urbanSTL

Black02AltimaSE wrote: There must be some kind of spatial disturbance on that corner. All of the renderings of the soccer stadium that guy wanted to put in looked proportionally wrong as well.

Hmmm.  I think you may be on to something here...spatial distortions, buildings constantly disappearing, time dilation causing SLU administration to appear to live four decades behind outside observers...SLU's megacampus must contain a black hole!

Midtown Development Corp. and by extension SLU have control over that area - I have my doubts about the effectiveness of this development, but I don't see SLU's trustees or the Board directing the Development Corp. allowing fast food, no-tell motels, or more gas stations to pop up. A CVS maybe.

JacksonPolyp wrote: Midtown Development Corp. and by extension SLU have control over that area - I have my doubts about the effectiveness of this development, but I don't see SLU's trustees or the Board directing the Development Corp. allowing fast food, no-tell motels, or more gas stations to pop up. A CVS maybe.

Oh, I don't mean the really cheap stuff.  I mean the more upscale suburban strips.  I think SLU administration daydreams about Brentwood Blvd. and Manchester Road, when they imagine how Grand and Chouteau Avenues will some day appear.  If not, why select a developer like Cullinan Properties?

And I would put money on another Quiktrip popping up soon near Grand / I-44 if Iron Hill proceeds, heck I think I would put money on that even if it doesn't proceed.  

Isn't there already a QT on Manchester and Chouteau? Seriously, some of you guys are taking your hatred of this development way too far. If anything this may be one of the better infill proposals we have seen near a transit stop in St. Louis.

goat314 wrote: Seriously, some of you guys are taking your hatred of this development way too far. 

Not even joking: the surface parking sucks and the streets should be right angles or at least more well thought out than "oohhh look fun angles" 
Also, that whole rant about how the only further development this will spark is mediocre suburban crap is accurate. 

Actually, there is a proposal to put QuikTrip on the NW corner of South Grant Blvd and Lafayette Ave in a place where an unused empty parking lot, veterinary center and BP are located now.
I am really trying to understand how having QuikTrip in this place is going to make the Grand Blvd pedestrian friendly, make all this areal TOD and “improve and develop attractive streetscapes”, which are the main goals of Midtown Redevelopment Corp.
 

Am I the only one who thinks the crooked streets are just a way of managing traffic speeds without having to put in speed bumps?

There are a ton of well-placed critiques on this topic, but in general I approve. However, the massive amount of retail and restaurant space might be half-empty 10 years from now, especially due to the Foundry's proximity. That critique goes for the Foundry as well.

goat314 wrote: Isn't there already a QT on Manchester and Chouteau? Seriously, some of you guys are taking your hatred of this development way too far. If anything this may be one of the better infill proposals we have seen near a transit stop in St. Louis.

Yes, near there anyway. And there is also one at Jefferson and Chouteau.  What's your point?  

Tim wrote: There are a ton of well-placed critiques on this topic, but in general I approve. However, the massive amount of retail and restaurant space might be half-empty 10 years from now, especially due to the Foundry's proximity. That critique goes for the Foundry as well.

So, what? No more retail or restaurant space should be built in the city anymore? I genuinely have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

I didn't say none - I said that it seems like a bit too much for the site/site-vicinity to support, especially when the luster wears off a bit - I'm continuing to consider The Foundry in this statement too. I understand that SLU/SSM has a lot of people in the area pumping money into the economy, but there is a limit, and plenty of competition. I'm super excited about the development momentum that is building in these areas, and hope that things continue to snowball, but can't help but think of some other retail/restaurant-focused developments that have struggled to sustainably draw in enough dollars from our mostly stagnant St. Louis population. They absolutely should include retail and restaurant space in this development, it just seems like a LOT.

^Could be. For context, restaurant spend is basically on an exponential curve right now. I don't personally have a huge concern for being "over-restauranted" and I think you can make a compelling argument that the city is severely under-retailed compared to many peers.

Anyway, with regard to Iron Hill the Slu infill RFP and Steelcote/Prospect Yards whatever it is called areas continuing to build out will be key for the long term viability of this area. Continued population growth in the area should be one of SLU's key focus areas as it would increase the vibrancy of its Campus and quality of student life. But as others have stated (and I agree) we are far more likely to see Lawns.

Good grief! Negative Nancy's everywhurrr! Can Urbanitas get anymore negative??? Seriously, why do you hate this proposal so much? No project is ever going to be "perfect." I love how you predict that this project will just become another suburban boondoggle after all is said and done. How do you "know" that these renderings are not to scale? Do you have a crystal ball? Or are you the second coming of Nostradamus? I hope this development turns out to be even better than proposed. Then you can eat a nice big plate of CROW. SMFH

STL_4_LIFE wrote: How do you "know" that these renderings are not to scale? Do you have a crystal ball? Or are you the second coming of Nostradamus?

On this point, look at the view that shows the “skyline”. You can see that the apartment building passes by the Grand bridge tower. That isn’t until after Gratiot Street. So the renderings are not to scale. So Urbanitas doesn’t have a crystal ball. The flaws in the renderings are clear.

Let’s all come down this high-tension negativity we have been seeing recently on some threads here.

This is a great development. There are some kinks, but they’ll hopefully be ironed out before anything breaks ground. As I said, design is evolving so we will have a bit different finished product than what’s shown in the renderings, which are for illustration purposes, not accuracy. Things change constantly.

STL_4_LIFE wrote: Good grief! Negative Nancy's everywhurrr! Can Urbanitas get anymore negative??? Seriously, why do you hate this proposal so much? No project is ever going to be "perfect." I love how you predict that this project will just become another suburban boondoggle after all is said and done. How do you "know" that these renderings are not to scale? Do you have a crystal ball? Or are you the second coming of Nostradamus? I hope this development turns out to be even better than proposed. Then you can eat a nice big plate of CROW. SMFH

If it isn't obvious to you that the scale of that rendering is wrong at a single glance, then scroll back and read my (and others) explanations.

As for why I hate this proposal so much...how much time do you have?  Would you like bullet points?  To summarize:   I am not looking at the fictitious renderings, I am looking at the site plans.  All of the factual information about this project has confirmed my concern that - minus the AMC Cinema and plus some trendy "urban" (and probably cheaper) cladding materials - Iron Hill will just be a cheaper, smaller clone of Streets of St. Charles - in every other way.  I think that is a terrible idea for Midtown.  A Streets of St. Charles-Lite can only result in more suburban-style development, and  this project as it is makes it less likely that the adjacent properties north of Gratiot and east of Grand will ever be developed into a mixed-use neighborhood.

I think part of the problem of this development, is that it resembles a regular everyday American development. If you look at projects like the Foundry, cortex, or the armory, they all have various connections to St. Louis. I would like to see a much stronger connection to St. Louis in the proposal. Lots of contradictions come with the windy roads and "park" layout, and while I am not a fan of the design myself, I think it's important to understand how Iron hills grids should match the street grid history of St. Louis. I think the project should also focus less on the little shops and specialize more on what the neighborhoods around it need. One thing is for sure, it's going to be a huge addition to midtown and development that is being built on a site unutilized for decades. I'm also in high school so debates are awesome but it is much more beneficial for everyone on the thread to learn off off others ideas.

2020STL wrote:I think part of the problem of this development, is that it resembles a regular everyday American development. If you look at projects like the Foundry, cortex, or the armory, they all have various connections to St. Louis. I would like to see a much stronger connection to St. Louis in the proposal. Lots of contradictions come with the windy roads and "park" layout, and while I am not a fan of the design myself, I think it's important to understand how Iron hills grids should match the street grid history of St. Louis. I think the project should also focus less on the little shops and specialize more on what the neighborhoods around it need. One thing is for sure, it's going to be a huge addition to midtown and development that is being built on a site unutilized for decades. I'm also in high school so debates are awesome but it is much more beneficial for everyone on the thread to learn off off others ideas.

As I have said on here, the designs of the buildings will change. They are currently being tweaked. The hotel will be designed and built by whoever wins that RFP. The office building at Grand and Chouteau will be redesigned because it is basically a copied and pasted Cortex K. The Northwest office building is clearly conceptual with other designs that are different (I've seen them). Finally. the apartment building will most likely not carry the same design as it currently has as it wouldn't be that productive in land use. The middle buildings and park appear more definite in design but we will see if they hold out. Overall, we will know how the development looks once Phase 1 begins construction this Spring. It will be different so there could still be time for it to match some of St. Louis, 

^I'm not sure what 2020STL has in mind to make them more St. Louisy, but I will reiterate that the architectural design of the buildings themselves is not the issue.  I am sure that heights and designs will change, but the Phase 1 site plan has to be fairly close to final, as they sent it out to potential hotel developers in the RFP,  and would need to start pushing dirt around pretty soon if they intend to have the parking garage, retail frontage, and the NE corner anchor retail tenant / apartment building done by Q4 2021. 

Edited to change NW corner to NE corner  :facepalm:

Redeveloping commercial strips would be a start, for one, instead of little packs of buildings all constructed by one developer.  I think that's why the whole thing feels really inauthentic.  You could say the same thing for BPV.  There's little that's attractive to this proposal when you're down the street from a walkable vibrant strip like the Grove.  Chouteau could have so much more.  This is of course years better than the long vacant land.  But missed opportunities.

^Yes, huge missed opportunity indeed.  There is WAY too much retail space in this proposal, but IF it must be a retail-dominated project, at the very least that retail space should be used to begin to reestablish a commercial-strip street wall east and west along Chouteau, and north along Grand (as much as is possible).  And, it should provide at the very least some future accommodation for retail space on Gratiot which would tie in to the future development across the street and literally on the other side of, and under, the viaduct.  

Of course to do that, the Iron Hill retail space would have to actually be accessible to pedestrians on those streets, instead of creating impenetrable or discouraging barriers...