shopping.

Idunno; I'm just looking for better ideas. Pace's other city properties aren't terribly urban in form. I'm not saying they have to build mid-rise buildings with fast-food joints on the first floor and an inter-modal metro stop built in place of surface parking. I do get that they're fishing for retail catering to folks arriving by car and need to appeal to them. I'm just hoping they'd acknowledge the non-IKEA neighborhood context - both extant and being built nearby - a little better. I'm just trying to see if a compromise in plotting can be reached.

-RBB

kbshapiro wrote: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.

Sorry, I just cannot agree with this or the "visibility" argument others are postulating. Not when Pace's Boulevard project is built better and in a more urban form than anything that has been proposed here. That project is sandwiched between 170 and the very car centric Brentwood Blvd. If Midtown Station is built well and in an urban fashion, along with the empty lot at the northwest corner of Vandeventer & FPP, then it will go a long way to mitigating the feel of the IKEA lot.

It actually blows my mind at how much worse these proposal from Pace have become over the last year...

They may be preliminary, but there are plans to have a greenway/bike path running from the new Boyle Metrolink station to points east, including on the elevated trestles along the southern border of this lot. It'd be nearsighted and wasteful if this development ends up turning its back to and isolating itself from such a potentially valuable pedestrian viaduct for the neighborhood and surrounding areas. The synergies from such a pathway and the land-use around it could really be transformative for much of the area below the Parkway.

^ I'd like to know how far along GRG is in planning on the greenway.... the TIGER grant was to help out a bit in addition to the Metrolink station.

billikens&bricks wrote:
If they do not come up with anything better then the city SHOULD let them walk. Development in this area is booming and someone else will come along... maybe not right away but it will happen.

Also, many people have not even considered the Chouteau's Grove project yet. That project alone will do a lot to fill in the area between SLU and the Grove.Along, with IKEA though, Pace's current proposal will essentially sever any hope of establishing that connection though.

PLEASE let them walk if the design isn't substantially improved.

I agree completely. We can have a denser, more vibrant and walkable area from the Grove to Grand Center if we wish to. We have the favorable socio-economic changes in the area in our favor and if the Pace spot just isn't quite there yet for solid redevelopment then let it be for now.

Cortex buys the property details from Stl BJ

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ation.html

I've always fantasized about SLU establishing a major tech campus on the site, eventually stretching all the way to Grand.

^ This story is for a different thread but like this idea as per the PD story even though I wish the focus was Railway Exchange building. Tie in a vocational tech/advance manufacturing (robotics) campus.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 34165.html

Who owns the Federal Mogul site?

http://m.stltoday.com/business/local/a- ... 2c6ab.html

^ The scary thought is Lawrence Group has two ambitious projects in Mid-Town and Federal Mogul Site. Plus side is that CORTEX is involved with the purchase of property along Vande.

I understand that the 13 story building along Vande and next to repurposed trestle to be office which If I understand correctly is not within the CORTEX TIF itself. Wonder how far this is out and if their might be a tenant interest.

I also find it unique that hotel(s) are not mentioned in the plan development. I wonder if this is an understanding between Lawrence & CORTEX and or also realization by Lawrence that CORTEX already has some commitments forthcoming

Pace's project is dead. Here's thee thread for Lawrence Group's project:

http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 8&start=45