urbanSTL

^^^^^^^^^^^^

i guess

Moorlander wrote:Sweet Garage!











Rendering Source

I was told by one of their architects that that is not the final design, but I have not actually seen a different design to know what is different.

Okay, have a parking deck but make the thing look like it's not a parking deck!! For the love, get some creativity involved so the city doesn't look like a highrise concrete maze of parking decks.

And this is on Tucker, what should be one of our grandest thoroughfares. Sad.

I know Lawrence Group is hurting financially right now, but this is really disappointing. What happen to the nice modern building? Hopefully when the economy picks back up they can build above the garage and add an actual facade. If we're looking for a silver lining... at the very least there appears to be first floor commercial space.



The quality of the rending is disappointing too. Am I to believe the sun is setting in the north?



Plus, they just plopped a basic, bland, run of the mill parking garage into an old rendering

Why? Why another parking garage? How many do we need?

Well, if you are converting a large building to apartments which you hope to convert to condos some day, you would be wise to supply abundant and convenient parking. I continue to be amazed at the proportion of folks in our downtown condo/apartment building who have purchased two or three spaces. We find one car to be sufficient....But others obviously feel differently about the subject.

^ for some people autos are a mode of transportation. For others they are a hobby and/or form of entertainment and for others they are an extention of their ego. I know many people who have cars for work and cars for play.

Century Building=Parking Garage

Tucker and Clark=Parking Garage

Park Pacific Project=Parking Garage



UGH!!!!!



I suppose atleast two of them are/were built/being built on existing surface lots. What a silver lining huh?

^ I prefer garages over surface lots any day (especially garages with retail on the bottom). At least garages create the illusion of density.....surface lots are just eyesores.

ntbpo wrote:Century Building=Parking Garage

Tucker and Clark=Parking Garage

Park Pacific Project=Parking Garage



UGH!!!!!



I suppose atleast two of them are/were built/being built on existing surface lots. What a silver lining huh?

Guess we've got to take what we can get. At least it's mass and density. Still sad.

ntbpo wrote:

Century Building=Parking Garage

Tucker and Clark=Parking Garage

Park Pacific Project=Parking Garage



UGH!!!!!



I suppose atleast two of them are/were built/being built on existing surface lots. What a silver lining huh?





Guess we've got to take what we can get. At least it's mass and density. Still sad.

Would be nice if we could finish these garages and then put a freeze on parking developments-atleast until some new residential and/or office space is constructed. I'm fearing the day that a new garage is going to be proposed at the corner of Wash and Tucker.

ntbpo wrote:

ntbpo wrote:

Century Building=Parking Garage

Tucker and Clark=Parking Garage

Park Pacific Project=Parking Garage



UGH!!!!!



I suppose atleast two of them are/were built/being built on existing surface lots. What a silver lining huh?





Guess we've got to take what we can get. At least it's mass and density. Still sad.

Would be nice if we could finish these garages and then put a freeze on parking developments-atleast until some new residential and/or office space is constructed. I'm fearing the day that a new garage is going to be proposed at the corner of Wash and Tucker.

I know the lot you mean... a parking garage there would be a travesty. Luckily, as it now stands, the existing surface lot is way too narrow for a garage. However *knock on wood*, that still may not stop someone from buying the building next door to get the square footage they need. Ugh.



As far as this proposed garage for Park Pacific: I'd rather Lawrence Group only convert the existing building into apartments at this moment. Then, in the future when the economy gets better, add the garage and the originally planned condo units so they can be done right. But that's probably not realistic.

Parking garages aren't going away any time soon; they're a necessary part of modern American life. I just wish someone in this town could figure out how to make them look nice.

Framer wrote:Parking garages aren't going away any time soon; they're a necessary part of modern American life. I just wish someone in this town could figure out how to make them look nice.

I don't think the parking garage is a necessity at all in the city. For someone in the suburbs who is visiting west county mall, the parking garage is necessary because driving is virtually the only mode of transportation.



But in a high rise in the city? There are so many other ways to get around. So many ways that are more environmentally "friendly" and more efficient and take up so much less space. (Walking? Taxi? Bus? Metro? Bike?) I know parking garages aren't going away any time soon, but I'm just wondering how long we're going to keep building them when it seems, to me, that the very fact that we are building them is contributing to the need to build more.

^ That idea is not practical in the least when public transit is poor.

I don't think the parking garage is a necessity at all in the city. For someone in the suburbs who is visiting west county mall, the parking garage is necessary because driving is virtually the only mode of transportation.

I think this is a bit unrealistic. Even in the largest cities there are parking garages for commuters. Some people just won't take public transportation and whether I like it or not, someone is going to accommodate them with parking.



And, unfortunately, the parking garage is a necessity in STL. The city is looking more like the suburbs with each demolition, so....I mean even a lot/most city residents drive to work even if they work in the city. Maybe they didn't when STL had trolley's etc., but we know how that turned out.

So many ways that are more environmentally "friendly" and more efficient and take up so much less space. (Walking? Taxi? Bus? Metro? Bike?

While I agree with you, this is a perfect world scenario where people think about the bigger picture and not just about themselves....or where these options are readily available to them and it makes sense to use them.

Moorlander wrote:For some people autos are a mode of transportation. For others they are a hobby and/or form of entertainment and for others they are an extention of their ego. I know many people who have cars for work and cars for play.

And that's why I'm not surprised when some people living downtown want two, even three parking spaces. My cars get me from Point A to Point B just fine, but they're also a form of entertainment. And someday I want to have a car just for weekend drives and whatnot, so if I lived downtown I would want two spaces. I know it's counter to my urban sensibilities in the eyes of some, but I've always loved cars, and I always will.



I think Framer is right. We really cannot (and probably shouldn't) prevent new garages from being built, but developers could certainly do more to improve upon the aesthetics of most garages. I think my least favorite new garage, aside from the hideous Plain Jane concrete structure behind Cupples Station facing the highway is the one at Seventh and Olive streets. The street level looks fine, but why did someone think it was necessary to put wheels in the open areas on the second level?

ntbpo wrote:Would be nice if we could finish these garages and then put a freeze on parking developments-atleast until some new residential and/or office space is constructed. I'm fearing the day that a new garage is going to be proposed at the corner of Wash and Tucker.

That, to me, is a reasonable suggestion. It's been years since I've seen a study of parking in downtown St. Louis, but it's never been anything but abundant as long as I can remember. Furthermore, it's quite inexpensive when compared to other major cities to park in our downtown. I think a moratorium would be great as long as no new major structures are built. It would at least provide time to develop a comprehensive parking plan and address aesthetic issues.



That said, I don't hold out much hope for this project based on the rendering, although I'll reserve final judgment until we know whether the updated rendering is close to the final product we'll see. I just expect it won't look nearly as good as the building that combined parking with the Cityside condos, and I know the city will do nothing to address any aesthetic concerns people may have.

innov8ion wrote:^ That idea is not practical in the least when public transit is poor.

"olvidarte"]this is a perfect world scenario where people think about the bigger picture and not just about themselves....or where these options are readily available to them and it makes sense to use them.

True, but as long as parking garages continue to go up and we continue to dedicate massive space to car storage, there won't be any big push to improve other modes of transport. People will simply continue to do what they do because they can.



I don't want every parking garage to disappear, of course. We have to have parking structures for tourists driving in from other cities, and we have to have parking structures for commuters coming in from the suburbs. But otherwise, I just see them as sucking vitality from the downtown, in that they often have no street-level relation to pedestrians (this garage in this development does, thankfully) and they encourage people not to use modes of transport that would otherwise be beneficial for our downtown and the city.

An update on this project is included in an article about the apartment market in the Post today:



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument

innov8ion wrote:^ That idea is not practical in the least when public transit is poor.

Is it really "poor" in downtown St. Louis?



Downtown has the best transit service of any city neighborhood, including several MetroLink stations that connect directly to the CWE, Loop amd Trader Joe's.

ecoabsence wrote:

innov8ion wrote:^ That idea is not practical in the least when public transit is poor.

Is it really "poor" in downtown St. Louis?



Downtown has the best transit service of any city neighborhood, including several MetroLink stations that connect directly to the CWE, Loop amd Trader Joe's.

I could have been more descriptive. I didn't intend to describe downtown mass transit as poor. But I'm of the belief that the region's mass transit as a whole has much room for improvement. Of course, I haven't really studied this in detail especially as compared with other cities so take it with a grain of salt. I leave that up to more knowledgeable people. That's it in a nutshell.