The Business Journal reports tht SLU is again accepting development proposals for this site. They say they want retail on the first floor, with residential above.
Straight from the horses mouth.
I would like to know when they plan to stop taking proposals and make a decision.
Corner of Grand and Lindell — I hope in the coming years the vacant lot and nearby State Office Building, which the University recently acquired, will be home to new businesses and residents. The University has put out a request for proposals on the property to create a mixed-use development with restaurants and/or stores on the ground level, as well as office space and market-rate residences on higher floors. This would be just another step in the revitalization of Midtown and help make Grand Center a prime destination in the city.
I would like to know when they plan to stop taking proposals and make a decision.
MattnSTL wrote:Straight from the horses mouth.
Corner of Grand and Lindell — I hope in the coming years the vacant lot and nearby State Office Building, which the University recently acquired, will be home to new businesses and residents. The University has put out a request for proposals on the property to create a mixed-use development with restaurants and/or stores on the ground level, as well as office space and market-rate residences on higher floors. This would be just another step in the revitalization of Midtown and help make Grand Center a prime destination in the city.
I would like to know when they plan to stop taking proposals and make a decision.
"I hope in the coming years" = "We don't have a clue right now whether"
- 10K
From today's Business Journal:
- SLU has issued an RFP for the 4.2 acre site.
- They pulled the previous RFP when they learned that the state office building next to the site they had already assembled was available - they acquired the building to provide a larger development site. (SLU only owned 1 acre at the time of the first RFP)
- The state building will likely be razed.
- Pace, Clayco, Balke Brown, Conrad and McCormack Baron are expected to submit proposals along with some out of town firms.
- Proposals are due April 16.
- They want a mixed-use development, with housing, hotel, retail, etc.
- SLU has issued an RFP for the 4.2 acre site.
- They pulled the previous RFP when they learned that the state office building next to the site they had already assembled was available - they acquired the building to provide a larger development site. (SLU only owned 1 acre at the time of the first RFP)
- The state building will likely be razed.
- Pace, Clayco, Balke Brown, Conrad and McCormack Baron are expected to submit proposals along with some out of town firms.
- Proposals are due April 16.
- They want a mixed-use development, with housing, hotel, retail, etc.
From today's Business Journal:
- SLU has issued an RFP for the 4.2 acre site.
- They pulled the previous RFP when they learned that the state office building next to the site they had already assembled was available - they acquired the building to provide a larger development site. (SLU only owned 1 acre at the time of the first RFP)
- The state building will likely be razed.
- Pace, Clayco, Balke Brown, Conrad and McCormack Baron are expected to submit proposals along with some out of town firms.
- Proposals are due April 16.
- They want a mixed-use development, with housing, hotel, retail, etc.
Great news. Here's hoping they go with a plan that's at least eight or ten stories high, with the parking as hidden as possible.
- 156
What do you think of razing the state office building? Is that the old Public Health building?
Personally, I'd keep the State Office Bldg. I actually kind of like the looks of it. And why tear-down a nice-sized, urban oriented building? Keep the building, and then they would have to make whatever they build on the corner that much bigger (taller). Remember, we're trying to fill-in the city. Less available land means new construction has to be denser. If they tear-down the State Bldg, they'd probably just use the extra land for a parking lot.
- 10K
I was at the University of Dayton this past weekend and noticed a nice mixed-use project under construction at a prominent intersection next to the university. The architecture complements that of the university's buildings - something a bit larger would fit in very well at Grand and Lindell.
![]()
I hope whatever gets built is BOLD and MODERN. I am so sick of cheesy historic replicas.
- 11K
This corner could really use something bold. And what's with $855 for a studio in Dayton, OH!?!?
Sorry, DeBaliviere, but I find that example, uh, underwhelming. It might look good in Maplewood, but not at Grand and Lindell, for crying out loud.
^See also: Forest Park and Skinker.
Plus, the Dayton rendering is a reasonably facsimile of what was on the corner originally, built at a time when Grand was considerably denser and more pedestrian friendly. I think I see exactly what DeB was getting at.
Plus, the Dayton rendering is a reasonably facsimile of what was on the corner originally, built at a time when Grand was considerably denser and more pedestrian friendly. I think I see exactly what DeB was getting at.
Hear, Hear!STLgasm wrote:I hope whatever gets built is BOLD and MODERN. I am so sick of cheesy historic replicas.
- 10K
Update in the Business Journal today:
- SLU is partnering with McCormack Baron on a $100 million development on the site
- 400,000 sf total
- 100 condos, 155,000 sf of retail space, 100,000 sf of office space
- McCormack Baron will be moving its hq to occupy about half of the office space in 2009
- Part of the retail component includes a mult-screen movie theater
- Not sure whether SLU will own the project or if the state office building will be demolished or incorporated (I hope it's demolished)
- Condos qualify for SLU's forgiveable loan program which gives down payment assistance to SLU employees
- SLU is partnering with McCormack Baron on a $100 million development on the site
- 400,000 sf total
- 100 condos, 155,000 sf of retail space, 100,000 sf of office space
- McCormack Baron will be moving its hq to occupy about half of the office space in 2009
- Part of the retail component includes a mult-screen movie theater
- Not sure whether SLU will own the project or if the state office building will be demolished or incorporated (I hope it's demolished)
- Condos qualify for SLU's forgiveable loan program which gives down payment assistance to SLU employees
Sounds like a tower or at least a mid-rise(s) could rise on this land. Whatever happens, just be modern and glass.
I've looked at both architecture firms McCormack is interviewing.
Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects/Mixed-use projects
Ten Arquitectos/Mixed-use projects
I tend to like Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects projects.
![]()
I've looked at both architecture firms McCormack is interviewing.
Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects/Mixed-use projects
Ten Arquitectos/Mixed-use projects
I tend to like Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects projects.
- 10K
BTW, according to the article, one of McCormack Baron's partners is Philadelphia-based U3 Partners, who has specializes in developments near college campuses:
http://www.u3ventures.com/ - on the About Us page, they have a good case study about development around the University of Pennsylvania, which was led by U3's principal, Omar Blalik.
http://www.u3ventures.com/ - on the About Us page, they have a good case study about development around the University of Pennsylvania, which was led by U3's principal, Omar Blalik.
Oh, no, this can't be--must be fake news. After all, as everyone knows SLU is the evil anti-urban empire, and this slot will forever remain vacant to just to rub it in the the Marina used to be there. SLU's way too dumb to pull off something like this.
- 1,517
steve wrote:Oh, no, this can't be--must be fake news. After all, as everyone knows SLU is the evil anti-urban empire, and this slot will forever remain vacant to just to rub it in the the Marina used to be there. SLU's way too dumb to pull off something like this.
Steve...
I believe that any entity that wanted to demolish part of the Locust Business District for a huge stadium that will remain lifeless for much of the year can never qualify as truly "pro-urban." So, the sarcasm is at least partially unwarranted.
Lindell and Grand is too high profile to completely fudge up. Don't act as if this project, should it be a completely positive one, makes up for their prior "evil imperialism."
No what I think makes up for it is the fact that there would be no Midtown without SLU, which would have seriously dampened overall city development. Plus they're a significant addition to Saint Louis' intellectual cachet, such as it is.
But nobody wants to see that. It's just much more fun b*tch.
But nobody wants to see that. It's just much more fun b*tch.
When one disagrees with a post, the content of said post is categorized as "whining" or "b*tching.*
And A.G. Edwards (and for that matter, possibly Harris Stowe) might disagree with you about a single driving force behind Midtown. On a parallel -- would there be no CWE without WashU?
Even crediting them for their part in the maintenance and growth of Midtown, I have no qualms pointing out that A.G. Edwards' taste in architecture has generally been on a par with Stalin's.
A cool new college-campus-centered urban development adjacent to SLU? Woo-hoo! Magic Eight Ball says "signs point to 'yes.' "
I could also dig out a U. News from 30 years ago when we editorialized that SLU should play an activist role in avoiding the destruction of the Loew's Midtown and the general negligence that was plaguing Grand about that time. And all you urbanophiles on this board can have a lively debate as to whether Laclede and Vandeventer would have been better for the past 10-15 years with organic, grassroots entertainment and nightlife or with the general void in street and pedestrian traffic that has resulted from SLU's activist elimination of bars and such that it didn't control.
Ahh, but I'm just b*tching and moaning!
And A.G. Edwards (and for that matter, possibly Harris Stowe) might disagree with you about a single driving force behind Midtown. On a parallel -- would there be no CWE without WashU?
Even crediting them for their part in the maintenance and growth of Midtown, I have no qualms pointing out that A.G. Edwards' taste in architecture has generally been on a par with Stalin's.
A cool new college-campus-centered urban development adjacent to SLU? Woo-hoo! Magic Eight Ball says "signs point to 'yes.' "
I could also dig out a U. News from 30 years ago when we editorialized that SLU should play an activist role in avoiding the destruction of the Loew's Midtown and the general negligence that was plaguing Grand about that time. And all you urbanophiles on this board can have a lively debate as to whether Laclede and Vandeventer would have been better for the past 10-15 years with organic, grassroots entertainment and nightlife or with the general void in street and pedestrian traffic that has resulted from SLU's activist elimination of bars and such that it didn't control.
Ahh, but I'm just b*tching and moaning!
Midtown was and is a far cry from the CWE. The comparison is inapt. The CWE, although it became declassé, was never completely abandoned or befeft of life. It has always been supported by a fairly intact and relatively robust residential component, something Midtown has and continues to sorely lack. Midtown/Grand Center has been beset by much more deterioration.
Just what has AGEdwards done, exactly, apart from staying put? Have they actively tried to improve their surroundings? Have they aggressively expanded their security force to act as a sort of para-police department to increase the area's safety? Does their campus interact as well as SLU's does to the surrounding area? Where are the hordes of AGE employees that patronize the businesses in the area?
Harris-Stowe might be a better counterexample, but they're really just apeing what SLU has done. So while they're a fine addition, your opine that Harris-Stowe has done just as much as its drastically larger neighbor to keep Midtown from complete collapse can only be characterised as jocular.
Look, I don't love SLU. I think it's made plenty of mistakes, and I'm not pleased with many of their decisions. That said, I think people don't understand their long term plans, haven't fully investigated what SLU is all about, and just like to sit back and condemn them for this or that particular building that they miss (the Marina? Really? People liked that dump? Or that hideous bank?) In the aggregate, macro, long-term, big picture, SLU is one hell of an asset. And while that doesn't give them a carte blanche, I wish people would keep that in mind. Let the b*tchfest continue.
Just what has AGEdwards done, exactly, apart from staying put? Have they actively tried to improve their surroundings? Have they aggressively expanded their security force to act as a sort of para-police department to increase the area's safety? Does their campus interact as well as SLU's does to the surrounding area? Where are the hordes of AGE employees that patronize the businesses in the area?
Harris-Stowe might be a better counterexample, but they're really just apeing what SLU has done. So while they're a fine addition, your opine that Harris-Stowe has done just as much as its drastically larger neighbor to keep Midtown from complete collapse can only be characterised as jocular.
Look, I don't love SLU. I think it's made plenty of mistakes, and I'm not pleased with many of their decisions. That said, I think people don't understand their long term plans, haven't fully investigated what SLU is all about, and just like to sit back and condemn them for this or that particular building that they miss (the Marina? Really? People liked that dump? Or that hideous bank?) In the aggregate, macro, long-term, big picture, SLU is one hell of an asset. And while that doesn't give them a carte blanche, I wish people would keep that in mind. Let the b*tchfest continue.
- 10K
steve wrote:That said, I think people don't understand their long term plans, haven't fully investigated what SLU is all about, and just like to sit back and condemn them for this or that particular building that they miss (the Marina? Really? People liked that dump? Or that hideous bank?)
The Marina and the Feathers Apartments next to it were great. The bank was awful.
I'd like to see some sort of anchor building where the bank once stood - maybe something angled to address the corner and complement College Church and DuBourg. The fountain is pretty underwhelming, and it doesn't interact with Tegler Hall or Ritter Hall at all.
- 1,517
First of all, I find the term "b*tching" fairly offensive and sexist.
Secondly, I think the criticism of SLU is needed and healthy. I don't think it's accurate to say that Midtown never was comparable to the Central West End. Photos of the intersection of Grand and Lindell even as late as 1960 seem to provide visual evidence against that statement.
Midtown did have a residential base. Thanks in part to the presence of the institutions that call it home (mostly St. Louis University, but partially Harris Stowe and AG Edwards), that residential context has been erased. Laclede used to be a residential street and all but three residences have been demolished (rumor is that these--the Language Houses and one private residence--are slated for the wrecking ball as well).
I know that many other forces drove out the residential base. Vandeventer Place was said to have been vacated simply because it lost its status as a hinterland when the bustle of the city began to envelope it. And Grand Center, Inc. and its institutions require parking and have erased the context from their adjacent blocks as well. But don't suggest that Midtown was never a residential neighborhood.
Even so, I find the statement that their would be no Midtown without SLU to be a bit disingenuous. The districts in this city that have been left untouched because they were, at the time, economically not viable are some of the most vibrant or have the most potential (the Washington Ave. Loft District, the Locust Business District, the still emerging Bevo Bosnian business boom along Gravois and Morganford, etc.). So while SLU kept Midtown relevant, it wasn't necessarily the best thing to happen to it. It should have been, with an administration and a President versed in urbanism. But that's not been 100% the case.
We should not make excuses for each example of SLU's dismantling of Midtown just because it has also played a role in positive development.
Secondly, I think the criticism of SLU is needed and healthy. I don't think it's accurate to say that Midtown never was comparable to the Central West End. Photos of the intersection of Grand and Lindell even as late as 1960 seem to provide visual evidence against that statement.
Midtown did have a residential base. Thanks in part to the presence of the institutions that call it home (mostly St. Louis University, but partially Harris Stowe and AG Edwards), that residential context has been erased. Laclede used to be a residential street and all but three residences have been demolished (rumor is that these--the Language Houses and one private residence--are slated for the wrecking ball as well).
I know that many other forces drove out the residential base. Vandeventer Place was said to have been vacated simply because it lost its status as a hinterland when the bustle of the city began to envelope it. And Grand Center, Inc. and its institutions require parking and have erased the context from their adjacent blocks as well. But don't suggest that Midtown was never a residential neighborhood.
Even so, I find the statement that their would be no Midtown without SLU to be a bit disingenuous. The districts in this city that have been left untouched because they were, at the time, economically not viable are some of the most vibrant or have the most potential (the Washington Ave. Loft District, the Locust Business District, the still emerging Bevo Bosnian business boom along Gravois and Morganford, etc.). So while SLU kept Midtown relevant, it wasn't necessarily the best thing to happen to it. It should have been, with an administration and a President versed in urbanism. But that's not been 100% the case.
We should not make excuses for each example of SLU's dismantling of Midtown just because it has also played a role in positive development.