urbanSTL

I'd love to see a line that goes up and down Grand. 

KansasCitian wrote: I'd love to see a line that goes up and down Grand. 

Not wide enough, as a ROW, I'd think. This is the reason Jefferson is preferred on the South end of the line.

I understand there may be issues with feasibility. 

But don't people want a line down Olive? 

As far as I'm aware, Olive has never been discussed for Metrolink. There was the idea of a "Heritage Trolley" on olive, but that never got out of the "harebrained idea" phase.

An Olive line would be absolutely incredible, as would a Washington line. 

I think downtown needs to be better stabilized before introducing something like that, though.

The Kansas City streetcar threatened to kill off so many existing businesses before they were able to finally complete it.

^My recollection was it was an outgrowth of the Citizens for Modern Transit gang looking for something contemporary Portlandish, rather than heritage in the style of Fort Collins. They have a somewhat moribund [url=https://www.facebook.com/stlstreetcar/]Facebook[/url] page (at least that looks like the logo I remember) calling for an Olive alignment. And something remarkably N/Sish. And an alignment on Grand . . . eventually.

Saint Louis Streetcar was a modern system that would have received funding if state voters had passed that statewide transportation funding ballot back in 2013-ish.

Iirc Lindel/Olive to downtown with a loop up 14th to near north city.

^That's what they show on the map in the link, yes. Completely forgot there'd been a ballot initiative about it.

^ I'm trying to recall all that was on the local projects that would received funding the statewide ballot had not crashed and burned; Saint Louis Streetcar, lots of street re-surfacing, and I believe some brt-lite routes on West Florissant and maybe even I-64 to Forest Park Ave... I'm getting to old to remember these things!

Well, all you tried to do was put in a little permanent transportation. Some commitment. Not your fault we tried to take the corner too fast and jumped the sha . . . I mean tracks.

With both the older and more recent renderings, they always include either soccer or baseball/softball fields, and what sometimes appears to be running or walking trails in the setback areas. Anyone know if these types of uses are allowed in the setback area? And will that make at least part of the setback area into a park around the actual building? Not sure if those areas in the rendering are before or after security and whether or not they would be available for public use or only NGA employees post-security.

I haven't ever seen any mention of what the type of landscaping is planned for this area or anything about the setback other than it can't have any actual NGA buildings. But the renderings seem to show that it may not be completely passive grassland.

mtl_stl wrote: With both the older and more recent renderings, they always include either soccer or baseball/softball fields, and what sometimes appears to be running or walking trails in the setback areas. Anyone know if these types of uses are allowed in the setback area? And will that make at least part of the setback area into a park around the actual building? Not sure if those areas in the rendering are before or after security and whether or not they would be available for public use or only NGA employees post-security.

I haven't ever seen any mention of what the type of landscaping is planned for this area or anything about the setback other than it can't have any actual NGA buildings. But the renderings seem to show that it may not be completely passive grassland.

The security perimeter fence will be very near the perimeter of the site - Jefferson Ave. / Parnell, Cass Ave., 22nd St., and the alley south of St. Louis Ave., with a minimum 500 foot setback between the fence and the NGA office building.  The setback doesn't apply to the parking garages, visitor center, etc.   Everything inside the security perimeter area will be for NGA employees or authorized visitors only.

So, yes, much of the space in the setback areas will be a park-like setting with hiking / jogging trails, a lake, sports fields, etc., but it won't be for public use.  Maybe they can pull the fence in along Cass near the main entrance, and put some public-use parkland there but it won't be anything like what you see on the renderings.  

They required a 100 acre site from the city and got 97 acres.  Given the size of the site, it is difficult to imagine; but when you start to consider space for a possible regional FBI building, and space for future expansion, with required setbacks, there really isn't much space to spare. 

chaifetz10 wrote: Almost certainly not.  Most FBI locations that I'm aware of don't have mandatory set backs and many are located in dense urban areas.  IF the FBI were to move to the NGA site, I would anticipate it to look similar to a Medical Office Building situated on a hospital campus.  i.e. closer to the exterior perimeter but not necessarily integrated into the street scape.

All new government facilities which house a large number of employees, or which perform critical functions (such as law enforcement), have security perimeter requirements, including a setback distance. 

I expect most of the over 1 mile of perimeter of the site to have a security fence behind a landscaped berm along the sidewalks, and with a clear, grassy area and access road inside the fence.  On a relatively small shared campus like this (as opposed to a military base) behind a single security perimeter, I think the FBI would adopt the higher security requirements, and locate their building and garage near the center of the site.    

A new, consolidated FBI field office here wouldn't require the same setback as a highly-sensitive building like NGA, but it would still be large, even on a dedicated campus.  The setback at the existing built-to-suit FBI facility on Market appears to be a bit less than 100', but that was built before 9/11.  I'm sure the new security requirements are one of the reasons they are considering a move.

  

Esri, one of the world's largest geospatial firms, is tripling their staff in St. Louis:
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/ann ... al-market/

kipfilet wrote: Esri, one of the world's largest geospatial firms, is tripling their staff in St. Louis:
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/ann ... al-market/

Do we know how many of their staff are in St. Louis today? That press release says they employ 700 across the US, but I don't see anything more specific than that.  Any increase is quite welcome, but going from, say, 300 employees to 900 is certainly more of a deal than, say, going from 5 to 15...

-RBB

rbb wrote:

kipfilet wrote: Esri, one of the world's largest geospatial firms, is tripling their staff in St. Louis:
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/ann ... al-market/

Do we know how many of their staff are in St. Louis today? That press release says they employ 700 across the US, but I don't see anything more specific than that.  Any increase is quite welcome, but going from, say, 300 employees to 900 is certainly more of a deal than, say, going from 5 to 15...

-RBB

From the STLBJ site today:

"California-based geospatial information company Esri said Wednesday that it will significantly expand operations in St. Louis, with plans to triple the amount of “professional services staff” it employs locally.
The company currently employs about 70 people in the St. Louis region, 40 of whom are in Esri's professional services group. Esri has offices in St. Charles and the Cortex innovation district.
"In the near term we expect to grow from 70 to 110."" 

St. Louis Business Journal

70 to 210 is pretty substantial if those are high skill engineering jobs

urbanitas wrote:

rbb wrote:

kipfilet wrote: Esri, one of the world's largest geospatial firms, is tripling their staff in St. Louis:
https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/ann ... al-market/

Do we know how many of their staff are in St. Louis today? That press release says they employ 700 across the US, but I don't see anything more specific than that.  Any increase is quite welcome, but going from, say, 300 employees to 900 is certainly more of a deal than, say, going from 5 to 15...

-RBB

From the STLBJ site today:

"California-based geospatial information company Esri said Wednesday that it will significantly expand operations in St. Louis, with plans to triple the amount of “professional services staff” it employs locally.
The company currently employs about 70 people in the St. Louis region, 40 of whom are in Esri's professional services group. Esri has offices in St. Charles and the Cortex innovation district.
"In the near term we expect to grow from 70 to 110."" 

St. Louis Business Journal

Excellent, thanks much!

-RBB