^Which includes the 18th Street Garage on Chestnut with around 900 spots
Welcome to the Internet, where "fixed it for you" is pretty common practice.frequentflyer wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019We're all entitled to our own opinions and I would never take it upon myself to edit someone else's post.
There's a bunch of junky looking buildings on the North side of Olive that add nothing to the cityscape of St. Louis. I'm all for historic preservation, but just because a building is old doesn't make it historically or architecturally significant.
So we're only talking about 5 buildings here (RFT's building isn't going anywhere). 2 of them still have an exposed historic facade, one was refaced in brick in the '90s or so, one was covered in stucco and might still have historic detail underneath, and the last one is a mix of covered and refaced. Yeah, they're no Locust Business District but calling for their demolition isn't going to fly, sorry. A mix of building sizes and ages is essential for a city. Especially since the 5 buildings in question have a decent street presence. This hotel you're asking for could be accompanied by a nice 5' strip of landscaping along the sidewalk, 200' of building frontage with no useable doors, and a main entrance facing a circle drive. And we're really not jonesing for buildable land in DTW.
- 99
I'm curious as to what kind of city views will be present in this new design. They only provided one interior view so far but it doesn't look like this design allows for any un-interrupted sight lines of the downtown skyline or any outside structures for that matter (that overhang is pretty substantial). The previous design seemed to make a point of showcasing views when it was abutting Union Station. Guess I'll wait for further interior renderings before passing final judgment.
Buildings that harken back to another time can ground new development. I am always ready to call BS on the all-or-nothing approach of large projects be it NGA, CORTEX, SLUH and new BJC buildings or this proposal. Push for preservation and you just might end up with a superior more unique product.aprice wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019Welcome to the Internet, where "fixed it for you" is pretty common practice.frequentflyer wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019We're all entitled to our own opinions and I would never take it upon myself to edit someone else's post.
There's a bunch of junky looking buildings on the North side of Olive that add nothing to the cityscape of St. Louis. I'm all for historic preservation, but just because a building is old doesn't make it historically or architecturally significant.
So we're only talking about 5 buildings here (RFT's building isn't going anywhere). 2 of them still have an exposed historic facade, one was refaced in brick in the '90s or so, one was covered in stucco and might still have historic detail underneath, and the last one is a mix of covered and refaced. Yeah, they're no Locust Business District but calling for their demolition isn't going to fly, sorry. A mix of building sizes and ages is essential for a city. Especially since the 5 buildings in question have a decent street presence. This hotel you're asking for could be accompanied by a nice 5' strip of landscaping along the sidewalk, 200' of building frontage with no useable doors, and a main entrance facing a circle drive. And we're really not jonesing for buildable land in DTW.
- 221
I'm not "asking for" a hotel. I merely made a suggestion. Nor did I say everything needed to be demo'ed.aprice wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019This hotel you're asking for could be accompanied by a nice 5' strip of landscaping along the sidewalk, 200' of building frontage with no useable doors, and a main entrance facing a circle drive. And we're really not jonesing for buildable land in DTW.frequentflyer wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019We're all entitled to our own opinions and I would never take it upon myself to edit someone else's post.
There's a bunch of junky looking buildings on the North side of Olive that add nothing to the cityscape of St. Louis. I'm all for historic preservation, but just because a building is old doesn't make it historically or architecturally significant.
Certainly, some buildings of a bygone era give character and depth to a neighborhood and city. If a building DOESN"T add to the character or cityscape, there's no point to keep it -- just because it's old.
Nothing is going to stand in the way of "civic progress" and if they ownership group is putting $250+ of their own money into DTW, I'm sure they'll get to keep, or get rid of, whatever they want.
I thought we were always demanding the former. Isn't Union Station a big part of the reason they are building the darn thing here in the first place? Since they chose to put it North of Market, there should be some plan to encourage peeps to move between them as much as possible, no?dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019Now we’re demanding better integration with and a tunnel from Union Station? What else can we ask for?
And a pedestrian connection to Union Station under Market is a no-brainer here, since little excavation is required and there will almost certainly be some connection under Market anyway, between the underground garage on one side and partially below-grade stadium on the other...
This strip of Market between Jefferson and Tucker is a drag strip currently, and is six lanes wide with few signals. It's not like east of Tucker. Of course they can do traffic calming, but this still has to carry a ton of traffic.wabash wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019I don’t see the need for that. Fans walk across Market to get to 41 Blues games each year and 81 Cardinals games (with much larger attendance) each year. The crosswalks seem to be working just fine.
- 2,386
Well I can't disagree any more with this. IMO a tunnel under market directly to Union Station is a terrible idea for this area. I am curious why all of a sudden we are clamoring for tunnels into union station/in the city period. Should we be picketing for more skyways between buildings while we're at it?urbanitas wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2019And a pedestrian connection to Union Station under Market is a no-brainer here, since little excavation is required and there will almost certainly be some connection under Market anyway, between the underground garage on one side and partially below-grade stadium on the other...dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019Now we’re demanding better integration with and a tunnel from Union Station? What else can we ask for
Why exactly do we want to encourage a reason for people to have as little interaction as possible with the city at large? Market is not going to be remotely close to the traffic situation it currently is when this is ready to go live. Lights, better pedestrian crossing/interaction will be designed and implemented. Additionally, this is not being designed or built as some stimulus package for LHM and Union Station. What is the value proposition of a tunnel?
Completely lost.
Ah, yeah this doesn't have anything to do with the reason they are building the stadium here. MLS wants urban, soccer dedicated stadiums and the useless highway interchange was a tailormade area of land that could be converted for use for this project. If anything I think Union Station was always a negative for this location with regards to the "goals" of this stadium and team.urbanitas wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2019I thought we were always demanding the former. Isn't Union Station a big part of the reason they are building the darn thing here in the first place? Since they chose to put it North of Market, there should be some plan to encourage peeps to move between them as much as possible, no?dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019Now we’re demanding better integration with and a tunnel from Union Station? What else can we ask for?
The "goals" as communicated are to create a stadium for the franchise in the city, while encouraging additional development in the surrounding area furthering the ongoing revival of the city. To this end, the current location (in my opinion) offers a myriad of options not available South of Market.
This is being built with private money, by a private entity. Why in the world would they have any concern for LHM/Union Station beyond their general affinity for the city as a whole? I am sure they are wishing success for their neighbors as it behooves all to have a thriving area. There is no connection between the two other than proximity of available (cheap) land in the original proposal/process.
Pedestrian tunnel under Market is a terrible idea. We want MORE people visible Downtown, not less.
The large plaza area along Market on the east side of the stadium basically marks the end of the Gateway Mall. It would be a great spot for some kind of monumental sculpture. Maybe The Gateway Foundation could come up with something.
![]()
Maybe I'm not present for the 30 minutes a day when it's busy. But why does Market have to carry a ton of traffic?urbanitas wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2019This strip of Market between Jefferson and Tucker is a drag strip currently, and is six lanes wide with few signals. It's not like east of Tucker. Of course they can do traffic calming, but this still has to carry a ton of traffic.
I live four blocks from the Market corner of the stadium and have never seen anything resembling "a ton of traffic" there
Does anyone have traffic counts? It'd be interesting to see what kind of street widths/lane counts our traffic numbers would prescribe.
I think Market could lose a lane in each direction. Keep the turn lane and things could be better.
I have no idea why so many are so opposed to the adjacent soccer fields. From looking at all the other MLS stadiums, and recent stadium proposals, it seems pretty clear that the MLS wants to see soccer fields near their new stadiums. probably for community outreach, for various fan events, soccer camps, high school playoffs, etc. What better place than in the shadow of the MLS stadium? They aren't just running a sports league here, they are the ambassadors for the game of soccer in the United States and Canada. Plus, active soccer fields mean a more active neighborhood. And what better way to hide a sea of parking?
To reiterate a previous post:
The Sacramento, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and San Diego MLS expansion proposals all show them. The renderings of the planned stadiums in Miami, Nashville, and Columbus show them, although the last one looks like it is just a placeholder for future development. DC and Minnesota's new stadiums both had very large adjacent green spaces shown in their renderings, but I can't tell if it is / was intended as a soccer pitch. (Chaifetz10 confirmed that Audi Field does not) . Current MLS stadiums in LA (Galaxy), Montreal, Chicago, San Jose, Dallas, and Philly all have one or more full-size fields a block or so away. Meanwhile, Colorado's stadium only has 24 fields nearby...no kidding, lol.
To reiterate a previous post:
The Sacramento, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and San Diego MLS expansion proposals all show them. The renderings of the planned stadiums in Miami, Nashville, and Columbus show them, although the last one looks like it is just a placeholder for future development. DC and Minnesota's new stadiums both had very large adjacent green spaces shown in their renderings, but I can't tell if it is / was intended as a soccer pitch. (Chaifetz10 confirmed that Audi Field does not) . Current MLS stadiums in LA (Galaxy), Montreal, Chicago, San Jose, Dallas, and Philly all have one or more full-size fields a block or so away. Meanwhile, Colorado's stadium only has 24 fields nearby...no kidding, lol.
The current 22nd St. / I-64 interchange connections to Pine are going bye-bye, and Pine Street will be closed, Jefferson Ave. is being completely reconfigured to become the main artery between North St. Louis - NGA - downtown - I-64 and I-44. And Market St. will be the main artery between downtown and the rebuilt Jefferson. Add in the increased activity from the new stadium and the revamped Union Station, and this stretch of Market is going to be a lot busier than it has in probably the last 50 years.eee123 wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2019Maybe I'm not present for the 30 minutes a day when it's busy. But why does Market have to carry a ton of traffic?urbanitas wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2019This strip of Market between Jefferson and Tucker is a drag strip currently, and is six lanes wide with few signals. It's not like east of Tucker. Of course they can do traffic calming, but this still has to carry a ton of traffic.
I live four blocks from the Market corner of the stadium and have never seen anything resembling "a ton of traffic" there
Does anyone have traffic counts? It'd be interesting to see what kind of street widths/lane counts our traffic numbers would prescribe.
I doubt it will be saved. That would be a rather awkward situation to have that building on their shiny, new stadium plaza. One of the articles mentioned that the team owners have all but one of the necessary properties along Olive and Pine under contract (besides the MODOT property). I suspect that building shown in the rendering is the holdout. It is owned by the KC developer, Abbott Properties...wabash wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2019I appreciate that they at least appear to be considering saving the 2008-2010 Olive building.
Could make for a nice bar/restaurant/brewery, on the grounds, even with Schlaf a block away.
- 2,056
Did anyone think twice about the mention of "festivals" in the article. Just spitballing here, but is a rainout-proof Loufest possible...?
With Union Station, a turf soccer fields, covered seating on the soccer field, surrounding bars, Schlafly really close, etc...
You could imagine shutting down Market for a block, filling them with food trucks, and making a more SXSW style Loufest with different types of shows and the main events in the stadium on field and in the seats? Maybe not as cool as Forest Park was, but could be a good way to mitigate risk for rainouts.
With Union Station, a turf soccer fields, covered seating on the soccer field, surrounding bars, Schlafly really close, etc...
You could imagine shutting down Market for a block, filling them with food trucks, and making a more SXSW style Loufest with different types of shows and the main events in the stadium on field and in the seats? Maybe not as cool as Forest Park was, but could be a good way to mitigate risk for rainouts.
Love it!!
(Other than the practice fields potentially turning into Bonaroo mudfest....)
(Other than the practice fields potentially turning into Bonaroo mudfest....)
- 474
^^^^^^^^Sorry for all the back tracking, but the scale on that last render is wrong. It only extends to Pine Street on the north side. The existing police parking lot between Olive and Pine can bee seen and the street running along the north side of the stadium appears to continue west past the parking garage for the Pear Tree Inn.
Simply because the MLS wants something and other cities are appeasing them doesn’t mean it’s sound planning or efficient land use.urbanitas wrote:I have no idea why so many are so opposed to the adjacent soccer fields. From looking at all the other MLS stadiums, and recent stadium proposals, it seems pretty clear that the MLS wants to see soccer fields near their new stadiums.
- 1,864
If there were dozens of companies all jockeying for land to move their headquarters downtown, then I'd agree with you. But there's just so much open land nearby that the practice fields make sense. If future demand increases, then they can be redeveloped.
- 710
this stadium (and contentious associated parcels/practice fields) are going into what is one of the worst urban planning/development downtown/downtown adjacent disaster zones i've seen in the u.s. in a region of this size. if this were the central west end or something, ok, but it's in the equivalent of built environment cancer. this will be ok i think...
- 2,419
I'm certainly not opposed to the practice fields being right next to the new stadium, but, like I said in a post before, I hope we see something like we saw in the April 2019 renderings, where a practice field was on top of a garage/building. That doesn't need to happen now, or even in the next five to ten years, but I'd love to see it happen someday.