Man am I happy to see that asphalt go. They are almost finished ripping it up this afternoon. Can't wait to watch this thing take shape.
Shimmy: Chicago.
Bastiat, although I don't really worry about the ACLU, you do make an interesting point that it could be developed in the future. I didn't consider that as an option. To be specific, it is owned by Downtown St. Louis Partnership?
Bastiat, although I don't really worry about the ACLU, you do make an interesting point that it could be developed in the future. I didn't consider that as an option. To be specific, it is owned by Downtown St. Louis Partnership?
The property was purchased in the late 1990's early 2000's by Downtown Now and with the merging of Downtown Now into the DSTLP, DTSTLP now essentially owns the property.
- 10K
JMedwick wrote:The property was purchased in the late 1990's early 2000's by Downtown Now and with the merging of Downtown Now into the DSTLP, DTSTLP now essentially owns the property.
I remember there used to be a skinny building, maybe 4-5 stories, right in the middle of the lot.
Indeed there was. If you look at the parcel map of the property online, it appears now as one lot fronting on Locust and one lot abutting the Mayfair Hotel, rather than the 3 lots fronting on Locust that were once there.
Looking online, it appears that the property lines were redrawn between 2003 and now, likely as part of the deal hashed out between the Roberts Brothers and DTSLP/ Downtown Now to get the small parcel for the tower (ie. the property next to the Mayfair Hotel) while all the properties owned by Downtown Now were merged into one larger lot. I am sure if you go to City Hall and check the Block Book for this property, you can see all the markings showing such changes.
Looking online, it appears that the property lines were redrawn between 2003 and now, likely as part of the deal hashed out between the Roberts Brothers and DTSLP/ Downtown Now to get the small parcel for the tower (ie. the property next to the Mayfair Hotel) while all the properties owned by Downtown Now were merged into one larger lot. I am sure if you go to City Hall and check the Block Book for this property, you can see all the markings showing such changes.
I like those buildings too. But I'm not gonna hold my breath. St. Louis has a long way to go, and this type of development, a USEFUL plaza in a dense urban environment is a very good start.
- 291
I'm in favor of the plaza and i think the OPO needs some open space around it as a taller structure would dwarf it. It's such a classic building it really does deserve to be showcased and I think the plaza will do that.
Doug said, "Once we have those (tall buildings) then we can have a plaza. We already have plenty of green space in my opinion."
Once we have enough businesses, then we can have the tall buildings. Until then, a nifty plaza is fine with me.
Once we have enough businesses, then we can have the tall buildings. Until then, a nifty plaza is fine with me.
Framer wrote:Yeah, Doug says that a lot.
And many times Doug is right. Too much greenspace and parkland in a downtown destroys both the urban feel of a downtown and reduces density in an area that should be marked by high density. Too much greenspace can be as deadly to the liveliness of a downtown as too many parking lots, particularly when those spaces become havens for the homeless and vagrants.
JMedwick wrote:Framer wrote:Yeah, Doug says that a lot.
And many times Doug is right. Too much greenspace and parkland in a downtown destroys both the urban feel of a downtown and reduces density in an area that should be marked by high density. Too much greenspace can be as deadly to the liveliness of a downtown as too many parking lots, particularly when those spaces become havens for the homeless and vagrants.
But Doug sounds a like a child who has no idea of economic reality when he complains about this. He is always complaining that "They" don't build highrises in X spot. We need demand and businesses, etc to build those towers...
- 6,775
Bastiat wrote:JMedwick wrote:Framer wrote:Yeah, Doug says that a lot.
And many times Doug is right. Too much greenspace and parkland in a downtown destroys both the urban feel of a downtown and reduces density in an area that should be marked by high density. Too much greenspace can be as deadly to the liveliness of a downtown as too many parking lots, particularly when those spaces become havens for the homeless and vagrants.
But Doug sounds a like a child who has no idea of economic reality when he complains about this. He is always complaining that "They" don't build highrises in X spot. We need demand and businesses, etc to build those towers...
Exactly. He's always spending "their" money. If he thinks a highrise at X & Y would be such a smashing success, he should build one.
- 11K
^ At least as a counterpoint I find Doug's idealism refreshing. Not everyone on here should be a realist.
- 6,775
Grover wrote:^ At least as a counterpoint I find Doug's idealism refreshing. Not everyone on here should be a realist.
Sometimes "idealism" can come very close to "naiveté".
I'm just sayin'.
^Agreed. I don't think many on here are against more density (building on the Mall) and less "green space" downtown, they just realize that it will have to happen later down the line once all of the historic buildings are rehabbed and the Ballpark Village and Roberts Tower, Skyhouse, etc are built.
But if one were to read Doug's post, you'd think that the only thing preventing 40+ story buildings on the mall and the block to the north of the OPO is the city planners preferring park land. In his mind, the construction of this plaza means that a skyscraper won't be built on the site (like it would be without the plaza
).
But if one were to read Doug's post, you'd think that the only thing preventing 40+ story buildings on the mall and the block to the north of the OPO is the city planners preferring park land. In his mind, the construction of this plaza means that a skyscraper won't be built on the site (like it would be without the plaza
).
By the way, why is the phrase "green space" being thrown around for this plaza? It's not a "green space." When someone says "green space," i think actual green space but some people here tend to take the phrase to mean "anything that's not a building." It's not a green park or a deteriorating parking lot. It's a well-designed, well-placed urban concrete plaza. We actually don't have anything like this downtown and most great cities do. I welcome this addition to our downtown. There are plenty of places to continue to build.
^ Well, as made clear thus far, the the preference of parkland for both the OPO Square and the Gateway Mall is major stumbling blocks when even considering constructing a building of any size in either location. Consider the delays in the Roberts Tower as the City, Downtown St. Louis Partnership, and the Roberts Brothers hashed out the amount of land to be devoted to the Tower and the amount devoted to the park.
You are both correct that there is alot more standing in the way of major office or residential high-rise construction in downtown than a preference for parkland.
That said, it is important to think longer term about how best to use downtown lands. If the long term goal of downtown should be to build on the mall and reduce greensapce (always a contentious point on this forum a),should the City be spending money on creating or refurbishing greenspace that long term land use planning says should be transitioned to other uses?Is that the best short term use of the money if the long term goal for a site is so very different?
Would downtown be better off spending that money on more streetscaping, improvement of downtown parking management, or other projects?
While it might be naive to just state that downtown needs to build a 40 story tower on a given site, the larger land use questions and the corresponding expenditures are very important.
You are both correct that there is alot more standing in the way of major office or residential high-rise construction in downtown than a preference for parkland.
That said, it is important to think longer term about how best to use downtown lands. If the long term goal of downtown should be to build on the mall and reduce greensapce (always a contentious point on this forum a),should the City be spending money on creating or refurbishing greenspace that long term land use planning says should be transitioned to other uses?Is that the best short term use of the money if the long term goal for a site is so very different?
Would downtown be better off spending that money on more streetscaping, improvement of downtown parking management, or other projects?
While it might be naive to just state that downtown needs to build a 40 story tower on a given site, the larger land use questions and the corresponding expenditures are very important.
Thats true, at this point I don't think we need to worry about space being taken up by buildings. There is alot of progress in downtown St Louis, but not enough to have to worry about space.
THANK YOU STLMIKE....this isnt a park "greenspace" .....Modern urban concrete plaza to add diversity (a lil something different) to downtown....we have some tower highrises on the way and more to come after that....why do I get the feeling some people want to turn STL into Chicago or something with all these towers....if I want to go to chicago I'll go, let STL be known for its vibrant and diverse downtown spaces....luv this plaza...that is just me, I like different stufff
cheers,
cheers,
Thanks STLight!
A public space that is programmed correctly is an asset to the urban environment. A major issue I have with the mall is the programming of the space. Sure it's alot of green/open/undeveloped space, but imagine if it all had vibrant specific uses rather than the "do whatever you want with the space" mentality. To reiterate your other point, what does height mean over 8 stories or so; the street is framed,there are few underdeveloped lots, it's really about the density!
A public space that is programmed correctly is an asset to the urban environment. A major issue I have with the mall is the programming of the space. Sure it's alot of green/open/undeveloped space, but imagine if it all had vibrant specific uses rather than the "do whatever you want with the space" mentality. To reiterate your other point, what does height mean over 8 stories or so; the street is framed,there are few underdeveloped lots, it's really about the density!
Gatechie wrote:Thanks STLight!
A public space that is programmed correctly is an asset to the urban environment. A major issue I have with the mall is the programming of the space. Sure it's alot of green/open/undeveloped space, but imagine if it all had vibrant specific uses rather than the "do whatever you want with the space" mentality. To reiterate your other point, what does height mean over 8 stories or so; the street is framed,there are few underdeveloped lots, it's really about the density!
It does not matter how well a public space is programed if there aren't enough people to use and activate the space.
But as I have said, we will find out in the next few years who is correct. If all downtown's parks and greenspaces needed were a few more activities and better planning, then I am sure they will come alive with the Gateway Mall plan. If they are dead not because of lack of programing, but instead the more critical lack of people (ie. too few people for so much space), then all the changes will not make much of a difference in the Mall.
You are correct though about framing the street.
keef227 wrote:Thats true, at this point I don't think we need to worry about space being taken up by buildings. There is alot of progress in downtown St Louis, but not enough to have to worry about space.
This is the difference between proactive and reactive planning.
A City thinking ahead considers the mix and location of land uses it would prefer. Far to often the City engages in reactive planning, not proactive planning. Downtown would be a good place to start the change.
I just noticed some city workers installing new traffic lights at 9th and Olive facing north. I wonder if 9th is changing to two-way traffic or reversing the traffic flow???
Perhaps because 8th between St. Charles and Locust is supposed to be closed as part of the Roberts Tower construction they are making 9th two way between Locust and Washington.
JMedwick-
You're right there may not be enough people to use a well-programmed space but it goes back to which comes first ; the people to use the space, or the space for the people to use. I'll argue the space is already there, we might as well make it a draw for people to come and the already resident population rather than wishing for more population before we can ever do anything. I like the previous post of being proactive or reactive, it sums up the issue well.[/quote]
You're right there may not be enough people to use a well-programmed space but it goes back to which comes first ; the people to use the space, or the space for the people to use. I'll argue the space is already there, we might as well make it a draw for people to come and the already resident population rather than wishing for more population before we can ever do anything. I like the previous post of being proactive or reactive, it sums up the issue well.[/quote]