urbanSTL

^Maybe they will shut the older one down as they did on Big Bend when they opened at Big Bend and Manchester. Kingshighway and Chippewa is the better location and I can't see how the two wouldn't cannibalize each other.

Black02AltimaSE wrote: ↑

Apr 14, 2022

^Maybe they will shut the older one down as they did on Big Bend when they opened at Big Bend and Manchester. Kingshighway and Chippewa is the better location and I can't see how the two wouldn't cannibalize each other.

This is their third purchase in the immediate area. The current location is much bigger and only 2-3 years old so I doubt they do it again here but maybe just want to block someone else buying it. Unless they buy something right at the intersection with Chippewa I doubt they build another.

I mean, there's no way they would build there with another location at Fyler, right? That one is about 6 or 7 years old.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

QT is buying what they consider strategic properties and putting deed restrictions against gas stations on them. While in one sense that is a good thing to prevent more of the gas station plague, it's also QT flexing a monopolistic type muscle.

The gasoline is just to get you in the door. Like most really successful at-scale businesses of the last few decades, QT is predicated on an addiction model. The fossil fuel addiction is merely the platform to drive the foot traffic to move the higher-margin addictions, sugar and salt.

QT is buying up houses on Jamison near Arsenal.

^I kind of feel like of all places to put a gas station that’s one of the least intrusive ones. A handful of houses flanked by freeway, rail yard, industrial building can’t be the best place to live. I’m would guess they jumped at a chance to sell for a decent price.
What’s up with the circle k on the south side of 44? Are they just rebuilding it? I’d love to see that gone.

A little off topic here but has anyone noticed how that house with the red roof has been continuing to expand in the past years lol they seem very attached to that awkward lot.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Aug 15, 2022

^I kind of feel like of all places to put a gas station that’s one of the least intrusive ones. A handful of houses flanked by freeway, rail yard, industrial building can’t be the best place to live. I’m would guess they jumped at a chance to sell for a decent price.
What’s up with the circle k on the south side of 44? Are they just rebuilding it? I’d love to see that gone.

It's the malignancy of auto blight, the erosion Jane Jacobs wrote about.

The Circle K is being rebuilt and expanded to the east.

It's confounding the the size and number of gas stations seems to be increasing in this day and age. We've seen a couple go away too though. I wonder what the actual numbers are. Stations, pumps, acreage.

You'd think the switch to electric cars would be a deterrent kind of like how uber/lyft/AVs/boring tunnels/hyperloop were excuses not to build transit and intercity rail.

Deny demo of any houses for this.

A couple people have said they've bought the US Ring Binder building too, but city records say it's still owned by them and that they submitted a $50k building permit application to make roof repairs, which is odd to do if you intend to sell your building soon and expect it to be razed,
Regardless, If they intend to replace the US Ring Binder building and combine with the house parcels, they'll need an alley vacation, zoning change (It's all zoned A Single Fam), and approval from CRO/PB since it's in a Preservation review district.

The traffic here would be even more horrendous.  And not because I can't stomach traffic, but because it would make the intersection that much more dangerous.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Aug 15, 2022

A couple people have said they've bought the US Ring Binder building too, but city records say it's still owned by them and that they submitted a $50k building permit application to make roof repairs, which is odd to do if you intend to sell your building soon and expect it to be razed,
Regardless, If they intend to replace the US Ring Binder building and combine with the house parcels, they'll need an alley vacation, zoning change (It's all zoned A Single Fam), and approval from CRO/PB since it's in a Preservation review district.

deny, deny, deny

We are trying to build this city back up. We have serious needs in our community, and one of those is not destroying our built environment -- our built HOUSING -- while we witness spiking rents. The city wants to become a hub for Afghan refugees and wants to mount a population comeback; tearing down homes for land-poor, auto-centric development only exacerbates those issues and makes it that much harder to reach our goals.

I simply can't understand tearing down habitable residential structures and their units without replacing said units + adding more. 

The thing that's most confusing is there's so much unused and vacant land around there why choose the one part where people actually live to build a gas station

alexstl wrote: ↑

Aug 15, 2022

The thing that's most confusing is there's so much unused and vacant land around there why choose the one part where people actually live to build a gas station

Do they ever buy and replace an existing gas station?

quincunx wrote: ↑

Aug 15, 2022

You'd think the switch to electric cars would be a deterrent kind of like how uber/lyft/AVs/boring tunnels/hyperloop were excuses not to build transit and intercity rail.

You know, this is a good point city-wide, regardless of location. Irrespective of the argument as to whether people should be driving in cars or taking mass-transit, the reality is that cars are going to be around for at least a while in STL even in the most optimistic scenarios, So at least some gas stations will continue to be necessary for a while.

Suggestion: any new gas station proposals as well as requests for improvements to existing stations should have to explain how they plan to handle the transition to electric vehicles. It doesn't make sense to build - much less subsidize - new infrastructure for a commodity (fossil fuel) whose demand is forecast to decline due both to federal mandates and auto manufacturers committing to switch completely to electric-only model. 

While EVs are a tiny portion of the road-going fleet today, what *is* QT or any other fuel-filling station going to do in 10-15 years with their current locations if demand for gas dips by a certain amount? Are neighborhoods going to be left with ~20 y/o abandoned stations that are potential environmental hazards? If so does it really make sense to continue to build new ones?  Or do they have a plan to maintain a sustainable business by attracting other non-gas customers?

Of course that doesn't address the auto-orientation of QT stations, but as long as fuel-filling properties are a necessity requiring something like that could mitigate the risk of scores of old gas stations scarring the environment only a relatively short time into the properties' life cycles.

-RBB

I was surprised to learn how many underground fuel tanks already were littered around my neighborhood. Nowadays they're on the hook financially for them. There should be a gas tax to pay for remediating the orphaned ones, but driver's paying for their negative externalities is usually a non-starter.

https://dnr.mo.gov/waste-recycling/busi ... orage-tank

And take in that tasty benzene!

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Aug 15, 2022

Its not even that demand dips.  If they are to be believed most of the big automakers are committing to transition to 100% EV in less than a decade.  It is a seriously disruptive time for the industry.

Yep, agreed - the forecast clearly shows an inevitable migration to EVs.  That said I expect gas-powered vehicles to be around for a while yet, especially in the age of the 96-month auto loan. It'll be 10 years before most automakers stop making gas new powered vehicles, but folks are holding onto their cars longer than ever. And vehicles will cycle through the used car market for even longer.

Which is all to say: you can make a case for a new gas station today that could be viable for 10, even 20+ years. But any new building should be designed to be an asset to its neighborhood for generations, not for just a few years or even a few decades. And competition will increase as the volume of gas-powered cars decrease. I can see a scenario where more gas stations fail then succeed in the not-too-distant future.

That said i imagine QT could survive in that market if they maintain there current service quality which is really what sets them above their competition.  But their footprint is overlarge for such an environment.

Yep, that's a fair cornern. Anyone proposing a new gas station should be asked to show how they'll make that transition, and what will happen with those pumps once demand wanes.

And while we're talking about the coming decline of gas sales, now really is the time for local and state lawmakers to start investigating how they're going to pay for street infrastructure going forward. As more people buy EVs, that means fewer people will be contributing gas taxes toward road construction and maintenance. How will that revenue be replaced? This is no dig at any particular political ideology, but I've yet to see any ideas from anyone empowered to enact them.

-RBB

There's already an annual $75 fee charged to Missouri EV owners to make up for the gas tax. Now is that enough? probably not given that the gas tax already isn't enough to fund our bloated road system plus the accelerated deterioration of roads due to heavier EVs.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Aug 16, 2022

There's already an annual $75 fee charged to Missouri EV owners to make up for the gas tax. Now is that enough? probably not given that the gas tax already isn't enough to fund our bloated road system plus the accelerated deterioration of roads due to heavier EVs.

I wasn't aware of that! Thanks, and agreed - that's something at least, but far from sufficient.

-RBB