urbanSTL

Matt Drops The H wrote:First of all, I find the term "b*tching" fairly offensive and sexist.

Dude, you have to be kidding me! sexist?

bpe235 wrote:

Matt Drops The H wrote:First of all, I find the term "b*tching" fairly offensive and sexist.

Dude, you have to be kidding me! sexist?

I never thought of it as sexist, but now that I think about it, I see what he means. At the very least, it is a word that some of us were taught not to use in mixed company along with other colorful words (i guess that is sexist, too). It doesn't really bother me even though I don't use it.



OK, the interesting thing is how such a positive and interesting announcement can cause such an agitated reaction. The location comes with baggage I guess. This development done right will make a lot of people feel better.

DeBaliviere wrote: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

Any thoughts on how tall they might go with this one? At 400,000sf and 100 condos seems like they could go 10+ storys

I have no idea how old you are, steve, but unless you're at least mid-40s, you're speaking from interpretation rather than experience.

steve wrote: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.

Um, no. Late '60s-early '70s, Midtown residential was actually booming, relative to the time. Laclede Town, when it was first built, was quite the happenin' place -- one that all you young urbanists would have been proud to live in. Arguably, had it been properly managed, it would have been a very nice residential link heading eastward from SLU.



Also late '60s-early -70s, the CWE had huge pockets of crap. Boarding houses, abandoned buildings -- in the 43xx to 47xx blocks, intermittently everywhere from Forest Parkway to Delmar. It was never "completely abandoned" -- but neither was Midtown.

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?

This is disingenuity raised to an art form. Between about 1980 and the present, AGE has increased its office space at least fourfold, if not more. Starting in the early '80s, SLU consciously turned inwards, actively discouraging its community from venturing off campus. They *could* have cooperated with what's now the Grand Center neighborhood and perhaps subsidized security up there, but they didn't.

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.

And your logic can be characterized as one-, or at best two-dimensional. You use the typical St. Louis reasoning, the "Highlander Theory" ("There can be only one.") Given its constituency, you wanna bet that Harris Stowe would have expanded just as much (and perhaps even more) if SLU had left? But no, the only possibilities must be "SLU stays" or "SLU leaves," with no residual effect had all that land and those buildings suddenly become available. (In any event, any speculation at all about SLU leaving is equivalent to the logic, "If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.")

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?)

Sodality Hall. DeSmet Hall. Resurrectionist House. And, save for Father Faherty, Cupples House. Plus my earlier comments about the Vandeventer/Laclede intersection.



As for their "long-term plans": Where can we go look at them? And in making these plans, who speaks for the interest of the dozens of existing small businesses who have not only invested significant sums, but also injected life to a truly "bereft of life" neighborhood (Locust Business District)?

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.

I submit that everyone in this thread citing SLU's shortcomings is saying exactly that: They shouldn't have carte blanche. Yet they appear to go largely unchallenged by anyone who can actually diverge from their plans.



Bonus question: SLU got something like $6M in TIF money to build its new arena. Where is the "I" in the TIF coming from?

Personally, I like Ten Arquitecos(I knew I would forgett how to spell it). I think that they just seem to be a little more modern and think outside the box just a little bit more. But either way, I'm happy.

^

The site is 4.3 acres, but you gotta think they'll build something similar to Jesuit Hall in height.



The article makes no mention of parking - hopefully it will be underground or will incorporate a garage with some public parking.

Arch City wrote:Is that 4.3 acres including the old state office building?

I think so.

As one of the developers in the Midtown area we are excited to hear about these types of plans. This only increases our belief that the future is very bright for Midtown.

Laclede Town, when it was first built, was quite the happenin' place -- one that all you young urbanists would have been proud to live in. Arguably, had it been properly managed, it would have been a very nice residential link heading eastward from SLU. [emphasis added]

But it didn't turn out so great, did it? True, there was a time when Midtown had a strong residential component, but then again there was a time when it was completely agrarian. But that's not the point. I should have clarified--the period I've had in mind is the 80s to the present. During this time, Midtown had very little residential, compared to other parts of the city.

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?

This is disingenuity raised to an art form. Between about 1980 and the present, AGE has increased its office space at least fourfold, if not more. Starting in the early '80s, SLU consciously turned inwards, actively discouraging its community from venturing off campus. They *could* have cooperated with what's now the Grand Center neighborhood and perhaps subsidized security up there, but they didn't.

How were my questions disingenuous? They weren't. Why didn't you address them? If anything, it's your post that's disingenuous. Sure, AGE did increase it's office space, but other than increasing the city's tax receipts, what did that do for Midtown? Where are AGE employees? Nowhere to be found, except when they're crossing Market to get to their garage at the end of the day. Whom do I see walking about patronizing local establishments? SLU students, faculty, and staff. It's AGE who has "consciously turned inwards" into their impenetrable fortress. And SLU's DPS does patrol the area, which was my point.

And your logic can be characterized as one-, or at best two-dimensional. You use the typical St. Louis reasoning, the "Highlander Theory" ("There can be only one.") Given its constituency, you wanna bet that Harris Stowe would have expanded just as much (and perhaps even more) if SLU had left? But no, the only possibilities must be "SLU stays" or "SLU leaves," with no residual effect had all that land and those buildings suddenly become available. (In any event, any speculation at all about SLU leaving is equivalent to the logic, "If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.")

What? You use the typical intellectually feeble logic of the "straw man:" mischaracterize the opponent's position so that it's easier to knock down. Yes, I would like to bet that if SLU had left, Harris-Stowe wouldn't have expanded. It was only very recently that Harris-Stowe began their very modest renovations and expansioin. If it was only recently that they could have afforded to expand, what makes you think they could have afforded it earlier when they would have been in a better position to do so? My point was that Harris-Stowe, on its own, would have had a serious struggle to cope in that area if SLU had pulled up stakes.

Sodality Hall. DeSmet Hall. Resurrectionist House. And, save for Father Faherty, Cupples House. Plus my earlier comments about the Vandeventer/Laclede intersection.

DuBourg Hall. St. Francis Xavier Church. Jesuit Hall. Queen's Daughters House. By extension, Lindell Towers, Coronado, and the Continental. Oh, and Cupples House is still standing.

As for their "long-term plans": Where can we go look at them? And in making these plans, who speaks for the interest of the dozens of existing small businesses who have not only invested significant sums, but also injected life to a truly "bereft of life" neighborhood (Locust Business District)?

Now you're asking some good questions. I agree with you. As far as their long term plans, they are (generally) to become the best Catholic university in America in a vibrant urban setting. Have they done the most ideal job? No. But my position is that, on the whole, SLU has done fairly well.



In summation, these seem to be our points: you think that SLU has botched things up, should be held accountable and, when appropriate, criticized; I agree, but only add that what good the university has done should not be so cavalierly glossed over, and further that it doesn't completely deserve all the demonizing it gets around here. So I think we more or less agree, a fact that was most likely obscured by my mulish disputatiousness.



For the record, steve is in his mid twenties (as if that makes much of a difference).



The prosecution rests.

Cupples House is still standing? Really? No kidding. I guess my nod to Father Faherty was simply another misdirection.



'80s to the present, huh? Another fine contributor to this board. Yes, let's forget the past. All that matters is the here and now.

Gee thanks, bonwich, for taking the time to read my post carefully and resopond with thoughtfulness and respect.



Being cavalier and condescending might pass for intelligence in epicurean circles, but you're not fooling me.

steve wrote:


Being cavalier and condescending might pass for intelligence in epicurean circles, but you're not fooling me.

Ooh, that's a good one!

steve wrote:Gee thanks, bonwich, for taking the time to read my post carefully and resopond with thoughtfulness and respect.



Being cavalier and condescending might pass for intelligence in epicurean circles, but you're not fooling me.

Charming. Not all of us live in our parents' basements and spend 24/7 on the site.



You made blanket statements that were demonstrably false ("Midtown was and is a far cry from the CWE." True in your limited timeframe. False in a longer timeframe. "There would be no Midtown without SLU." I pointed out AG Edwards and Harris-Stowe. I believe Matt-without-H also said essentially the same thing I did.)



You also made the fairly ludicrous statement that all AG Edwards has done for Midtown is "stay put." Hey, one person's significant growth and expansion (and, I believe, as opposed to the other insitutions, property taxes is another's "staying put." Improve their surroundings? There's been nothing much more than Beffa's, the now-torn-down hotel across Market, the famous Hep-B deli and the bbq joint in the old-folks tower within walking distance for as long as I can remember. SLU, on the other hand, actively discouraged its community from going to Grand Center, or Mojo, or the Mammer Jammer, or El Sarape -- and it closed and/or had tore down several restaurants and bars on the southwest corner of campus.



By the way, SLU also actively tried to get the Coronado torn down at one point.



And you never did answer the bonus question. I guess you were too busy thinking up clever names to call me instead of providing factual documentation. (You're not friends with the site mods, are you?)

Since SLU didn't begin its "imperialism" until the 80s--and really not in earnest until the 90s--I didn't think it necessary to consider the condition of Midtown in the 60s, when SLU was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. But in your timeframe, I'll admit I mispoke, but remember that any loss of residential in that area in your time frame had nothing to do with SLU. Oh, and your bonus question was a good one, which I did want to point out, and I apologize for the omission.



But I'm going to discontinue arguing this point with you, but would like to offer this piece of advice: drop the arrogant attitude. I'm tired of you belittling everyone on this board with whom you happen to disagree. Most of us on this board can disagree with each other without resorting to unprovoked ad hominem attacks and sarcasm in its most literal meaning. And don't forget that you played Princip in our "debate," not I.



Finally, I realize that most of us are just stupid little puppies to you, but Expat I know is an older gentleman, and he has the actual maturity to treat people with respect and decorum even if he disagrees with them. You might learn something from him.

Doug wrote:Can't we simply agree this is a good project, even though poorly executed in terms of the demolition?

My "woo-hoo" was not sarcastic. It's a great plan.

steve wrote:But I'm going to discontinue arguing this point with you, but would like to offer this piece of advice: drop the arrogant attitude. I'm tired of you belittling everyone on this board with whom you happen to disagree. Most of us on this board can disagree with each other without resorting to unprovoked ad hominem attacks and sarcasm in its most literal meaning. And don't forget that you played Princip in our "debate," not I.



Finally, I realize that most of us are just stupid little puppies to you, but Expat I know is an older gentleman, and he has the actual maturity to treat people with respect and decorum even if he disagrees with them. You might learn something from him.

Hey, I'm not the one who couldn't simply leave well enough alone when I didn't respond within your own acceptable schedule -- and you did so, I might add, with an "unprovoked ad hominem attack and sarcasm in its most literal meaning." Careful, you might just turn into me when you grow up.



Not to mention that any "ad hominem" attack I make on this board is at best "ad avatarem." My lack of the veil of anonymity out here (and on all Internet forums where I participate) is by choice, but give me credit for giving you (and everyone else out here) the benefit of perspective of exactly who I am.



Funny thing is, it appears that we agree more than we disagree. I agree that SLU has made exponential improvements since I went there almost 30 years ago. I agree that many of their development decisions have been well-reasoned. But I've also been close -- I mean really close -- to some of the people on the inside there, and I think it's completely valid to cite them for trying to be a suburban university in an urban context, which is a charge (suburbanizing the urban landscape) that seems to have a lot of resonance on this board.



Yeah, as a mod has told me, some people on this board find me arrogant. I also know several people out here personally, and others have PMed me, and some of them find me simply to have a low BS quotient. In my original response to you, I didn't deride you for being in your 20s -- I simply stated that I thought you were, because your initial post seemed to indicate that you didn't know about the '60s and '70s. I do think that some posters out here are overly idealistic, but I also see the need for such people in order for St. Louis to find a more accelerated rate of progress.



Enough for now. Cartoons are more fun.

$100 million development coming at entrance to Grand Center

By Riddhi Trivedi-St. Clair

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

07/03/2007



A St. Louis development company is expanding its stake in the revitalization of the area around Grand Center.



McCormack Baron Salazar said it will develop a $100 million mixed-use project on about five acres owned by St. Louis University at Grand and Lindell boulevards. The property is at the entrance to the Grand Center arts and entertainment district, which has seen several buildings revitalized in recent years.



Responding to a request for proposals in February by SLU, McCormack Baron submitted a proposal for a multi-building development that would include 100 for-sale condo units, 100,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail.



McCormack Baron hopes to break ground in early 2008. But no construction timeline has been set.



"Retail has been particularly lacking at Grand Center," said Richard Baron, chairman and chief executive of McCormack Baron Salazar. "There are no options for people who come early or want to stay late."



Link to Article

I'm very anxious to see some renderings.

steve wrote:I'm very anxious to see some renderings.

Me too. I'm very encouraged by the involvement of Omar Blaik on this project.

McCormack Baron has a staff of 500???? This should probably be 50, eh?

^BJ article said 300.