So would you prefer that they chose Boston after the CWE/Cortex site didn't work out ?robertn42 wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2023Most, if not all, of these major companies should be located in a primary CBD or a tech driven area like Cortex. Instead they are spread out and we are diluting everything, including our infrastructure. Now we arguing that we need to build more dilution to support the problems caused by the fragmentation? This is not working, we are not growing and many of these municipality are very viable and fight for dollars from other means/munis to stay solvent.stl07 wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2023We need more of this and not less. Just because you don't like chesterfield does not mean it is bad for the region. Who do you think made the vaccine when the world was shut down? Pfizer of Chesterfield. There is also Bunge and RGA among many others. Do you think their employees are actually going to live in the city? No. They are going to want something walkable and livable and close to where they work. This is the perfect answer.
Many people don't know this, but Pfizer was actually going to move to Boston. However, employees were instrumental in keeping it in St. Louis because they liked St. Louis. They wanted to build the new site in Cortex but found the site to be unfeasible for what they needed, so they chose Chesterfield. Not because they wanted to suburbanize the region or wanted to be a parasite, but because they had different needs than what Cortex could provide. Now people around the world are applying to work in St. Louis on the vaccines team. I just met a few guys from India that had just moved to Chesterfield with a new Pfizer job. These sorts of projects that make the area better will ensure that employees will continue to fight to keep offices in St. Louis next time big wigs try to move them out.
Other cities don't do this stupidity. When LA got the world cup for 2026 but it announced it would be played in Inglewood, you didn't have people saying Inglewood is a gentrified parasite that is decentralizing LA. No, people were thrilled it would be played in LA County
No, I'm saying we need to address our fragmentation to improve our growth prospects. Improving growth would allow us to support more development across the region. You seem to want to consolidate everything in one area and leave the rest for dead. Sorry, that's not how this works, not here...not anywhere. Cities across the country have companies and businesses located throughout their region. Some of the most popular cities in this country right now are mostly just sprawled out suburbs, especially in the sunbelt. Most of them just have far better population growth than us and can support it.robertn42 wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2023Most, if not all, of these major companies should be located in a primary CBD or a tech driven area like Cortex. Instead they are spread out and we are diluting everything, including our infrastructure. Now we arguing that we need to build more dilution to support the problems caused by the fragmentation? This is not working, we are not growing and many of these municipality are very viable and fight for dollars from other means/munis to stay solvent.stl07 wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2023We need more of this and not less. Just because you don't like chesterfield does not mean it is bad for the region. Who do you think made the vaccine when the world was shut down? Pfizer of Chesterfield. There is also Bunge and RGA among many others. Do you think their employees are actually going to live in the city? No. They are going to want something walkable and livable and close to where they work. This is the perfect answer.
Many people don't know this, but Pfizer was actually going to move to Boston. However, employees were instrumental in keeping it in St. Louis because they liked St. Louis. They wanted to build the new site in Cortex but found the site to be unfeasible for what they needed, so they chose Chesterfield. Not because they wanted to suburbanize the region or wanted to be a parasite, but because they had different needs than what Cortex could provide. Now people around the world are applying to work in St. Louis on the vaccines team. I just met a few guys from India that had just moved to Chesterfield with a new Pfizer job. These sorts of projects that make the area better will ensure that employees will continue to fight to keep offices in St. Louis next time big wigs try to move them out.
Other cities don't do this stupidity. When LA got the world cup for 2026 but it announced it would be played in Inglewood, you didn't have people saying Inglewood is a gentrified parasite that is decentralizing LA. No, people were thrilled it would be played in LA County
Chesterfield and the other suburbs youse love to hate are established communities and aren't going anywhere. And as long as St. Louisans are going to maintain the status quo, you can't reasonably expect municipalities not to look out for their interests. It's not on them...it's on us.
- 2,623
If built to its full potential, there should be talks to expand Metrolink. In the same vein, four or five Red Line stops on the Saint Charles riverfront would be amazing, though while it would be easier to build it would probably be far more difficult politically.
If you've got a 5+ year mixed-use multi-phased project, the first phase might be "easy." But if the success of the project rests on a delicate public-private partnership that needs to last over the entire span of the timeline, it would be worrying that the goal posts are being moved (and somewhat arbitrarily) this early on. If it was one rouge councilman, and he lost, that's one thing, but a 5-4 vote doesn't bode well for the future.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2023If I were a developer and a municipality decided to be so frivolous and contentious about such small details -- 2,500 v. 2,800 apartments, etc. -- I think I'd be worried about how the entirety of the process would play out as well.
Adding... Cortex is a good example of this. You have TIF and redevelopment agreement in place, But, one "bad" election threatens the future of plan that was agreed to years ago.
- 144
If anywhere in the region needs one of these fake urban, auto centric, non-organic, town centers/CBD's out on an island in suburbia its Metro East, not West County. The region (IMO of course) needs rebalanced and not dragged further and further West with no end in sight. The city is already a ghost town for corporations, yet we're talking about another district with high rises to split things three ways instead of the already problematic two. The only positive for me, and thats being generous is that I'd imagine the tenants they are shooting for are those in suburban office parks already out on the edges of 270/64, but its one more reason for them to stay camped out in the suburbs and I really don't care too much if those suburban offices they are in currently end up with huge vacancy rates. I suppose its better than a relic of an enclosed mall and I totally understand the mixed use attempt at reinventing a dying space. Chesterfield is a desirable place to live and I'm sure they won't have problems leasing out whether its commercial or residential.
- 320
$2B Downtown Chesterfield project receives final approval from city after compromise with developer
![]()
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2023/09/06/downtown-chesterfield-approved-council-compromise.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_5&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_sA plan long in the works to convert the Chesterfield Mall site into more than $2 billion of new mixed-use development received final approval from city officials Tuesday night.
In a unanimous vote, the Chesterfield City Council approved Overland developer The Staenberg Group’s planned $2 billion redevelopment, known as Downtown Chesterfield. The project, with more than 2,500 apartments, will create an urban city center in Chesterfield, a suburb that has never before had a downtown. In the weeks before the final vote, The Staenberg Group paused the project after some officials took steps toward capping the number of apartments allowed in the development, but the council showed its support in a preliminary reading in August.
The project will be built at Interstate 64 and Clarkson Road, bordering another massive mixed-use development already under construction on 80 acres west of the mall, St. Louis-based developer CRG’s $1 billion project Wildhorse Village. With Downtown Chesterfield, The Staenberg Group will create a “true downtown urban core with high rise office, hotel and density residential uses organized through a landscaped public realm including a 3.5-acre Central Park at the heart of the development and will be home to hundreds of shops and restaurants, corporate headquarters, office workers and thousands of residents living in a unique urban environment,” the developer said in its project narrative submitted to the city in June. The developer added that the dense, walkable design “gives priority to the pedestrian over the automobile.”
City Council members said Tuesday night that they came to an agreement with the developer in a series of meetings held over the last several weeks to overcome the developer’s decision to pause the project after a committee voted in August to cap the total amount of residential housing allowed at the site. The council rejected that amendment when it met Aug. 21 for a first reading of the proposed legislation.
In a compromise proposal that Councilwoman Mary Monachella said was suggested by The Staenberg Group, the council amended the final legislation to add a clause that three key parcels at the center of the project could only be used for commercial purposes. A resident group called Preserve Chesterfield had spoken out against the number of apartments included in the plans.
Monachella said at Tuesday's meeting that with the limits on commercial development on those three parcels, TSG “proposed a solution that we could all happily live with and those residents that were concerned will also be happy to have.”
- 1,794
Excellent. Very excited to see Clayton get a taste of its own medicine. If we’re lucky, by 2060 we can have two hollowed out CBDs.
I seriously doubt that this place will reach the density shown in that rendering.
I like the ambition, but aren't "downtowns" supposed to anchor surrounding communities? This looks like an island, it even has a moat.
- 1,794
If it did reach the density suggested by that rendering, this would be far more impressive than the Battery in the ATL, albeit with different uses.
- 2,419
If this project reaches the density shown in those renderings, I hope that there will also be dense development outside of the ring.
$2b for more faux urban play places. A powerful development for a more inclusive, unified Greater St. Louis.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... 1c3d&ei=39
Good riddance, glad that this eyesore will finally be gone.
Chesterfield isn't going anywhere, so I'm happy this project is moving along. Would love to have more of this in the city and I'm optimistic that a success in Chesterfield will lead to more of these within the city limits. Worst to worst, at least this will lead to the demolition of that ugly mall and built up some apartment complexes that will raise the amount of housing in the region. I don't see a reason to be against it.
Good riddance, glad that this eyesore will finally be gone.
Chesterfield isn't going anywhere, so I'm happy this project is moving along. Would love to have more of this in the city and I'm optimistic that a success in Chesterfield will lead to more of these within the city limits. Worst to worst, at least this will lead to the demolition of that ugly mall and built up some apartment complexes that will raise the amount of housing in the region. I don't see a reason to be against it.
^Because fake density islands for people to play city is dumb, and from a regional-minded visionary sense, rudderless and devoid of impact? Even after the quibbling over said density lol. Move the investment where it makes sense and leverages existing infrastructure. Improve the front door mat to the region. Altruistic, yes, but we need to focus on the image of the region rather than a municipality fighting for temporary relevance.
- 2,623
At least leave open the possibility to connect to Metrolink in the future. I know... fat chance, but still.
- 1,792
Its not fake density. People will live in close proximity with each other an retail with low individual square footage and shared outdoor spaces. Ultimately the shift to urban spaces is good.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Sep 29, 2023^Because fake density islands for people to play city is dumb, and from a regional-minded visionary sense, rudderless and devoid of impact? Even after the quibbling over said density lol. Move the investment where it makes sense and leverages existing infrastructure. Improve the front door mat to the region. Altruistic, yes, but we need to focus on the image of the region rather than a municipality fighting for temporary relevance.
As a critique, I would say it IS elitist. Meaning lets keep out the poors so we don't have to see daily the damage our self-interested culture of does to entire segments of society (largely minorities but not exclusively). Its definitely a symptom of something deeply wrong with our culture. I will guess that any homeless found inside the development will still be quickly shuttled to shelters in the city rather than rehabilitated locally.
- 9,539
City should bus homeless to
Downtown chesterfield when it’s done. If city won’t do it, I’ll pay for it
Downtown chesterfield when it’s done. If city won’t do it, I’ll pay for it
- 977
That’ll be great for building some regional unity. It’s definitely in the best interest of our homeless population toodbInSouthCity wrote:City should bus homeless to
Downtown chesterfield when it’s done. If city won’t do it, I’ll pay for it
- 9,539
County munis do it now and drop off homeless in downtown, sometimes returning a favor is just a polite thing to do
- 977
It’s not though. We need certainly need a regional approach to the problem. Munis shouldn’t be dropping off homeless in the city, but bussing out the homeless to the suburbs, who have no services for them is a heartless move just to make a meaningless political point.dbInSouthCity wrote:County munis do it now and drop off homeless in downtown, sometimes returning a favor is just a polite thing to do
- 1,792
You are right of course. I'm pretty sure db wasn't ACTUALLY going to DeSantis a bunch of homeless out to Chesterfield. Still has a point though.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Sep 29, 2023It’s not though. We need certainly need a regional approach to the problem. Munis shouldn’t be dropping off homeless in the city, but bussing out the homeless to the suburbs, who have no services for them is a heartless move just to make a meaningless political point.dbInSouthCity wrote:County munis do it now and drop off homeless in downtown, sometimes returning a favor is just a polite thing to do
Fake density islandsSTLEnginerd wrote: ↑Sep 29, 2023Its not fake density. People will live in close proximity with each other an retail with low individual square footage and shared outdoor spaces. Ultimately the shift to urban spaces is good.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Sep 29, 2023^Because fake density islands for people to play city is dumb, and from a regional-minded visionary sense, rudderless and devoid of impact? Even after the quibbling over said density lol. Move the investment where it makes sense and leverages existing infrastructure. Improve the front door mat to the region. Altruistic, yes, but we need to focus on the image of the region rather than a municipality fighting for temporary relevance.
As a critique, I would say it IS elitist. Meaning lets keep out the poors so we don't have to see daily the damage our self-interested culture of does to entire segments of society (largely minorities but not exclusively). Its definitely a symptom of something deeply wrong with our culture. I will guess that any homeless found inside the development will still be quickly shuttled to shelters in the city rather than rehabilitated locally.
If they connect to nothing else, they are islands of density for people to play city in; certainly something our entire region suffers from, whether that be municipal fragmentation, zero form base code oversight, generally zero creative or logical vision. Constant tail and tax chasing.
City-based, think Iron Hill, a recent pointless tail chase with little thought given to interconnectivity. Just another siphon from elsewhere until you get people to move in the city and stay put. With flat regional growth, we're just subsidizing other islands and letting others empty out, for little to no reason, at expense of development dollars and inertia
- 1,792
^Well FWIW, I think this model is MUCH healthier than the existing mall was or what the valley is. Its much better than more self owning with retail anchors that compete with the valley and the outlet malls. GIven the options, this is in concept a solid start toward a downtown Chesterfield.
To me the primary issue with the model is that the people who work there can't afford to live there. To me that's why its broken. That said i don't see the vision for it as functionally much different than Clayton for instance.
To me the primary issue with the model is that the people who work there can't afford to live there. To me that's why its broken. That said i don't see the vision for it as functionally much different than Clayton for instance.
- 320
Staenberg Group enters dispute it says will determine whether 'Downtown Chesterfield' redevelopment proceeds
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2023/10/02/staenberg-enters-dispute-downtown-chesterfield.htmlA judge on Monday allowed The Staenberg Group to enter a legal dispute the developer says will determine whether its massive $2 billion redevelopment of the Chesterfield Mall into "Downtown Chesterfield" will be successful.
Department store Dillard's in December asked the St. Louis County Circuit Court to overturn public subsidies approved last year for the nearby Wildhorse Village development and Chesterfield Mall redevelopment, which includes a store it owns but closed in 2016 due to flooding. The project envisions an urban city center in Chesterfield, a suburb that has never before had a downtown.
Dillard's claimed it wasn't given proper notice of Chesterfield Tax Increment Financing Commission meetings; that the commission and its adviser, PGAV Planners, didn't do a "parcel-by-parcel determination of blight"; and that Chesterfield didn't request bids for implementation of the redevelopment project. Dillard's also said that it "wants and intends" to reopen the store "in connection with (developer The Staenberg Group's) overall redevelopment," adding that it had discussed that concept with the company for three and a half years. Dillard's said it would redevelop and reopen its store without using TIF. Chesterfield previously denied the claims, saying that "at all times, the city engaged in a process that was appropriate, fair and lawful."
- 2,419
The Dillard's store at Chesterfield Mall will have been closed for eight years by the time we get a ruling on this...