Post Office Plaza

ecoabsence · PostJun 25, 2007#1012007-06-25T19:55+00:00

stlmike wrote: Maybe we could use a good one, in a good location, and strive toward building over the bad ones.

The Ambassador site is closer to a "good location" than the OPO plaza. I write this because the Ambassador site is smaller and already exists. US Bank does not want to build on it. City leaders could have worked with US Bank to make that space into a truly public plaza while marketing the lots on Locust Street as the biggest building site in the downtown core. Surely land in the core is worth too much to stay empty; my biggest problem with the plaza is that it sends a defeatist message to the world. Here we have a great site in one of the best parts of downtown, and the highest and best use is supposed to be a plaza.

stlmike · PostJun 25, 2007#1022007-06-25T20:00+00:00

I don't know, I actually think it is a really good location. It is right across from the Old Post Office and literally only a block away from that other one you mention. See, when people say the city could "work" with the US Bank people to get them to do it right, what do you mean by that? It is a vague description of how we could get something done without any details. I really doubt they are interested in making that into a true public space when it would only cost them money and make their private driveway a little less private. If this truly could be done, I would be all for it.

moorlander · PostJun 25, 2007#1032007-06-25T20:22+00:00

Broken record doug, thank you for reminding me about the Century and Ambassador. It totally slipped my mind. I mean when was the last time the word Century was muttered on this board?

Dude, get freaking over it. The century and ambassador were completely irreplaceable (RIP), but I hate to break it to ya, "They aint coming back!!"

I understand it is important to remember our past mistakes, and for some the OPO square will always have a black eyed past, but for the love, lets try to be excited with what's going on now.

People on this board love to throw around, "this should have been built here!" and "build this there." This isn't Sim City guys, the city doesn't own or control every parcel of land in DT. And the ones they do own most likely have leases or other contracts/politics tied to them, so it's not like every empty parking lot is available for development.

buckethead · PostJun 25, 2007#1042007-06-25T20:50+00:00

stlmike wrote:I don't know, I actually think it is a really good location. It is right across from the Old Post Office and literally only a block away from that other one you mention. See, when people say the city could "work" with the US Bank people to get them to do it right, what do you mean by that? It is a vague description of how we could get something done without any details. I really doubt they are interested in making that into a true public space when it would only cost them money and make their private driveway a little less private. If this truly could be done, I would be all for it.

Not only would they not be interested, but try this little experiment.

Go to the US Bank urban plaza (drive way) at the corner of 7th and locust. Sit down in the grass by the fountain and do something very non-threatening like start to read a book or eat your lunch.

There will be a security guard there within 5 minutes telling you that you MUST leave.

"City leaders could have worked with US Bank to make that space into a truly public plaza".

Easier said than done. USBank is not going to make that a public plaza.

matt · PostJun 25, 2007#1052007-06-25T21:18+00:00

One big difference with the U.S. Bank plaza is that the public is explicitly NOT invited to trespass there. If you attempt to sit or linger, you'll be asked to leave. Their plaza on the Washington side is also not intended to be inviting or hospitable.

xing · PostJun 26, 2007#1062007-06-26T00:44+00:00

Go to the US Bank urban plaza (drive way) at the corner of 7th and locust. Sit down in the grass by the fountain and do something very non-threatening like start to read a book or eat your lunch.

There will be a security guard there within 5 minutes telling you that you MUST leave.

"City leaders could have worked with US Bank to make that space into a truly public plaza".

Easier said than done. USBank is not going to make that a public plaza.

^That's disgusting. It's infuriating actually. :hell:

jcity · PostJun 26, 2007#1072007-06-26T03:06+00:00

Here we have a great site in one of the best parts of downtown, and the highest and best use is supposed to be a plaza.

Well said Eco. The fact that a city lost buildings like Century and Ambassador within the last 10 or so years is a national embarrassment, but I suppose we should all GET OVER IT.. What's sad is that even with this loss, which were obviously terrible mistakes, we continue to make them with things as ridiculous as "urban plazas". Clearly, the site would benefit far more with a new structure encompassing the full site. One thing Rollin Stanley mentioned that I thought was interesting was that in Toronto, surface lots are ILLEGAL downtown.. Hmm, maybe we should have a similar law.

markofucity · PostJun 26, 2007#1082007-06-26T05:04+00:00

Thats a really good idea .... of course we'd have to compensate the current owners of those lots (or I suspect we might - could be construed as a government taking) .. or you could grandfather them in and then tax the hell out of them .....

The sad thing is that the attitude remains. I was at a party last weekend out in Kirkwood ... Blairmont came up and the general consensus was that North St. Louis needed to be "leveled" or paved over anyway

shadrach · PostJun 26, 2007#1092007-06-26T20:33+00:00

Xing wrote:
Go to the US Bank urban plaza (drive way) at the corner of 7th and locust. Sit down in the grass by the fountain and do something very non-threatening like start to read a book or eat your lunch.

There will be a security guard there within 5 minutes telling you that you MUST leave.

"City leaders could have worked with US Bank to make that space into a truly public plaza".

Easier said than done. USBank is not going to make that a public plaza.
^That's disgusting. It's infuriating actually. :hell:

Next UP meeting: Every weekday from 12:00-1:00 pm at the US Bank public plaza. Bring a book!

metzgda · PostJun 26, 2007#1102007-06-26T20:54+00:00

markofucity wrote:The sad thing is that the attitude remains. I was at a party last weekend out in Kirkwood ... Blairmont came up and the general consensus was that North St. Louis needed to be "leveled" or paved over anyway

That scares the crap out of me. That would be enough for me and many others to never return or move from STL indefinately.

arch city · PostJun 26, 2007#1112007-06-26T21:03+00:00

^And the sad part is that many of those saying such things have never been to North St. Louis except along I-70 - if that.

moorlander · PostJun 26, 2007#1122007-06-26T21:33+00:00

Construction of $8 million OPO Plaza downtown set to begin next month

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... tory7.html

xing · PostJun 26, 2007#1132007-06-26T21:45+00:00

shadrach wrote:
Xing wrote:
Go to the US Bank urban plaza (drive way) at the corner of 7th and locust. Sit down in the grass by the fountain and do something very non-threatening like start to read a book or eat your lunch.

There will be a security guard there within 5 minutes telling you that you MUST leave.

"City leaders could have worked with US Bank to make that space into a truly public plaza".

Easier said than done. USBank is not going to make that a public plaza.
^That's disgusting. It's infuriating actually. :hell:

Next UP meeting: Every weekday from 12:00-1:00 pm at the US Bank public plaza. Bring a book!

I like that idea.

ecoabsence · PostJun 26, 2007#1142007-06-26T22:08+00:00

stlmike wrote:See, when people say the city could "work" with the US Bank people to get them to do it right, what do you mean by that? It is a vague description of how we could get something done without any details.

As one of the "people" who have said that, I can offer a definite but difficult solution: Change the zoning codes to prohibit privately-owned green space of that size downtown without certain public amenities, including benches.

That's the same vein as Toronto's ban on surface parking, but completely necessary to have a world-class downtown.

However, if our sights are set lower...

jlblues · PostJun 26, 2007#1152007-06-26T22:25+00:00

And here all this time, I thought we were shooting to be like downtown Omaha...

stlmike · PostJun 27, 2007#1162007-06-27T15:12+00:00

But their plaza isn't greenspace, it's literally a driveway/drop off circle. Someone would have to pay a lot of money to change it.

buckethead · PostJun 27, 2007#1172007-06-27T15:46+00:00

^ yes, let's change the zoning laws to p!ss off one of our largest companies downtown just so we can have benches on their private greenspace/driveway.

debaliviere · PostJun 27, 2007#1182007-06-27T17:26+00:00

There are two enormous mounds of mulch on the site right now - I have no idea what they're for.

threeonefour · PostJun 27, 2007#1192007-06-27T17:44+00:00

stlmike wrote:But their plaza isn't greenspace, it's literally a driveway/drop off circle.

Yes. And to my knowledge, it's never been used for its designed purpose.

I know some people are still pissed about the Century Building, but the Ambassador Theater gets my vote for the most senseless demolition, and the everdead chunk of concrete that replaced it gets my nod for the worst use of space in downtown- even worse than the most moribund sections of the Gateway Mall.

debaliviere · PostJun 27, 2007#1202007-06-27T18:02+00:00

ThreeOneFour wrote:I know some people are still pissed about the Century Building, but the Ambassador Theater gets my vote for the most senseless demolition, and the everdead chunk of concrete that replaced it gets my nod for the worst use of space in downtown- even worse than the most moribund sections of the Gateway Mall.

I'm with you. If all they needed was a driveway, there's more than enough room for a circular driveway in front of the building on Washington.

jmedwick · PostJun 27, 2007#1212007-06-27T19:22+00:00

^ Hmm tough choice. Clearly the building on the Gateway One site would have been or be on the list of new rehabs given the success of the historic tax credits and adding residential due west of Kiener Plaza would help make that space a lot better. That said, I will go along with the Ambassador, pointing out the if done right, the basis for a true theater district integrated into downtown was possible, with the Orpehum on 9th and the Ambassador on 7th along with the potential for development on vacant lots, such as those between 7th and 9th on Locust, or the conversion of the hall space in the Century into a small theater. Could have been something great...

doug · PostJun 27, 2007#1222007-06-27T19:25+00:00

Why does a tower need a driveway? Is it trying to emulate a McMansion in West County?

"Pissing off" companies seems to be something that St. Louis City is unwilling to do. Which is why this piece of concrete was created in the first place. Yet, City Officials need to have the fortitude to take a stand. The City shouldn't allow private employers free reign when it comes to the built environment. When this occurs we see horrible results. You know what I am talking about.

stlmike · PostJun 27, 2007#1232007-06-27T19:34+00:00

Does anyone know how the policy actually works when zoning changes are made? I mean, say we rezone that area in some way for it to be "No driveways," are they basically required to either have to do something with it or sell it immediately? Or do they get time since it was built before the zoning took place? I'm not up to snuff on zoning laws.

bab · PostJun 27, 2007#1242007-06-27T19:50+00:00

Doug wrote:Why does a tower need a driveway? Is it trying to emulate a McMansion in West County?

This one really gets my goat as I walk by this building every day. That fancy driveway almost NEVER gets used. In fact, many people line up in the morning and evening along 7th street and Washington in no parking zones (tow, in fact) and block up traffic to pick up/drop off.

Also, I get miffed that at least twice a week there is a huge Sysco semi parked on Washington blocking rush hour traffic unloading foodstuffs when this building has a quite large drive / loading dock on the north side as well as the fancy drive on the south side.

I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that US Bank actively discourages anyone from using that precious drive!

jmedwick · PostJun 27, 2007#1252007-06-27T20:30+00:00

stlmike wrote:Does anyone know how the policy actually works when zoning changes are made? I mean, say we rezone that area in some way for it to be "No driveways," are they basically required to either have to do something with it or sell it immediately? Or do they get time since it was built before the zoning took place? I'm not up to snuff on zoning laws.

Rezoning something will not address the problem in the short term.

Lets say you change the downtown zoning to not permit surface parking lots. Well all existing parking lots are grandfathered in and can continue to exist and operate as existing non-conforming uses. Such a change would mean no new surface parking lots could be built downtown, but existing surface lots could continue.

Moreover, the existing parking lots could remain unless a majority of the lots improvements are destroyed. In such a case, the owner could not rebuild the non-conforming use depending on the non-conforming use protections offered in the ordinance.

A property owner would also face more stringent standards in expanding the parking lot. For example, if Larry Rice wanted to level the NLEC for surface parking he would likely need to seek an expansion of a non-conforming use variance.

As for zoning the former Ambassador site for park land, I don't think the City could do it. It would be a taking. It is one thing to rezone the property to allow only 2 story buildings, but it is another to take all use, except for a public use, from a property.

It people are really interested in creating disincentives to create such worthless plazas, then consider changing the property tax system. We have talked about this before on this forum, but a property tax where only land, not improvements on the land, were taxed would mean that the US Bank Building site and the Ambassador site would be taxed the same.

Post Office Plaza

Choose Display Mode