Share
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostApr 28, 2019#101

Can certainly understand your arguments and your right about hte Spring Ave viaduct.

But lets not give the developer a free pass, they don't introduce an urban street grid to the environment, they don't do much in terms of Grand Ave street, and what they do built is a conduit into a parking wall that essentailly builds a wall facing Gratiot St.  Plus they are getting tax incentives that will not go to public services and or the school district.  I call this a win lose development.  Its a fair argument on what changes you can make that maximizes the wins and minimizes the losses.  To me a lot better plan can be put forth
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostApr 29, 2019#102

^ Who said anything about a free pass?  I'm just not going to expect a developer to take on infrastructure projects that are separate from the project they are working on.  New viaducts and reconnecting Papin on the east side of Grand isn't their responsibility.  I'm not crazy about the slightly curved streets through this development but it's still a street that will connect from Grand through this development to Spring.  Are we all really that pissed off because it's not a perfectly straight street?  Seems really nit-picky honestly.

I understand the concerns about parking, but this is St. Louis.  People primarily drive cars here.  Would you rather have a hulking garage along Chouteau or Grand?  Or down the hill across the street from a huge and ugly bus parking lot and other industrial businesses?  Should we just eliminate the parking?  That would be nice, but let's not kid ourselves, this part of the city does not have the density to support a fully transit dependent development on this scale.  It just doesn't.  This isn't a free pass for the developer, just a realistic look at the surrounding area and the current situation.  I'd like it if they straightened the streets out and maybe eliminated the parking in front of the retail spaces.  I'd certainly love it if there was no need for a garage, but I think everyone here knows deep down that's just ridiculous, even if they don't want to admit it.  Not everyone is going to ride the train or bus here, especially as ridership continues to fall on both modes. 

I guess I'm just not ready to throw this one on the trash heap yet.
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostApr 29, 2019#103

I guess I'm just expecting that, at the very least, the developers will hear these concerns before the shovels hit dirt.

I don't think we've seen a final draft for this project.

In any case, the curved roads don't really bother me.
1,864
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,864

PostApr 29, 2019#104

There's almost nowhere in the city - except for the core of the CWE - that is dense enough to not include parking.  St. Louis is not Chicago, NYC, or LA.  Parking will need to be included for almost any development for the foreseeable future.  And that's ok!  Just hide it better using underground parking or hidden behind other buildings.
2,623
Life MemberLife Member
2,623

PostApr 30, 2019#105

Yeah with this kind of retail density there is no way this could succeed based on pedestrians and transit users alone. It definitely needs that county folk money to survive and that means parking. Argue about the utility of this development or the Foundry all you want but these will excite people about the city and potentially moving here. I also wouldn't be surprised to see this garage being overbuilt to serve future development as well
678
Senior MemberSenior Member
678

PostApr 30, 2019#106

I got no problem with parking for this project but I don't like all the curb cutouts and blocking off the grid.
1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostApr 30, 2019#107

ImprovSTL wrote: I got no problem with parking for this project but I don't like all the curb cutouts and blocking off the grid.
Couldn't agree more .
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostMay 01, 2019#108

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote wrote:Yeah with this kind of retail density there is no way this could succeed based on pedestrians and transit users alone. It definitely needs that county folk money to survive and that means parking. Argue about the utility of this development or the Foundry all you want but these will excite people about the city and potentially moving here. I also wouldn't be surprised to see this garage being overbuilt to serve future development as well
Just to clarify, do you imagine people driving in from the suburbs and parking here just to dine and shop in this development?  If so, why, what is the attraction over the dozen or more places in the burbs where they can do that?

PostMay 02, 2019#109

bwcrow1s wrote: ^ Pretty much.

It's just a petty way to appease urbanists and appeal to the public transit crowd.  Create a mirage of urban development and connection to our public transit system.

It's pretty much Streets of St. Charles style development.  No shock that SLU chose their proposal.  It's a very safe plan.

What gets me the most are the middle buildings.  So underwhelming.  Get some more on top of those.  I still feel like this looks like a Richard Scarry mini-town development, and not a fan.

All in all, though, yes, better than a truely suburban type development, but it still feels like such an island rather than something that was developed organically.  There's no semblance of traditional city development that is connected to the grid.  Oh well.
Actually, Streets of St. Chuck does a better job of hiding the parking overall than this does.  Most of the parking there is hidden behind the apartment and theatre buildings or is underground.  It still has way too much parking access driveway and surface parking space, with the same 45 degree angle parking in front of every building, like this plan.

PostMay 02, 2019#110

BillikenLifer wrote: Wow, absolutely love these pics. I can tell you right now that people at the SLU med campus have been DYING for something like this to boost the neighborhood around the hospital, which has essentially been an economic desert for years. I live in the CWE and I've always wished SLU had what WashU has surrounding its med campus... 

In terms of who will end up living in this space, you can bet that many of the SLU residents will be moving into these apartments out of sheer convenience and location. This is a huge win for the central corridor. 
That is precisely what is so frustrating about these plans.  With an investment and infill development this large, in addition to all of the development in the vicinity of this stretch of Grand and the Metro station ( SLU campus, SLU hospital and med center, Steelcote, Armory, Foundry, etc. ), there is a real opportunity to lay the foundation, and set a precedent, for a genuine CWE-like neighborhood here, albeit one with an industrial vibe.  This could, in a couple of decades, completely transform the wasteland barrier between Chouteau and Forest Park Ave. into an inviting, even highly desirable space that will tie together and accentuate all of the activity to the north and south.  

Nobody wanted to live in Fulton Market District in Chicago two decades ago.  It was a wasteland full of decaying industrial and transport infrastructure much like Mill Creek Valley.  Look at it now.

If these plans are an accurate reflection of what will be built, not only would it be a huge missed opportunity, but it will make it more difficult to accomplish this.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostMay 02, 2019#111

^^^ We get it, you hate it.
1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMay 02, 2019#112

It is often difficult to explain to enthusiastic members of this forum that nuance and details can make the difference between long-term success or failure of a development. It appears that unless you fully embrace dev proposals in the City (glaring shortfalls included) you are characterized as an ungrateful hater, out of touch with reality.

If there was an existing form-based code for this site, some of the mistakes being proposed in this development could easily have been averted.
1,218
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,218

PostMay 02, 2019#113

imran wrote: It is often difficult to explain to enthusiastic members of this forum that nuance and details can make the difference between long-term success or failure of a development. It appears that unless you fully embrace dev proposals in the City (glaring shortfalls included) you are characterized as an ungrateful hater, out of touch with reality.

If there was an existing form-based code for this site, some of the mistakes being proposed in this development could easily have been averted.
Don't get discouraged or quit being real. I learn way more from critics than super-fans on this board.
2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostMay 02, 2019#114

^^ and ^Both good points. It's been a 10 year fight trying to rectify realistic expectations with idealistic perfectionism. Which isn't a bad thing from either side and theoretically (hopefully) leads to best outcomes. Everything needs its blind boosters along with its hard-line detractors. In a perfect world that leads to actual investment with negotiated improvements paving the way for exponentially increasing momentum.

I'm a believer you can't time the market, but unfortunately I am still in the camp that embraces large investment in the city with the willingness to overlook some significant negatives. We are up against (virtually) 100 years of negative sentiment. Show up to the battle with the biggest guns you can.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostMay 02, 2019#115

^ Well said, maybe my short comment was a little mean, but I wasn't about to rehash all the same arguments I had already made, that others are free to go back and reread.  At this point we're all arguing in circles.  I agree with all here about the too many curb cuts, I stated, on more than one occasion, I'm not crazy about the curved streets or the angled/street parking in the district.  I'd like to see more height in the middle, and better street activation, things that very well could happen in future revisions.  But these are largely minor issues to me in the grand scheme of things.  If people are ready to get the pitchforks out because of some angled parking, some slightly off-kilter streets, and a garage, more power to em.  Considering this site (and the overall area) has been in its current state for as long as it has, I'm just not there yet.  This is a vast improvement and no, it's not perfect, but that's ok...with me at least.

I apologize that I seem to have offended so many.
1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMay 02, 2019#116

No offense taken, at least at my end.

When I look back my posts when I first joined this site over a decade ago, they clearly reveal I did not know a lot about city planning. After years of being blissfully unaware, I am now at a point where I am able to very quickly spot the shortcomings of proposals. I point them out not to shoot down investment in the City. Its to pass along what I have learned about building successful urban places to someone blissfully unaware today. And if public incentives are being sought to spur investment, we need informed citizens to demand the best outcomes for the tax burden we are going to shoulder.

At the end of the day we are all passionate about the City. I shall try harder to keep the dialogue healthy. Back to Iron Hill.....🙂
595
Senior MemberSenior Member
595

PostMay 02, 2019#117

The Mayor wrote:^ Well said, maybe my short comment was a little mean, but I wasn't about to rehash all the same arguments I had already made, that others are free to go back and reread.  At this point we're all arguing in circles.  I agree with all here about the too many curb cuts, I stated, on more than one occasion, I'm not crazy about the curved streets or the angled/street parking in the district.  I'd like to see more height in the middle, and better street activation, things that very well could happen in future revisions.  But these are largely minor issues to me in the grand scheme of things.  If people are ready to get the pitchforks out because of some angled parking, some slightly off-kilter streets, and a garage, more power to em.  Considering this site (and the overall area) has been in its current state for as long as it has, I'm just not there yet.  This is a vast improvement and no, it's not perfect, but that's ok...with me at least.

I apologize that I seem to have offended so many.
Called freedom of speech and thought. You can’t appease everyone and people are overly too sensitive now a days you should never feel prohibited however I do believe in free speech along respect. I know this development isn’t perfect but it’s filling in a area that’s bare and will add traffic to a road that looks abandoned. This development along with the Lafayette Square development will add some density and beauty to a lonesome road. I’m sure they’ll fix a few kinks but not all of them and I think this will be a draw from both city and county/ county’s residents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostMay 02, 2019#118

imran wrote: When I look back my posts when I first joined this site over a decade ago, they clearly reveal I did not know a lot about city planning. After years of being blissfully unaware, I am now at a point where I am able to very quickly spot the shortcomings of proposals. I point them out not to shoot down investment in the City. Its to pass along what I have learned about building successful urban places to someone blissfully unaware today. And if public incentives are being sought to spur investment, we need informed citizens to demand the best outcomes for the tax burden we are going to shoulder.
And to elect decision makers who are not blissfully unaware themselves, so that the city doesn't allow the same mistakes to be made over and over and over again.  It shouldn't be that hard.  Even if one has never studied urban planning or lived in a well-planned urban city, there are plenty of examples in St. Louis of best practices to build and propagate great urban neighborhoods, and unfortunately, far more examples of (what should have been) lessons learned.  But somehow, those examples just don't seem to translate for many people.  
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostMay 02, 2019#119

imran wrote: No offense taken, at least at my end.

When I look back my posts when I first joined this site over a decade ago, they clearly reveal I did not know a lot about city planning. After years of being blissfully unaware, I am now at a point where I am able to very quickly spot the shortcomings of proposals. I point them out not to shoot down investment in the City. Its to pass along what I have learned about building successful urban places to someone blissfully unaware today. And if public incentives are being sought to spur investment, we need informed citizens to demand the best outcomes for the tax burden we are going to shoulder.

At the end of the day we are all passionate about the City. I shall try harder to keep the dialogue healthy. Back to Iron Hill.....🙂
Well said, and I do apologize for being a little curt.  For reasons I won't dive into, yesterday was not a great day haha, not that that's any excuse.  Either way, I think we all want the same things for St. Louis in a roundabout way.  Hopefully the developers are reading our comments!
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostMay 06, 2019#120

Strategic Land Use Plan - Amendment 16 Part 2

This amendment from 6/1/16 covers the changes in the plan for this area (pages 14-15) as well as some proposed changes to plan area designations.  

The entire area bounded by I-64 and Chouteau to the north and south, and Spring and Theresa on the west and east, respectively, is now designated as one contiguous "Opportunity Area", whereas previously, most of the area to the north and east was designated "Business Industrial Development or Business Industrial Preservation".  The Opportunity Area also includes the blocks West of Spring and North and South of Chouteau.  

I take this to mean that the city wants to strongly encourage more mixed-use residential, hotel, office, and retail construction across this entire area, which will soon be anchored by Armory, Mill Creek Flats / Steelcote, and this "Iron Hill" project.  

Also, I think this means that new industrial, distribution, or warehouse space in this area will be discouraged and the existing phased out.  Corrigan Brothers owns most of the land, but from what I can see its mostly just asphalt and some one story buildings, so doesn't seem like it would be difficult for them to pick up and move their operations elsewhere in the city, provided they get a fair price for their property of course.  The same goes for the other businesses in this area.  There doesn't seem to be much investment in any of them except maybe the First Student bus maintenance facility.
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostMay 06, 2019#121

^ I think fair question for the immediate area is how you transition light industrial businesses out of the area but keep them in the city.  They are on the tax payrolls, paying property taxes and also promote a fair share of jobs.  You could argue that city was not first choice an  fair share of warehousing jobs and development which boomed in the region the last several years for various reasons including the mega warehouses which wouldn't go in the city.  None the less, you don't want to see jobs leave the city either when promoting development.  

Yes, I understand that Iron Hill doesn't require to solve all the issues but they will also receive a fair share of tax breaks and subsidies so a lot of worthy discussion should take place.
2,037
Life MemberLife Member
2,037

PostMay 06, 2019#122

Hopefully this project will put a dent in the gap between the number of people who lived in Mill Creek before it was bulldozed (over 18k) and the number of people who live there now (1,653).
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostMay 06, 2019#123

Ebsy wrote: Hopefully this project will put a dent in the gap between the number of people who lived in Mill Creek before it was bulldozed (over 18k) and the number of people who live there now (1,653).
Hopefully bring people into the city from outside the city.  Central Corridor making gains but in the bigger picture is that the city still hasn't reversed the population trend.  In the meantime, the city is doing a great job of giving tax abatements to developers and to lesser extent tenants for people moving within the city or those moving in while others are moving out.  Not sure what is the right answer or best answer in all this, certainly don't want momentum come to halt because the stronger the central corridor becomes, the more jobs come back into the city, and things pick up for the rest of the city.   
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostMay 06, 2019#124

The only thing I dislike is  the relationship to Gratiot looks like it essentially makes it very difficult to eventually extend redevelopment further north.  If the two N/S running streets connected through to Gratiot I would say this plan is very nearly ideal.

This plan seems almost like it was first conceived with the longish building running on the northside of Gratiot but for some reason it was scaled down.  Maybe they inquired but the asking price for the land was deemed unreasonable.  It seems like it might even be a negotiating ploy to pressure the landowners to sell now at a reasonable price or they will be essentially isolated from the emerging redevelopment area and thus unable to sell at a better price anyway.  IF this project moves forward, my hope is they acquire that land in the end and build up to the tracks like we all know they should.

Diagonal parking doesn't really bother me, it seems pretty equivalent to street-side parking to me except it supports roughly double the number of cars, and there is very little surface parking aside from that.  (a couple smallish lots).  I have seen several healthy urban districts that use diagonal parking.  Seriously why should this be a big deal, is there an article that breaks down why I should consider this bad urban form because anecdotally it seems fine to me?
5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostMay 06, 2019#125

The evolution of design. I honestly believe that the chosen design is perfect. The other designs were odd looking and some would’ve been deemed bad by a lot of you.




Read more posts (274 remaining)
Share