The blocks surrounding the Muni Courts have seen over $300 million in new investment since the last attempt to renovate the building in 2009: Park Pacific renovation and garage ($109 million), Peabody Opera House ($79 million), Central Library ($70 million), Ford Apartments ($12 million), SLU Law School (cost undisclosed, but diagonal across the park), City Garden ($30 million) plus cleanup of Lucas Park and Library Park. The location is more attractive than it was in 2009.
- 8,155
According to the article, one developer is seeking to put restaurants and retail in, with the addition of a parking garage with first floor retail in the current surface lot behind. This intrigues me. If it does work, it might also give a boost to Union Station efforts by giving more life and foot traffic to the area.
- 3,235
“We know how people in St. Louis like to drive their cars,” Kennedy added. “Parking is a big part of the redevelopment plan.”
Does this stick out to anyone else? Is it possible to partner with the city, so they can used the garage constructed a block away at Clark and Tucker. We do we need a new parking garage with every new development.
Does this stick out to anyone else? Is it possible to partner with the city, so they can used the garage constructed a block away at Clark and Tucker. We do we need a new parking garage with every new development.
What if instead of a parking garage the region promised to get together and construct a major transit center just one block away, with a cab stand, a car rental office, myriad local and regional bus connections, the best light rail system in the midwest, and Greyhound and Amtrak service to bring tenants & shoppers to and from the development?
Or what if City Hall ceded or sold some of their enormous surface lot to the development?
![]()
Or what if City Hall ceded or sold some of their enormous surface lot to the development?
- 277
Someone should make an app that, given the nearest intersection, will graphically display the nearest parking spaces.
Then, ***** donate the app to the city, with the caveat that no new parking garages or lots be built.
edit: oh, and I'll build a kitchen for whoever does that.
Then, ***** donate the app to the city, with the caveat that no new parking garages or lots be built.
edit: oh, and I'll build a kitchen for whoever does that.
downtown2007 wrote:“We know how people in St. Louis like to drive their cars,” Kennedy added. “Parking is a big part of the redevelopment plan.”
Does this stick out to anyone else? Is it possible to partner with the city, so they can used the garage constructed a block away at Clark and Tucker. We do we need a new parking garage with every new development.
Are you crazy?! Everyone would get mugged, shot, and then hit by a car as they cross the street. I hope that they have enough sense to add an exit off of 40 that goes directly into this new parking garage.
- 11K
What if, indeed.wabash wrote:What if instead of a parking garage the region promised to get together and construct a major transit center just one block away, with a cab stand, a car rental office, myriad local and regional bus connections, the best light rail system in the midwest, and Greyhound and Amtrak service to bring tenants & shoppers to and from the development?
- 101
So if today is the deadline for proposals, does anyone have any idea how long it might conceivably be before some sort of announcement/decision is made?
- 1,320
In fairness about the parking issue, that comment was merely one statement from one of up to six developers. And he was proposing (1) turning a vacant building into offices and restaurants, and (2) replacing a surface parking lot with street level retail with structured parking above. That parking could provide high dollar cashflow during Peabody and Scottrade events, which may be the piece that makes the numbers work for that developer. Either way, I'll take street level retail over the current surface lot, even if his comment about Louvian Autophilia pushes my buttons.
Besides, I have a terrible hunch that one of those other proposals will be a glorified SLU dorm with blue neon pinstripes, surrounded by technicolor statues, urinating dogs and a golf cart.
Besides, I have a terrible hunch that one of those other proposals will be a glorified SLU dorm with blue neon pinstripes, surrounded by technicolor statues, urinating dogs and a golf cart.
- 11K
I'd all but guarantee it. Yes, another parking garage seems insane, but if incorporating retail and built on a surface lot, then it's an improvement.Presbyterian wrote:Besides, I have a terrible hunch that one of those other proposals will be a glorified SLU dorm with blue neon pinstripes, surrounded by technicolor statues, urinating dogs and a golf cart.
I would go one step farther, Why not top it off with some residential in addition to street level retail and parking if that is what it will take in the bankers eye. Essentially what Park Pacific was originally proposed to have and looking more like a missed opportunity (assuming that went cheap on garage construction and it can't support a tower as originally proposes)
At some point, new residential units will make sense. I think it is sooner then later. Tying it in with a structure that qualifies for historical tax credits, parking next to event generator and a pretty good location makes sense to me on the economic side. I'm just waiting for a developer with a willing banker to pull it off.
At some point, new residential units will make sense. I think it is sooner then later. Tying it in with a structure that qualifies for historical tax credits, parking next to event generator and a pretty good location makes sense to me on the economic side. I'm just waiting for a developer with a willing banker to pull it off.
The fact of the matter is, this building, without an adjacent garage, wont attract the tenants necessary to make the economics work for the developer. If you're building office space, and you want a tenant who can pay class A prices, then parking is a must. Thats just the way it is right now. Things can change, but city fundamentals (jobs, population) will have to first.downtown2007 wrote:“We know how people in St. Louis like to drive their cars,” Kennedy added. “Parking is a big part of the redevelopment plan.”
Does this stick out to anyone else? Is it possible to partner with the city, so they can used the garage constructed a block away at Clark and Tucker. We do we need a new parking garage with every new development.
While I like the idea of residential there, and wouldn't be surprised if a residential expansion is in a later phase, it's still an expensive endeavor. And I highly doubt a banker would back that considering our dismal economic growth.dredger wrote:I would go one step farther, Why not top it off with some residential in addition to street level retail and parking if that is what it will take in the bankers eye. Essentially what Park Pacific was originally proposed to have and looking more like a missed opportunity (assuming that went cheap on garage construction and it can't support a tower as originally proposes)
At some point, new residential units will make sense. I think it is sooner then later. Tying it in with a structure that qualifies for historical tax credits, parking next to event generator and a pretty good location makes sense to me on the economic side. I'm just waiting for a developer with a willing banker to pull it off.
- 3,235
I think a mixed use addition on top of parking garage should be explored. It's time we get something we want if we are going to give up valuable land for parking. I think condo/apts and offices could work.
Yes, it could work. But who is gonna take that bet? Not the developer, because there are several other residential projects (Roberts tower, Chemical bldg). And not the bank because the fundamentals of the area (job growth) don't warrant it.downtown2007 wrote:I think a mixed use addition on top of parking garage should be explored. It's time we get something we want if we are going to give up valuable land for parking. I think condo/apts and offices could work.
Also do you really think more offices would work? This building is already 160k sq ft of office. It would be too much new supply which would further suppress office rent pricing.
Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if residential will happen at a later phase. Just doesn't make economic sense at the moment.
- 3,235
We need to build our downtown and city for people, not cars. Another hulking garage is one step forward and one step back.
Right, how will anything ever change if we just subscribe to the thought that STL is a car town and always will be?downtown2007 wrote:We need to build our downtown and city for people, not cars. Another hulking garage is one step forward and one step back.
No surprise to the regulars here but its interesting to me how often our struggles seem to come back to this topic. This is such at the root of the problem. I think it can change, with time, and I hope it will. Off the top of my head - two main tactics: Increasing auto traffic limitations (City-To-River comes to mind) and increasing density downtown.ImprovSTL wrote:downtown2007 wrote:
We need to build our downtown and city for people, not cars. Another hulking garage is one step forward and one step back.
Right, how will anything ever change if we just subscribe to the thought that STL is a car town and always will be?
We're moving in the right direction in the latter IMO. If you look at downtown over the past four or so years (greatest economic downtown since the Great Depression) things have been more positive than negative IMO. That is something to give hope.
Plus, the somewhat recent news of SLU Law and the Arcade will help w/ density. With density will naturally come more obstacles to driving (increase in parking fees and time wasted in traffic) and higher incentives to use public transportation.
In addition, through community projects, etc I am often meeting new people who have the same feelings about downtown that many on this forum have. I know sometimes with the large suburb/exurb metro population it can be a little depressing and feel outnumbered but there are a number of people out there who want what we want and will go (and have been going) the extra mile for it.
Anyway, end of ramble. Back on topic:
StoryIdentities of all potential buyers of the vacant St. Louis Municipal Courts building were unavailable Friday, the deadline the city had set for bidders.
A St. Louis Development Corp. official said the names could be made public Monday, after the agency goes through Friday's final mail delivery.
Here's to good news on Monday.
- 1,320
I'll still be thrilled if a surface parking lot is replaced by ground level retail and a garage, particularly on a notoriously low-density and non-pedestrian street like Clark between Union Station and City Hall (a.k.a. loading docks meet train tracks, parking lots and gravel lots). I don't think condo developers are lining up to develop that parking lot. I don't know. Perhaps a glut of structured parking spaces would drive down the value of parking downtown, which would make surface lots unprofitable, tempting more lot owners to sell for urban infill development. If the prices drop, I'd think one garage could drive four or five surface lots out of business.
But to prohibit new developments from including structured parking? That could backfire badly.
My sense, FWIW, is that St. Louis as a metro area is a kid on training wheels where public transit is concerned. We've seen huge progress in twenty years. In 1992, Metrolink was still a concept and a construction project. No one had ridden it. It was expected to become Crime-link. Twenty years ago, downtown was dead. I remember twelve nearly-unbroken blocks of board-ups along Washington Avenue from Ninth Street west to Jefferson. There was no Post Office Plaza, City Museum, City Garden or loft district.
Today, 13,000 people live downtown, average suburbanites take the train to ballgames, the area is interlaced with bike trails and bike lanes, downtown has a bike station, Amshack is a diatant memory, and a trolly project is considered so sexy that it's actually being built, whether or not one thinks it makes sense. Yes, there are still people writing anti-urban and anti-transit comments on certain news websites ... but there are hundreds of thousands of locals who have experienced a profound cultural shift away from that declining perspective. St. Louis as a region has become generally pro-transit ... but like a kid on a bike with training wheels.
When can the wheels come off? That is, when can we get rid of a lot of parking garages (expecting people to use public transit, as they do in Chicago)? I suspect that can happen when:
(1) We see downtown become a mustn't-miss weekend destination, so that people will eagerly sacrifice more time to get there; or,
(2) We see downtown become a much more highly populated neighborhood, so that the people are already there; or,
(3) The feds give us a few billion dollars to upgrade our transit system to match that in Chicago, New York or San Francisco, such that it goes everywhere from everywhere relatively quickly.
Then parking garages will be less necessary. There's a process to get there, and we will get there. But it's a process of changing a culture. If we tried to skip the process and rush to the endgame, then I suspect we would sabotage our own success. If you forbid developers from building parking garages on surface parking lots behind abandoned buildings they hope to renovate -- or if you start adding congestion taxes to downtown traffic before the congestion even shows up -- then I doubt the results will be what we all desire.
But to prohibit new developments from including structured parking? That could backfire badly.
My sense, FWIW, is that St. Louis as a metro area is a kid on training wheels where public transit is concerned. We've seen huge progress in twenty years. In 1992, Metrolink was still a concept and a construction project. No one had ridden it. It was expected to become Crime-link. Twenty years ago, downtown was dead. I remember twelve nearly-unbroken blocks of board-ups along Washington Avenue from Ninth Street west to Jefferson. There was no Post Office Plaza, City Museum, City Garden or loft district.
Today, 13,000 people live downtown, average suburbanites take the train to ballgames, the area is interlaced with bike trails and bike lanes, downtown has a bike station, Amshack is a diatant memory, and a trolly project is considered so sexy that it's actually being built, whether or not one thinks it makes sense. Yes, there are still people writing anti-urban and anti-transit comments on certain news websites ... but there are hundreds of thousands of locals who have experienced a profound cultural shift away from that declining perspective. St. Louis as a region has become generally pro-transit ... but like a kid on a bike with training wheels.
When can the wheels come off? That is, when can we get rid of a lot of parking garages (expecting people to use public transit, as they do in Chicago)? I suspect that can happen when:
(1) We see downtown become a mustn't-miss weekend destination, so that people will eagerly sacrifice more time to get there; or,
(2) We see downtown become a much more highly populated neighborhood, so that the people are already there; or,
(3) The feds give us a few billion dollars to upgrade our transit system to match that in Chicago, New York or San Francisco, such that it goes everywhere from everywhere relatively quickly.
Then parking garages will be less necessary. There's a process to get there, and we will get there. But it's a process of changing a culture. If we tried to skip the process and rush to the endgame, then I suspect we would sabotage our own success. If you forbid developers from building parking garages on surface parking lots behind abandoned buildings they hope to renovate -- or if you start adding congestion taxes to downtown traffic before the congestion even shows up -- then I doubt the results will be what we all desire.
I think this is as fair statement as you can get. I also think the urban culture is building one resident at a time. Still capital will always plays a huge role and that role will most likely want to see downtown go from Step a ( a large amount of underutilized property/surfact lots) to b (build a garage behind to make the economics work to develop the muni building as one case) before getting to c (Direct vertical non garage construction on a surface parking lots).Presbyterian wrote: Then parking garages will be less necessary. There's a process to get there, and we will get there. But it's a process of changing a culture. If we tried to skip the process and rush to the endgame, then I suspect we would sabotage our own success. If you forbid developers from building parking garages on surface parking lots behind abandoned buildings they hope to renovate -- or if you start adding congestion taxes to downtown traffic before the congestion even shows up -- then I doubt the results will be what we all desire.
The art will be finding creative solutions for the developments that want to add parking by removing structures or strengthening of ordinances where options are ignored for convenience of demo. I do think this is one area where a lot of improvement and strong direction is needed instead of treasury trying to find another revenue gimmick through parking.
The big picture item in my thoughts, where would we want infill and parking garages to take place between Market and Hwy 40/I64. You got great potential for development while at the same time a huge amount of surface lot space that demand at the current rate will not fill up space in the foreseeable future.
1) Lots behind Muni/City Hall
2) Lots around the Amtrak/Greyhound/mulitmodal Center
3) Union Station/Lots on the West Side of US.
4) Not to mention BPV and remaining Cupples infill
5) Not to mention that at some point the Post Office will give us its location
- 2,929
Presbyterian: Great post there, really nailed the context of what's been going on.
I wish to point out one other option: That Downtown STL again becomes a center for business expansion.
Office workers fill Downtown with more traffic daily than residents do, and increasing the number of businesses that operate Downtown would be the biggest boon towards not just increased urban construction, but also towards increased vertical construction, increased pedestrians around Downtown, and increased funding towards City coffers, which can then be dedicated towards other pursuits (including many you had mentioned previously). Perhaps a more business-centric project is exactly what this site, and STL, really needs.
I wish to point out one other option: That Downtown STL again becomes a center for business expansion.
Office workers fill Downtown with more traffic daily than residents do, and increasing the number of businesses that operate Downtown would be the biggest boon towards not just increased urban construction, but also towards increased vertical construction, increased pedestrians around Downtown, and increased funding towards City coffers, which can then be dedicated towards other pursuits (including many you had mentioned previously). Perhaps a more business-centric project is exactly what this site, and STL, really needs.
- 8,155
There were no other proposals submitted other than the one discussed. We'll see if it moves forward.
Let's keep in mind as well the eventual sale of the SLPD HQ, which could lead to an interesting redevelopment. If the Muni Courts proposal went forward, that back lot development would be well-centered for not only the Muni redevelopment itself but also for the Police HQ, Scottrade and even Gateway Transportation Center. Successful street-level retail along Clark and 14th could bring a nice boost to the presently isolated nature of the area.dredger wrote:The big picture item in my thoughts, where would we want infill and parking garages to take place between Market and Hwy 40/I64. You got great potential for development while at the same time a huge amount of surface lot space that demand at the current rate will not fill up space in the foreseeable future.
1) Lots behind Muni/City Hall
2) Lots around the Amtrak/Greyhound/mulitmodal Center
3) Union Station/Lots on the West Side of US.
4) Not to mention BPV and remaining Cupples infill
5) Not to mention that at some point the Post Office will give us its location
- 1,320
^^ What? No SLU dorm with the statues, dog park, green roof, brick fencing and golf cart??? 