Representatives for The Residence Inn by Marriott St. Louis Galleria, which is in Richmond Heights (Clayton Schools), is requesting a change in zoning to convert to 158 studio apartments.

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

May 26, 2022

I'm feeling like this one is going to see considerable pushback.  Seems like they could play to the overall Boulevard "district" concept though, claim it will be young professionals, won't burden the schools, and so forth. 

Seems like a lot of studio apartments. I get it’s the cheap way out and will take less money to keep them studio, but making some one and two bedroom seems like it would be easier to fill.

Fantastic for MetroLink! I expect the hotel brings in few transit users at that location.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ I'd assume the opposite. I would think that out of town travelers (arriving via Lambert at least) would be less likely to have a vehicle than someone living here permanently.

^I wonder if addxb2 was thinking in terms of few out of towners wishing to stay at a hotel in the distant burbs but convenient to nothing but a shopping mall.

I mean while certainly people do raise kids in studio apartments, they tend to be working class or poor and probably won't be living in these. An objection based on the idea it will strain the school system seems absurd. 

AirBnb's?

moorlander wrote: ↑

May 26, 2022

Representatives for The Residence Inn by Marriott St. Louis Galleria, which is in Richmond Heights (Clayton Schools), is requesting a change in zoning to convert to 158 studio apartments.

It looks like they're planning 152 apartments and probably not all studios.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

May 28, 2022

^I wonder if addxb2 was thinking in terms of few out of towners wishing to stay at a hotel in the distant burbs but convenient to nothing but a shopping mall.

With the immediate access to metrolink - a 2 minute walk - this was convenient to most things. 

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

May 28, 2022

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

May 28, 2022

^I wonder if addxb2 was thinking in terms of few out of towners wishing to stay at a hotel in the distant burbs but convenient to nothing but a shopping mall.

With the immediate access to metrolink - a 2 minute walk - this was convenient to most things.  And the Boulevard isn't nothing...

I get that it's close to Metrolink. That's wonderful. But I don't see why anyone would really want to stay in a hotel just there when you'd have to travel to get to anything except for some generic suburban shopping. You'd have anywhere from fifteen minutes to a half hour of transit time to any attraction and most work. It's not going to be as convenient to someone attending a convention as a hotel by the convention center. It won't be as convenient to a tourist as a hotel near Forest Park or the Arch. It won't be as convenient to a traveler as a hotel near the airport. In short . . . it's convenient to nothing but a mall. Okay, technically two malls. If it's a good deal there will be people that will stay there anyway, but it might be a very convenient place for an apartment. You might work nearby. You might like the convenience of having plenty of local shops to satisfy your needs. It makes more sense to me as apartments convenient to transit than as a hotel. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

So the takeaway is that transit convenient hotels are useless unless already at a location a person would want to be at - negating the need for said transit - based on ambiguous self defined parameters of said convenience.  This seems typically St. Louis and auto-centric to claim it's inconvenient to be 25 minutes from BPV / Enterprise / Convention / Arch for a $2.50 ride and so much else for so much less time.  Could have sworn this is why we built transit to begin with, to connect areas of interest and business for both local and visitor.  I don't see how the area is more convenient for a resident than a visitor and that transit doesn't benefit the latter.  It's an odd argument.  No one will move here for the Galleria.  They will move here for access to Clayton, Trader Joes, and Forest Park.  Because its 25 minutes to everywhere, by metro or by car. 

Generous time estimates: 
5 minutes to Clayton
10 minutes to Forest Park
15 to Loop or CWE
25 to Downtown

Seems both convenient and affordable.  For anyone.  For any reason. 

^I'm not trying to say its useless. Maybe that came across a little too harsh. I just think it's probably a better site for apartments than a hotel. And it doesn't really matter whether there's transit there or not for that math. The transit is a net positive, either way. But it's probably a site where there's more demand for housing than hotel rooms.

And yes, it's out in the burbs. Sorry if the word distant bothers you, but Brentwood is not downtown. Or even Clayton. If I'm forced to go to a mall that's probably the one I'd go to, but I truly, deeply, sincerely wish I never had to go out that far. "Distant" is probably my grumbling about our incessant de-densification. It drives me nuts. No, it's not St. Charles or Arnold, but it's distant enough. It's not completely outside civilization, but it's at the bleeding edge of it.

Can I be allowed a bit of poetic license here? It's in the name. So far as I'm concerned anything much past 170/Hanley/Laclede Station should be the outer rim of the world. And anything outside 270 probably already fell off the earth.

(This probably comes from a childhood thinking my grandparents in Crestwood really were way out there. Maybe it warped my view, but at the time it really was the edge of things. And I'm not really able to acknowledge change, so . . . ) 

Anyway, I don't honestly have a problem with a hotel there. It's fine. But I also don't think replacing it with apartments is a bad idea. It makes sense to me. I'm not sure why it's a problem. And we have plenty of hotel rooms and housing prices are rising quickly. I can see the sense in it. I don't really think this hotel is worth saving if we can have something nice there. I'd much rather see more density and better architecture.

Agreed, but with one small addition: "The purpose of this forum is petty debate centered on mis-interpretation of someone else's hastily transcribed thoughts AND jumping to conclusions based upon outdated renderings."

dweebe wrote: ↑

May 28, 2022

This is an old format: probably 30+ years old. You hardly see any Residence Inns in these layouts any more. They’ve either been switched to other brands or torn down.

I wonder just how many they do still operate.  I was just in Chicago over the holiday weekend and we stayed at Residence Inn just like this out in Deerfield.  I remember thinking then that I was amazed that this model was still in use elsewhere.  When you think about it, it is a perfect set-up for a apartment conversions (weren't the upper units like two level, two bedrooms) especially being that close to all the nearby amenities.  But they probably suck as hotels to have to deal with the added maintenance of all those units exposed to the elements (A/C units, roofing, paint etc.)  Could you imagine being a housekeeper and having to push that big azz cart around in the rain, snow and cold.  Sheeesh!

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

May 30, 2022

^ Inner ring suburbs in STL are not distant from the urban core. In most normal cities, they would be part of the “urban core.” That includes Brentwood, Clayton and Richmond Heights…all of which were at one point a streetcar suburb. Not even in the same ballpark as a distant “bleeding edge” suburb.

Having said all that, I can’t figure out the point of this argument. Hotels and apartments are great near transit stations…apartments are probably a bit better…but I don’t think either is a bad thing and I can’t quite figure out why everyone is getting tied up in the usual paralysis here.

Good points. In the Sunbelt these are the kind of neighborhoods you get into right outside of the downtown. In a newer city our size, it would be a Chesterfield equivalent at I-170.

With that said, I hope these buildings receive an exterior renovation to not appear to still be a motel.

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑

May 31, 2022

Ha, true we've gone of the rails but I thought the purpose of this forum was petty debate centered on mis-interpretation of someone else's hastily transcribed thoughts.  No?

My point is merely that this is a desirable location due to proximity to transit, and everything else.  It has significant convenience beyond only the mall.  And for that people would want to be in this area as Either resident or guest and it is not suited better one to another.  The hotel is old, and with stiffer competition so the conversion makes sense for the owner from a business perspective.

And as for 270 being the edge of the earth - my family has said since the 80s:  "Beyond 270, there are dragons." 

I will have you know that my careless transcriptions of my thoughts are generally fairly slow. The thoughts come quickly (and with little consideration), but my typographic skills are so heinous that I have to type nearly everything twice.

Fair answer. We can agree to disagree, I suppose, about whether or not one use might have advantages over the other. But proximity to transit is clearly a benefit to both.

And beyond 270 there be dragons.