urbanSTL

Maybe the coffee/bike shop will be called "Road Crew". Building permits say "Road Crew" but that could be anything really. 

Road Crew.CC is indeed the name. Bike repair and merch on one side, Blueprint Coffee and Whisk baked goods on the other.
https://www.facebook.com/roadcrew.cc/

A&M is still.open up the street, as the former owner's family has kept it going after his death.
I'm pretty surprised that the developers here are housing a tenant in direct competition with a neighborhood institution 3 blocks north.

Andrew, Road Crew is primarily a coffee and pastry shop with a custom cycle shop as an additional source of revenue.  The cycle side of the business will primarily be driven by local cycling clubs and as far as I know, Road Crew won't have an inventory of bikes, rather they'll build custom, made-to-order bikes.  A few points for you to consider before criticizing anyone building a new building or opening a new business in the neighborhood:

• Now that the founder of A&M has sadly passed away, the business might not be run as well and/or with the same motivations.  Therefore, who knows how long it will be in business.  The family might currently be keeping it open due to emotional connections rather than to drive a profit and offer the best services possible.  Without profits and/or a waning emotional connection, the business might ultimately close (it would be difficult to hold inventory and pay employees a livable wage if the business loses money).  If that is the case, there will no longer be a bike shop in the neighborhood, which would be disappointing to many neighborhood folks who are cycling enthusiasts and bike commuters.
• The developers took a huge chance by adding retail to the ground floor of the building.  I seriously doubt there are new businesses scrambling to go into the retail bays because the building has been actively marketed for rent to potential commercial users for over 2.5 years (my point is, it's not like the MOFO owners are fighting off a long line of prospective retail/commercial tenants and then they maliciously chose to put in a competing bike shop).  Road Crew is the first commercial tenant.  Is it really that awful for the building owners to put a new business in one of the bays that has an overlap with an existing business, although adds a new service (coffee/pastries) to the TGS community, when there isn't substantial demand for the new retail space and therefore the owners, its investors, and its lender are concerned about the retail vacancies?  
• Would you criticize them for putting a restaurant in the retail space?  There are many restaurants on the MoFo strip.  What businesses do you think should be allowed to go here?  

It feels like these developers are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Ultimately, there should be room for both A&M and Road Crew.CC.  

Phiippi II, how is the andrewkills critiicizing?? Simply states that he or she surprised their might a store in direct competition down the street and you go on a rant.  Andrewkills would have to explain the surprise part because in my mind any commercial space is going to find a tenants that lease from them first and foremost, undoubtly they think their is a demand as well as took the risk you correctly stated and worry about is down the road second

dredger wrote: andrewkills...  Andrewkills... 

andrewarkills*

Random thought: I'm hoping that the dirty 7/11 next to MOFO can get razed and replaced with something that belongs next to MOFO. 

Morganford could be an incredible stretch. Just needs some work. It's getting there. 

aprice wrote:

dredger wrote: andrewkills...  Andrewkills... 

andrewarkills*

Thankyou for correcting my mistake.   I should have proof read my hasty response.    

KansasCitian wrote: Random thought: I'm hoping that the dirty 7/11 next to MOFO can get razed and replaced with something that belongs next to MOFO. 

Morganford could be an incredible stretch. Just needs some work. It's getting there. 

If I remember correctly the same group that built this one purchased the 7-11 lot at the end of last year.

Who (I should add as a neighborhood property owner) I hope do extremely well with MoFo, their plan for the white building+addition on empty lot a few blocks South, as well as the 7-11 property. What they are building in the neighborhood is dense, neighborhood appropriate and far higher use than the properties were before they came along. Gripe about tax breaks all you want, as long as the system is in place I can't begrudge people for attempting to maximize their benefit. Direct the ire at those responsible for the system, not those existing within it.

newstl2020 wrote:

KansasCitian wrote: Random thought: I'm hoping that the dirty 7/11 next to MOFO can get razed and replaced with something that belongs next to MOFO. 

Morganford could be an incredible stretch. Just needs some work. It's getting there. 

If I remember correctly the same group that built this one purchased the 7-11 lot at the end of last year.

Who (I should add as a neighborhood property owner) I hope do extremely well with MoFo, their plan for the white building+addition on empty lot a few blocks South, as well as the 7-11 property. What they are building in the neighborhood is dense, neighborhood appropriate and far higher use than the properties were before they came along. Gripe about tax breaks all you want, as long as the system is in place I can't begrudge people for attempting to maximize their benefit. Direct the ire at those responsible for the system, not those existing within it.

The 7-11 lease runs through 2027. It was on the market recently, being pitched as an income property not redevelopment opportunity. So unless the new owner cuts some deal to buy 7-11 out of their lease, I don't see it going anywhere.

^Got it. Thank you for the info!

As others have stated, I would love to see the 7-11 remain as the retail tenant in a building similar MoFo. Pipe Dream for this stretch for the time being, it seems.

Between the 7-11, the IMO's building, and that ugly plaza thing with the Montessori workshop, it's really sad how bad suburban designs decades ago screwed up this street.  

SouthCityJR wrote: Between the 7-11, the IMO's building, and that ugly plaza thing with the Montessori workshop, it's really sad how bad suburban designs decades ago screwed up this street.  

Because decades ago, the powers that be said that "there is no way that street will ever develop into a walkable, mixed-use, urban streetscape again, this city is too auto-dependent.  So, we need to take whatever development we can get, even if it results in a sea of surface parking and the sidewalk is one continuous curb cut."  

But, at least everyone has learned from those mistakes...

newstl2020 wrote: Direct the ire at those responsible for the system, not those existing within it.

Not sure who is directing ire at the players, but there are legitimate expressions of surprise/disappointment in the Road Crew space... new, complimentary services to the n'hood like a bank, etc. is what I remember being pitched to the community by the developer. Maybe that will still come in the other space but I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's been a controversial project to say the least, and this space isn't really soothing concerns.

Is there anything else controversial about it besides some people not liking the aesthetic? 

STLrainbow wrote:

newstl2020 wrote: Direct the ire at those responsible for the system, not those existing within it.

Not sure who is directing ire at the players, but there are legitimate expressions of surprise/disappointment in the Road Crew space...   new, complimentary services to the n'hood like a bank, etc. is what I remember being pitched to the community by the developer. Maybe that will still come in the other space but I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's been a controversial project to say the least, and this space isn't really soothing concerns.

I think it's always important to remember that property owners can only lead horses to water.  The developers very likely pitched a bank/credit union because they genuinely wanted a bank/credit union to take occupancy in the building.  However, if there's no bank/credit union interested in expanding, and not expanding into the heart of a neighborhood, then there's nothing that can be done.  At some point a property owner must move on to attempt to source other tenants that will provide an amenity to the other tenants and neighborhood.  

What's important to me personally, is that there are tenants going into the commercial space that hire local residents, pay a living wage, and contribute to the tax rolls via earnings and sales taxes.  I know I can't speak for everyone, but I believe it's unfair to hold something against someone that's outside of their control.  If the developers truly made best efforts to bring in a bank/credit union and it didn't work out because those entities didn't believe in the location, then it is what it is.  Hopefully, a bank/credit union and other value-add tenants will soon realize they want to be on the Morganford strip because of this building, the Amsterdam Tavern expansion, etc. and one will go in the next building that's developed.

STLrainbow wrote:

newstl2020 wrote: Direct the ire at those responsible for the system, not those existing within it.

Not sure who is directing ire at the players, but there are legitimate expressions of surprise/disappointment in the Road Crew space...   new, complimentary services to the n'hood like a bank, etc. is what I remember being pitched to the community by the developer. Maybe that will still come in the other space but I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's been a controversial project to say the least, and this space isn't really soothing concerns.

In the most polite way possible, this sounds like a whole lot of Nimby-ism wrapped in a "just want the best for the neighborhood" tortilla. Like low quality beef being smothered in sour cream and snuck by you in a taco bell crunch wrap.

^ Look, it's really not. God forbid folks have a variety of opinions and not everyone drools over every development that comes before them. Pathetic!

So, it's controversial because it got a tax abatement (already established, not the development's fault, simply playing by the rules as presented). Lots of people don't like that tax abatement is offered period. Count me among them, but they are.

How does building *less* impact housing affordability? No one seems to address this, the argument is just that the developers should all price units lower or have an affordable component. If they do and it makes the development not feasible and 26 or whatever this is less housing units go into the market, how does that accomplish addressing affordability concerns?

Community benefits? This is an apartment building. The community benefit is increased residents, foot traffic, business patrons, traction for the neighborhood and city. EDIT: You said Community benefits agreement and I misread. My apologies. A community benefits agreement if promised/discussed/etc with the developer is certainly a fair point.

Types of retail? People are seriously getting bent out of shape about a bike/coffee/bake shop thinking it's a good idea to locate in one of the denser, most bike centric areas of the city 4 blocks away from the second biggest park in the region...because there is a bike only shop that has been here before 4 blocks to the North? This makes no sense. There are more people likely to patronize bike centric stores within a few miles of here than anywhere else. But no other concept besides A&M can ever open because it's been here for a while? It's called competition and if A&M offers differentiated service/better products/etc they'll be fine. If not, hypothetically, it's better for the neighborhood and residents to have an inferior option because it was here first? (ZERO to do with the current state of either business, purely hypothetical)

A range of opinions is fine as long as they make sense. I don't see how the arguments against this development as put forward to this point make sense unless the argument is actually "This should have been 40 low income housing units to increase affordability in the neighborhood." That is a point that people could argue directly. Dancing around it via abstract "concerns" doesn't forward the conversation anymore than making a senseless quip about a Nimby burrito does.

^ I'm not trying to argue anything... I'm not a NIMBY & I'm not a YIMBY; was just trying to convey what concerns were expressed during this process, some of which I think were valid . Enjoy your burrito and have a good night!

^And you did well conveying what was expressed. As a neighborhood resident I disagree with all as presented for the above reasons. (Other than tax abatement.)