Villa's useless, please someone competent challenge him next time around.
So I had a conversation with someone who is on the planning commission. They approved it because the street grid around there is already jagged and they hoped it would not be too big a loss. The developer impressed them with his previous experience and made it seem like handicap accessibility to the adjacent parking lot would be essential. They did not want to be anti-development considering they had recently torpedoed the Aldi plan on south grand to close a street for parking.
From the outside it seems to us like there is blatant disregard of good urban principles. I got a better idea on what happens in the background. The person I talked to seemed very conscientious and was visibly disappointed to hear that so many of us disapprove of this.
From the outside it seems to us like there is blatant disregard of good urban principles. I got a better idea on what happens in the background. The person I talked to seemed very conscientious and was visibly disappointed to hear that so many of us disapprove of this.
- 3,762
well, i appreciate this person's concern but the reasoning is still dumb. so now the street grid will be even more jagged so the next time a developer wants a public street closed it'll be that much easier. secondly, the access argument is nonsense. a narrow street with well-timed lights and ADA ramps is perfectly accessible. and lastly, using "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" to pick which streets you're going to allow to be closed is the opposite of planning.imran wrote:So I had a conversation with someone who is on the planning commission. They approved it because the street grid around there is already jagged and they hoped it would not be too big a loss. The developer impressed them with his previous experience and made it seem like handicap accessibility to the adjacent parking lot would be essential. They did not want to be anti-development considering they had recently torpedoed the Aldi plan on south grand to close a street for parking.
From the outside it seems to us like there is blatant disregard of good urban principles. I got a better idea on what happens in the background. The person I talked to seemed very conscientious and was visibly disappointed to hear that so many of us disapprove of this.
An interesting point of comparison is BJC leasing the southeast corner of Forest Park. There was an organized pushback - which encouraged talks between the City and BJC - resulting in large sums going to help sustain the Park long-term. The hardliners weren't thrilled with the result, but in the end everyone benefitted.
With 17th Street closing there should be that dialogue of: How can this benefit the developer and benefit the residents and visitors of Downtown at the same time? Maybe demand that the dog park be public (instead of a private amenity)? Maybe demand that bike racks and/or drinking fountain be installed for pedestrians? Maybe make a small portion of 17th intersecting Wash Ave a tiny pocket park with a couple benches and some shade? This is the most basic conversation any city would have with a developer requesting the community's land - basically "What's in it for us?" I don't think "We're redeveloping an apartment building, and we don't think that your 17th Street is that useful to you to begin within " is good enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With 17th Street closing there should be that dialogue of: How can this benefit the developer and benefit the residents and visitors of Downtown at the same time? Maybe demand that the dog park be public (instead of a private amenity)? Maybe demand that bike racks and/or drinking fountain be installed for pedestrians? Maybe make a small portion of 17th intersecting Wash Ave a tiny pocket park with a couple benches and some shade? This is the most basic conversation any city would have with a developer requesting the community's land - basically "What's in it for us?" I don't think "We're redeveloping an apartment building, and we don't think that your 17th Street is that useful to you to begin within " is good enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 307
http://www.kmov.com/story/32250461/city ... e-downtownDavis declined News 4’s request for an interview, but she did acknowledge residents’ concerns before her bill was passed. "I am sorry. I have heard everything. It will require the people in the printers loft building when they go out of their back door to walk an additional 180 feet. I am sorry but I shall move forward with this development," says Davis.
Wow. I don't want to put words in this alderperson's mouth, maybe the quote was cut off or out of context, but hopefully she recognizes there's more of a loss to this than people of a single building just having to walk a little farther.
I am the first to call out s%^t like this. I agree with the points you made. And if I was on the Planning Commission, I would not have a problem saying no all the time if necessary. However, I am an idealist like many of us on here.urban_dilettante wrote:well, i appreciate this person's concern but the reasoning is still dumb. so now the street grid will be even more jagged so the next time a developer wants a public street closed it'll be that much easier. secondly, the access argument is nonsense. a narrow street with well-timed lights and ADA ramps is perfectly accessible. and lastly, using "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" to pick which streets you're going to allow to be closed is the opposite of planning.imran wrote:So I had a conversation with someone who is on the planning commission. They approved it because the street grid around there is already jagged and they hoped it would not be too big a loss. The developer impressed them with his previous experience and made it seem like handicap accessibility to the adjacent parking lot would be essential. They did not want to be anti-development considering they had recently torpedoed the Aldi plan on south grand to close a street for parking.
From the outside it seems to us like there is blatant disregard of good urban principles. I got a better idea on what happens in the background. The person I talked to seemed very conscientious and was visibly disappointed to hear that so many of us disapprove of this.
We're still shutting down Chestnut in front of the Soldiers Memorial? Right.
- 3,762
yeah, it just sucks that what would be considered planning anywhere else is considered idealism in St. Louis.imran wrote:I am the first to call out s%^t like this. I agree with the points you made. And if I was on the Planning Commission, I would not have a problem saying no all the time if necessary. However, I am an idealist like many of us on here.
she doesn't. like most St. Louisans, her primary concern is convenient parking. this is another glaring example of why these decisions need to be taken out of aldermen's hands ASAP—particularly old-guard aldermen who can't imagine a world where they don't always get to park at the front door of their destination.San Luis Native wrote:http://www.kmov.com/story/32250461/city ... e-downtownDavis declined News 4’s request for an interview, but she did acknowledge residents’ concerns before her bill was passed. "I am sorry. I have heard everything. It will require the people in the printers loft building when they go out of their back door to walk an additional 180 feet. I am sorry but I shall move forward with this development," says Davis.
Wow. I don't want to put words in this alderperson's mouth, maybe the quote was cut off or out of context, but hopefully she recognizes there's more of a loss to this than people of a single building just having to walk a little farther.
Thankfully not.dweebe wrote:We're still shutting down Chestnut in front of the Soldiers Memorial? Right.
Remember, this is the City that allowed the residents of one single block of an otherwise long-running two-way street to have their block made one-way, thereby disrupting an otherwise continuous traffic flow (the 4200 block of Olive).urban_dilettante wrote: using "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" to pick which streets you're going to allow to be closed is the opposite of planning.
And what did it take to get Schoemehl pots put up all over the place? One or two calls to the alderman?framer wrote:Remember, this is the City that allowed the residents of one single block of an otherwise long-running two-way street to have their block made one-way, thereby disrupting an otherwise continuous traffic flow (the 4200 block of Olive).urban_dilettante wrote: using "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" to pick which streets you're going to allow to be closed is the opposite of planning.
- 40
The final vote to vacate this portion of 17th Street is this Friday.
If you haven't yet, call/email your Alderman to let him/her know your views on this issue.
More info here: http://www.saintlouisdna.org/our-stance ... th-street/
If you haven't yet, call/email your Alderman to let him/her know your views on this issue.
More info here: http://www.saintlouisdna.org/our-stance ... th-street/
There is an online petition now. If you do sign it, please make sure to enter your zip code in the comments section.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/17th ... =hootsuite
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/17th ... =hootsuite
Time for the name change on the thread? $51 million investment to put building back to use but it would be nice if they won't close door to infill/or new tower next door now that they got their street closure. Developer/owner at some point has to be able to land a full size Walgreens and or a CityTarget at some point.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 7b45a.html
Where CPI Corp. processed portrait photos for Sears and others, developer Michael Knight is about to start building apartments in a historic downtown St. Louis building.
Work is scheduled to begin in September to renovate the former CPI headquarters, at 1706 Washington Avenue, as 168 market-rate apartments and a preschool.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 7b45a.html
Where CPI Corp. processed portrait photos for Sears and others, developer Michael Knight is about to start building apartments in a historic downtown St. Louis building.
Work is scheduled to begin in September to renovate the former CPI headquarters, at 1706 Washington Avenue, as 168 market-rate apartments and a preschool.
All that and a free street!
Project financing includes city property tax abatement and historic preservation tax credits. Knight said St. Louis officials offered additional tax abatement to try to entice him to construct on the parking lot an apartment building with retail space. He said a national retailer did not respond to his query about joining such a project.
- 3,235
A Target or Walgreens will never locate to that retail space. Too far off beaten path.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^ I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps as of now, but with the addition of apartments from 17th-20th and the hotel that includes a bar and restaurant, I'd say wash ave is picking up and will be able to support a Walgreens sooner than later. My only concern is that a city target or something like that would have to compete with both a redone 7 11 and possibly a luckys grocery store. Maybe it's not going for the same clientele as luckys but I imagine they would compete heavily if they were so close to each other
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 8,910
quincunx wrote:All that and a free street!
Project financing includes city property tax abatement and historic preservation tax credits. Knight said St. Louis officials offered additional tax abatement to try to entice him to construct on the parking lot an apartment building with retail space. He said a national retailer did not respond to his query about joining such a project.
Isn't lucky's the national retailer that wouldn't "respond to his query?" So this "lucky's in the base of a new construction tower" bull chit was just a nugget to get preferred terms from the city and close a street?
- 2,430
^ the report is Lucky's is looking at the old English Living space.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 703cc.html
![]()
Work apparently is about to start on the project to put apartments in CPI Corp.'s former headquarters in downtown St. Louis.
Michael Knight, the building's owner, has a city permit to carry out the necessary interior demolition within the nine-story building at 1706 Washington Avenue. The permit issued Jan. 11 estimates interior demo costs at just over $1.2 million.
Knight, who is from Kansas City, plans 168 market-rate apartments and a preschool. His name for the project is Monogram in recognition of the building's original moniker. Knight said last summer he hoped to begin work in September. A few months later, the project appears to be ready to move ahead.