According to a Landmarks article the demolition of these buildings was previously denied by the Preservation Board. If that's the case this proposal should still need to clear that hurdle. And, if so, I hope it is shot down.
It sounds like the neighboring buildings were demolished after an initial Preservation Board denial four years ago so let's hope that doesn't happen again.
People talk a lot about crime and schools in the city, but crap like this threatens the city's very reason for existence. People will put up with crime (to a point) in order to be able to live in an urban environment and I think we are getting a handle on quality school choices, but what good is it if St. Louis is just going to be a higher crime version of Ballwin with a zoo? This is the only decent corner left at that intersection. There is unfortunately a contingent of people in St. Louis who have spent a large part of their life viewing the suburban lifestyle as a symbol of success and wanting to emulate that. The national movement toward urbanism has changed the rules of the game on them and they haven't kept up. The city comprises less than 1% of the total land area in the St. Louis MSA. People who want to live a suburban autocentric lifestyle can find plenty of places in the area that cater to their desires. Let's leave the city to people who actually like living in a city.
People talk a lot about crime and schools in the city, but crap like this threatens the city's very reason for existence. People will put up with crime (to a point) in order to be able to live in an urban environment and I think we are getting a handle on quality school choices, but what good is it if St. Louis is just going to be a higher crime version of Ballwin with a zoo? This is the only decent corner left at that intersection. There is unfortunately a contingent of people in St. Louis who have spent a large part of their life viewing the suburban lifestyle as a symbol of success and wanting to emulate that. The national movement toward urbanism has changed the rules of the game on them and they haven't kept up. The city comprises less than 1% of the total land area in the St. Louis MSA. People who want to live a suburban autocentric lifestyle can find plenty of places in the area that cater to their desires. Let's leave the city to people who actually like living in a city.
How much of that sales tax revenue would actually be new? Seems like much of it would be offset by lost business at other gas stations in the area.dweebe wrote:What about other tax revenue streams (sales tax, employee income tax)? I'm not a fan of the QT: but you can't forget/leave out other sources.quincunx wrote:The QT on Gravois pays $14k property taxes/acre. The buildings at Jefferson and Chouteau pay $42k/acre. We can't afford to build that way.
- 3,235
Yep. Nail on the head.danryan1 wrote:How much of that sales tax revenue would actually be new? Seems like much of it would be offset by lost business at other gas stations in the area.dweebe wrote:What about other tax revenue streams (sales tax, employee income tax)? I'm not a fan of the QT: but you can't forget/leave out other sources.quincunx wrote:The QT on Gravois pays $14k property taxes/acre. The buildings at Jefferson and Chouteau pay $42k/acre. We can't afford to build that way.
But does majority not rule? This is something I've been struggling with the past few years. Do we not get the Saint Louis we want? ("we" being defined as the entire population). For example: Aventura. It really seemed to fill up quick. If this is what the majority wants I would think it would be hard to expect developers to do otherwise.stlgasm wrote:Just because the majority of residents are in favor of the proposal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The city belongs to all of us, not just the Gate District. Our elected leaders have a responsibility to uphold minimum standards of acceptable urban development- this plan clearly fails at that. It's frustrating, infuriating and above all, embarrassing.
To take it a lot farther, could the root of nearly all of the struggles of this city simply come down to the fact that four out of five of the people in this region simply prefer the suburban look and feel?
I do feel if you like urban stuff or want to live in the city in STL and KC you are in the minority. When I told my neighbors in Kirkwood I am moving and planing to buy a condo/ loft downtown they look at me like I am from Pluto and ask me why is a concerning way. I say lets build the city for young people, transplants, immigrants, artist and gays and let the old stock have the burbs. Even if STL was the most perfect city in the world the locals still would not want to go downtown just for fun of being downtown.terence d wrote:But does majority not rule? This is something I've been struggling with the past few years. Do we not get the Saint Louis we want? ("we" being defined as the entire population). For example: Aventura. It really seemed to fill up quick. If this is what the majority wants I would think it would be hard to expect developers to do otherwise.stlgasm wrote:Just because the majority of residents are in favor of the proposal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The city belongs to all of us, not just the Gate District. Our elected leaders have a responsibility to uphold minimum standards of acceptable urban development- this plan clearly fails at that. It's frustrating, infuriating and above all, embarrassing.
To take it a lot farther, could the root of nearly all of the struggles of this city simply come down to the fact that four out of five of the people in this region simply prefer the suburban look and feel?
- 8,155
I don't think it really is a preference for suburban styles from the consumer.... Aventura may be doing okay but so, too, are say Metro Lofts and Cortona as well as the myriad of historic rehabs. What we do have a problem with is getting form-based codes, design standards, and most of all expectations in place that will get us to that higher-quality level that will allow for the city to better fulfill its great potential.
Maybe the form-based codes, strict design standards and expectations don't exist simply b/c the majority of people don't care?roger wyoming II wrote: What we do have a problem with is getting form-based codes, design standards, and most of all expectations in place that will get us to that higher-quality level that will allow for the city to better fulfill its great potential.
- 8,155
^ yeah, I don't think the average person has any idea what form-based code is nor really would care but they'd like the results of what that would produce. I think the issue is that elected officials haven't equipped our planning dept. etc. with enough powers and resources to really bring higher standards in play.... part of that I believe is that outside of a few areas there historically hadn't been much redevelopment activity. But now that we are starting to get a higher level of redevelopment activity across a number of neighborhoods its about time we started having officials push for higher standards even though the general public may not be clamoring for it.
Exactly, when I explain to my friends, who like city living, why they like it, they understand. I just don't think a lot of people take the time to learn what makes a great urban environment or why they like living in one. We need someone to sell it to the general public.roger wyoming II wrote:^ yeah, I don't think the average person has any idea what form-based code is nor really would care but they'd like the results of what that would produce. I think the issue is that elected officials haven't equipped our planning dept. etc. with enough powers and resources to really bring higher standards in play.... part of that I believe is that outside of a few areas there historically hadn't been much redevelopment activity. But now that we are starting to get a higher level of redevelopment activity across a number of neighborhoods its about time we started having officials push for higher standards even though the general public may not be clamoring for it.
- 9,672
I worked on the some of the form based code overlay districts in the city and people "in the know" were confused about itroger wyoming II wrote:^ yeah, I don't think the average person has any idea what form-based code.
- 1,649
I've let my opposition to this disgrace be heard (doesn't matter if, technically, it's too late because Chouteau is destroyed and beyond repair anyway but that's beside the point).
As far as people in "The Gate" being in support of it.....well, duh, if you live in "The Gate" you probably don't care about such things anyway. Now, please don't go find me one person in "The Gate" who is a staunch preservationist - I'm talking generally speaking here. It's the same people who love dollar stores and would probably love to live in a subdivision in the County if they could. Walkabilty? Good urban form? Street wall? Pffft, never heard of it. Let's be honest here.
As far as people in "The Gate" being in support of it.....well, duh, if you live in "The Gate" you probably don't care about such things anyway. Now, please don't go find me one person in "The Gate" who is a staunch preservationist - I'm talking generally speaking here. It's the same people who love dollar stores and would probably love to live in a subdivision in the County if they could. Walkabilty? Good urban form? Street wall? Pffft, never heard of it. Let's be honest here.
Exactly.leeharveyawesome wrote:As far as people in "The Gate" being in support of it.....well, duh, if you live in "The Gate" you probably don't care about such things anyway. Now, please don't go find me one person in "The Gate" who is a staunch preservationist - I'm talking generally speaking here. It's the same people who love dollar stores and would probably love to live in a subdivision in the County if they could. Walkabilty? Good urban form? Street wall? Pffft, never heard of it. Let's be honest here.
It's not that the people remaining in a bunch of cities are urbanists who stuck around. A lot of us are urbanist who either have stuck around or have repopulated the city.
But we have to remember that a great amount of the population that stuck around in the city did so because it was the most affordable place for them, and they didn't have the money to follow everyone else out. So the concept of a good urban environment isn't even on their radar.
They need gas sometimes and would benefit from a convenience store. Here's one that could go around the corner. When you're thinking small (and I don't mean that as an insult), that's a positive development.
I learned on Next Door that The Board of Aldermen are going to vote on Bill #249 regarding the alley vacation & proposed new gas station at Chouteau & Jefferson
Apparently at the Fox Park Neighborhood Association meeting, "Christine Ingrassia made it sound as if it was a done deal... and that isn't quite the case. The rest of the aldermen still have to vote on this bill she's sponsored."
They are voting today I believe, so if you want to email your alderman, now is the time. I've emailed mine.
Apparently at the Fox Park Neighborhood Association meeting, "Christine Ingrassia made it sound as if it was a done deal... and that isn't quite the case. The rest of the aldermen still have to vote on this bill she's sponsored."
They are voting today I believe, so if you want to email your alderman, now is the time. I've emailed mine.
- 8,155
^ I don't have much of an opinion of Ingrassia one way or another, but I do remembers sitting by her at a Shenandoah/Mann School public meeting and her commenting to me that it was a done deal that Mann would be closed and there was nothing she or Florida could do. Of course, SLPS was open to the strong public opinion and changed its mind and decided to upgrade both schools (and not demo Shenandoah). She didn't seem much like a Profile in Courage but again it was only this one issue that I've had any interaction with her.
I've publicly contacted my (^ our?) Alderwoman, Megan-Ellyia Green, on the TGS Facebook Group. Hopefully, they'll be a similar show of support on that post and she'll vote against the bill.
Mine is Steve Conway, so that's 2 alderman that have been contacted!
Welp, just saw this on Facebook:
UPDATE: Board Bill 249 to vacate the alley south of Chouteau and west of Jefferson passed at the Board of Aldermen today. There were 4 no votes (Green-15th, Ogilvie-24th, Reed-President, and Vacarro-23rd). Sharon Tyus (1st) voted present. The passage means, without a Mayoral veto, the alley can be closed and the QuikTrip can proceed in its quest to demolish the two existing buildings.
Please consider contacting the Mayor's Office and asking him to veto the bill. (314) 622-3201
https://www.facebook.com/NoSuburbsInTheCity?fref=nf
UPDATE: Board Bill 249 to vacate the alley south of Chouteau and west of Jefferson passed at the Board of Aldermen today. There were 4 no votes (Green-15th, Ogilvie-24th, Reed-President, and Vacarro-23rd). Sharon Tyus (1st) voted present. The passage means, without a Mayoral veto, the alley can be closed and the QuikTrip can proceed in its quest to demolish the two existing buildings.
Please consider contacting the Mayor's Office and asking him to veto the bill. (314) 622-3201
https://www.facebook.com/NoSuburbsInTheCity?fref=nf
To clarify the above—and maybe I'm the only one who misunderstood—a "no vote" is a vote against. I originally took it to mean they did not vote.
- 1,868
Some great points being made in this thread. It's easy for people who follow urbanism or politics or golf or whatever to assume that other people are aware of the same issues. The reality is that most of these people have their own things to do, taking care of their kids and jobs and not reading urbanist blogs. Urbanism benefits the majority of city residents, but they won't know that without a sustained campaign to educate them.jstriebel wrote:Exactly.leeharveyawesome wrote:As far as people in "The Gate" being in support of it.....well, duh, if you live in "The Gate" you probably don't care about such things anyway. Now, please don't go find me one person in "The Gate" who is a staunch preservationist - I'm talking generally speaking here. It's the same people who love dollar stores and would probably love to live in a subdivision in the County if they could. Walkabilty? Good urban form? Street wall? Pffft, never heard of it. Let's be honest here.
It's not that the people remaining in a bunch of cities are urbanists who stuck around. A lot of us are urbanist who either have stuck around or have repopulated the city.
But we have to remember that a great amount of the population that stuck around in the city did so because it was the most affordable place for them, and they didn't have the money to follow everyone else out. So the concept of a good urban environment isn't even on their radar.
They need gas sometimes and would benefit from a convenience store. Here's one that could go around the corner. When you're thinking small (and I don't mean that as an insult), that's a positive development.
UPDATE: Board Bill 249 to vacate the alley south of Chouteau and west of Jefferson passed at the Board of Aldermen today. There were 4 no votes (Green-15th, Ogilvie-24th, Reed-President, and Vacarro-23rd). Sharon Tyus (1st) voted present. The passage means, without a Mayoral veto, the alley can be closed and the QuikTrip can proceed in its quest to demolish the two existing buildings.
Please consider contacting the Mayor's Office and asking him to veto the bill. (314) 622-3201
Please consider contacting the Mayor's Office and asking him to veto the bill. (314) 622-3201
Received a wonderful response from Alderman of the 6th Ward (where this QT will go) Christine Ingrassia. I still ultimately disagree with the decision, but it gives me significantly more confidence in our leadership when I see their detailed reasoning behind decisions and simply when they're willing to take the time to explain it to concerned citizens.
Thanks for the email. Please know this was a difficult decision for me to make. I decided to support the alley vacation for the following reasons:
Just as I do in all neighborhoods, I sought the input of residents and business owners in Gate District East to guide my decisions on development proposals.In this case, I spoke about this issue at two neighborhood meetings (QT presented their proposal at one), wrote about it in their newsletter and did an online survey. There was overwhelming support of the QT going in.
Most of the land was a former gas station and the land is contaminated. QT is doing a total environmental clean up and is required to remediate the land should they choose to leave at some point in the future.
Land was being assembled and the two buildings left had owners bought out before I took office. There are the only two historic buildings left on all four corners. The area not in an historical district and the Preservation Board previously made the following conclusions on an appeal for buildings demoed in 2011 (the buildings do not qualify for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor is there sufficient existing context for a historic district in the area; the condition of the buildings have deteriorated and their demolition would have little affect upon the Chouteau streetscape, which is already quite varied).
Streets, QT and I worked to ensure access points to the store are in the safest place possible and we will monitor after store is built. QT is willing to pay for public infrastructure improvements if needed for pedestrian and cyclist safety. Almost all of the accidents caused at this intersection are due to line of sight issues caused by the dental building. Removing the building improves the line of site.
It's a good company. They pay employees well and even PT workers get benefits. They are hiring from the surrounding neighborhoods. They recycle anything allowed by their refuse company. None of their stores are nuisance problems.
Generally speaking, I tend to be a preservationist and am supportive of smart growth principles. QT will be a valuable financial partner as I move forward with planning corridor redevelopment along Chouteau. I can assure you this is the only gas station I will allow in the 6th ward.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Best,
Christine
- 3,235
"Line of Site" issues is anti urban. It means we can't build up to the corner because it blocks ones view when driving. Putting cars over people and place.
The reason for the accidents is probably more of a result of high traffic speeds and the size if the intersection. Lower the speeds and reduce the size of the intersection and you will see less accidents.
The reason for the accidents is probably more of a result of high traffic speeds and the size if the intersection. Lower the speeds and reduce the size of the intersection and you will see less accidents.