urbanSTL

newstl2020 wrote:Still can't figure out how many floors!

The quote right above your post says 8 floors in the new garage.

^Aparently I'm illiterate. I'll be hanging out with reddragon if anyone needs me.

newstl2020 wrote: I'll be hanging out with reddragon if anyone needs me.

Enjoy Montonia!

^As bad as the lot is south of city hall, I really hate the driveway and parking spots in front of it. A building like that shouldn't have drive up service.

TIABstl wrote:^As bad as the lot is south of city hall, I really hate the driveway and parking spots in front of it. A building like that shouldn't have drive up service.

No!!! That's where I park for DT events!!!!

I know this is typical among American downtowns dedicated primarily to the car, but I still have trouble believing the push for more garages.



The good thing about surface lots is that they offer opportunities for truly mixed use structures when it is financially viable to construct them. This garage may be visually better than a surface lot, but it's terrible to think of what a residential/office/parking/retail combo could have done to make Tucker into a premiere street. This should also tie into the Ballpark lofts and Cupples Station redevelopment.



Another bad decision in my opinion.



I am in love with St. Louis. Even living in New Orleans' French Quarter, I miss St. Louis. But for all my longing to return, it's the parking garage gluttony of downtown that seems most bleak in St. Louis. I read one book about the late 90s comebacks of American downtowns, and the author mentioned St. Louis's as one that was trying to make a comeback with loft development. But his take on the fate of downtown St. Louis was pretty pessimistic. He said something along the lines of "too much of downtown St. Louis's old fabric is missing for me to ever expect that it will ever become 'vibrant' compared to other cities." There is a part of me that worries the same.

^True, but there are (sadly) plenty of surface lots downtown that can be developed. I counsel patience. We'll get there.

Matt Drops The H wrote:I read one book about the late 90s comebacks of American downtowns, and the author mentioned St. Louis's as one that was trying to make a comeback with loft development. But his take on the fate of downtown St. Louis was pretty pessimistic. He said something along the lines of "too much of downtown St. Louis's old fabric is missing for me to ever expect that it will ever become 'vibrant' compared to other cities." There is a part of me that worries the same.

As far as I know, that "old fabric" was new at some point. Our downtown still has a rich architectural built environment that will continue to evolve. And for the better, one hopes and should work for.

Matt Drops The H wrote: There is a part of me that worries the same.

well, your second guessing of most every DT project is legit, and honestly, makes for great debate.

BUT honestly, you worry waaaaayyy to much! The signs are everywhere, open your eyes.

Matt Drops The H wrote:I read one book about the late 90s comebacks of American downtowns, and the author mentioned St. Louis's as one that was trying to make a comeback with loft development. But his take on the fate of downtown St. Louis was pretty pessimistic. He said something along the lines of "too much of downtown St. Louis's old fabric is missing for me to ever expect that it will ever become 'vibrant' compared to other cities." There is a part of me that worries the same.

Who is the author? Just curious.

^ Ebenezer Scrooge

I do not think everything new is bad. I am really excited about the Roberts Tower, and moderately enthused about the Skyhouse. I recognize that cities change and evolve. But St. Louis's downtown has hopelessly devolved for so many years that it provokes one of two reactions at times:



1) amazement that it went so far down the tubes and is still managing to see some redevelopment today;



or



2) profound sadness at the bleak corporate campuses that call downtown proper home and that dampen any hopes to have a truly mixed use and vibrant downtown.



I oscillate between the two. But when you stand on Pine Street between Tucker and Memorial Drive and look down the street, it's almost always #2 that comes to mind.



I do have hope that MX, the Roberts Tower, and other projects will fix this part of downtown. It's just that so many other cities seem to have wanted to correct these mistakes earlier and at a faster pace than St. Louis.



I was just in Des Moines and was fairly impressed with their downtown area. If you include the East Village as downtown (which I believe they do), then there's simply no comparison. It's a clean, large, attractive downtown with a surprising lot to do. Beautiful street lamps, perfect sidewalks, helpful signage...



Yes, I am aware of budgetary deficiencies in St. Louis, but I still wonder how a smaller city (and metro) like Des Moines can offer such an attractive downtown.



I will say, of course, that St. Louis's neighborhoods are awesome on their own and sort of supplant our downtown for both architecture, nightlife, and dining in many cases (comparing the whole of them vs. the whole of downtown). So that could be a positive or a negative depending on how you look at it.



As far as the author of that book, I will post it when I go home. I believe I still have the book.

profound sadness at the bleak corporate campuses that call downtown proper home and that dampen any hopes to have a truly mixed use and vibrant downtown.

what are you talking about? AT&T? AG Edwards? they both provide THOUSANDS of jobs to the region. Do they not "connect" to the city? what is your argument here? what is bleak about them?

Any progress is great but one thing that can never ever be undone is the fact that St. Louis could have been one of the most unique, walkable, architecturally significant and important cities in North America but it's not and it was more or less destroyed with no thought at all. It's a real tragedy and everytime I'm looking for a place to live and I see that clusterf@ck 55/44 interstate exchange in the middle of the map it makes me ill for about ten minutes.



The fact that anything north of Washington Avenue is a totally useless wasteland is a joke and really sad. I don't believe that St Louis should have been shrinkwrapped and preserved in 1924 for future generations to admire same as I don't expect that people currently living in a crappy ranch-style community in the suburbs named after a dead Indian tribe are expected to say to themselves "ooh, people will really loves this 100 years". Who knew really?



Basically, the damage was so extensive that you can never escape the "what could have been" question. Call me negative or pessimistic or a fatalist, whatever. South City is great but for me downtown, well, it still kinda sucks. OK, I'm ready for your replies....

Any new progress this week? I feel so strangely disconnected after being home for a month.

There are signs up with renderings. About it, as far as I can tell.

leeharveyawesome wrote:Basically, the damage was so extensive that you can never escape the "what could have been" question. Call me negative or pessimistic or a fatalist, whatever. South City is great but for me downtown, well, it still kinda sucks. OK, I'm ready for your replies....

Downtown St. Louis has the potential to be as good as or better than that of any other major American city. It just needs enough people pushing in the right direction.

steve wrote:There are signs up with renderings. About it, as far as I can tell.

If anyone has a chance a pic of the sign would be terrific. I know it's just a parking garage, but I get excited about these things . (Much rather have a 45 story building, but anything is better than a surface lot...right?)

JCity wrote:

profound sadness at the bleak corporate campuses that call downtown proper home and that dampen any hopes to have a truly mixed use and vibrant downtown.

what are you talking about? AT&T? AG Edwards? they both provide THOUSANDS of jobs to the region. Do they not "connect" to the city? what is your argument here? what is bleak about them?

My argument is that most of downtown's buildings could be transported to the service road in Chesterfield and not feel out of place other than their height. From an urban design standpoint, they simply suck the life out of downtown. Whether it's a lack of first floor retail, an abundance of loading zones with exposed docks, blank walls with no windows, terrible or lackluster design, demolition of superior structures involved in their siting, subsequent vacancy due to rapid deterioration and lack of updating...they're sub par and do nothing to add any street life or aesthetic quality to downtown.



Look at SBC, US Bank, St. Louis Centre, AG Edwards, and even the Met Square building for some high profile examples.



Downtown proper is dominated by these structures and, of course, by the parking lots and garages that they then claim to require. JCity, a building can be both designed for an urban environment and provide thousands of jobs.



I must admit St. Louis's is not nearly the only downtown to suffer from "bleak corporate campuses". All the downtowns I've been to have them (Chicago, Des Moines, Memphis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Jackson MS, Nashville, Atlanta, Detroit, D.C.). It's just that most of the above downtowns offer bright spots considerably larger and more vibrant than St. Louis's. That is why I say the infrastructure for a successful urban downtown barely exists in St. Louis as it stands right now.



I think this is something St. Louisans need to face up to and push for good new construction that will restore the street level to its proper prominence. Downtown St. Louis, on the whole, is kind of depressing. With some infill and demolished parking garages, this could change significantly.



And therein lies the reason I am only moderately enthused about the SkyHouse. Renderings don't show it to have much of a street presence either. Luckily, though, the density is great and the Loft District already has a great urban format.

Matt Drops The H wrote:My argument is that most of downtown's buildings could be transported to the service road in Chesterfield and not feel out of place other than their height.

I stopped reading after this statement. You obviously have not spent much time downtown, or if you have, you must not be a particularly observant individual.