urbanSTL

I have a friend that works at the Hyatt downtown and has a loft downtown another friend that works for Boeing and has a loft downtown.. My friend that works at the Hyatt chose downtown STL over Chicago so thats kind of a statement ... I work downtown and wouldnt mind moving downtown and have thought about it on and off.. I think we all have different tastes in what appeals to us as livability... Right now downtown is going through a period in trying to find itself.. St.Louis as a whole needs a new identity..
Maybe im wrong

irock7777 wrote:

Presbyterian wrote:Government jobs are not the future of Downtown. Yes, a loss. But the trend line has been positive for fifteen years and does not appear to be changing.

All jobs are important to downtown!!!!!!!

Ok so the loss of the Law firms to clayton, Macy workers, May Company headquarters, ATT(whole building), 35% wellpoint contractors, others, I guess those dont matter either.

Im sure there have been some small gains but nothing to offset that. What has downtown lost over the past decade? 10000 jobs?

Jobs come and jobs go. Quite frankly downtown had a lot of jobs tied to the old economy that have had a rough go in the last 15 years. The yellow pages division of AT&T, a bloated airline industry resulting in the loss of TWA, and many others.

Downtown needs to transition into a center for IT, tech, and financial services. It’s doing this with T Rex and other incubators. Hopefully these companies grow and absorb office space. It will take time.

Residents come first followed by jobs and retail. Few people moved downtown to walk to work. They moved down here for the nice living spaces, proximity to entertainment and public transit.

Everyone agrees the downtown job losses are frustrating and a problem. And yet, downtown keep chucking on with positive development.

I think it's fair to be optimistic that eventually the job trend will follow suit as well. Downtown is going to land a big fish. And then things are going to take off.

rawest1 wrote:

downtown2007 wrote: Residents come first followed by jobs and retail.

I don't mean to call you out specifically, as a lot of people here have said this exact thing, but seriously, is there any real truth to this? I feel like by far the more common scenario is someone moving to a place because that's where their job is.

I'm not sure if a study exists to prove this one way or the other, but I'd suggest regionally, yes, people move to their jobs. But within a region, people live where they want to, and jobs eventually follow them.

That's how we got in the mess we're in. The jobs were in the city. People wanted to live in the suburbs. They did. Then companies started moving to the suburbs because it was closer to their workforce. That is still frequently cited as a reason for why companies stay in the suburbs, too.

rawest1 wrote:

downtown2007 wrote: Residents come first followed by jobs and retail.

I don't mean to call you out specifically, as a lot of people here have said this exact thing, but seriously, is there any real truth to this? I feel like by far the more common scenario is someone moving to a place because that's where their job is.

Well did people move out to St Charles to be close to their job or because they had other needs? But once they did move the jobs and retail followed.

I would encourage everyone to do a quick google search for what’s happening in other downtowns across the country. Most are experiencing robust resident growth and lackluster employment growth. Downtown LA isn’t experiencing any job growth but residents are flocking. The same in downtown Manhattan. Big resident growth numbers small employment growth figures.

This will eventually change if more people continue residing downtown.

downtown2007 wrote: Well did people move out to St Charles to be close to their job or because they had other needs? But once they did move the jobs and retail followed.

Thats a good analogy. However people were moving out there by the thousands. If you use the same logic downtown would need to see huge residential growth. Not a few hundred residents per year, which as far as i can see is what we will see over the next 5+ years, given current proposals and construction. So we need a jobs to come first now

JOBS = residents...

it seems that some of you want to insist that DT has no hope. fine, then leave and continue the trend. i'm not sure what the doom and gloom is going to accomplish, unless you're trying to convince others to leave as well.

Most people, even within the region, aren't as big of City buffs as those of us on this board. For the most part, they do not perceive things like IKEA, CORTEX, BJC expansion, the Loop Trolley, etc. as being "outside" of Downtown - - to them, it's all Downtown. With these things changing their perception of "Downtown," it will in a way help Downtown's image. Some people might find a job at Midtown Station or Shriners and end up getting an apartment Downtown instead of Midtown or CWE.

And residents who don't have the patience to see downtown (and the city) through its slow renaissance will move. That has always been the case.

prophett wrote:when are we going to see pot holes filled on the streets

I mean, the weather has been pretty rough on the streets with winter, but I tweeted about some potholes to @stlcsb yesterday and they were filled this morning. Might want to reach out to them about the ones you've seen.

kbshapiro wrote:314- as you and I have discussed before, I don't believe downtown will get the large national retailers in the near future. But the area around FP Pkwy and Vadeventer will. Think about it, this area could easily serve the CWE/CORTEX, FPSE, SLU, Midtown, Soulard, Lafayette Squrae, South Grand, Benton Park, and downtown quite easily via major roads and interstates. Plus, it will have a large parking lot.

This is not what most of you want to hear. St. Louis is a car-centric town. We like our convenient access from major roads/interstates and convenient parking spaces for when we shop (see: Taste of St. Louis Relo). And therefore, the retailers require this as well.

Downtown will get more retail. Again, I do not understand why CVS and/or Walgreens aren't downtown. Forget the office population. This area has 13,500 plus permanent residents. If you can find a city anywhere in the US with a population north of 13,500 without a WG or CVS (or a major chain pharmacy like Rite Aid) I'll give that person $100.00. Other than a pharmacy, for now, Downtown will continue to see more restaurants and entertainment. And some service retail, maybe a Jos A Bank or Suit Supply.

This is just my opinion based on my experiance as a retail CRE broker and lifelong resident of STL Metro (including downtown for 6 yrs).

That is very hard to swallow, but you deliver the hard truth well. After all, I'd love to start a "Put CityTarget in the old Famous-Barr" campaign although it'd never stand a chance. I agree with everything you said for what it's worth, though. The only thing is that I still believe leadership matters, and when it comes to attracting jobs and retailers downtown, there is a serious void at Room 200 in City Hall and at the Downtown Partnership. I long for the days of all talk and no action, because now there's not even all that much talk. My hope for downtown retail is that the proposed streetcar for Lindell Boulevard/Olive Street tips the scales a bit and some of the same people who live near the Midtown shopping district that will emerge will also be willing to hop on a streetcar and go downtown. That alone should make redeveloping the Railway Exchange and filling retail space along Broadway, Sixth and Seventh streets a bit more feasible, even if it's along the lines of dollar stores, Jos. A. Bank, and CVS instead of major retailers.

Overall I am still very optimistic about downtown but not without some concerns. Like I said, I believe there is a serious leadership void here, and that does not help the current situation in which downtown struggles to add jobs and attract/retain retailers even as its residential population continues to increase. The news about the GSA consolidation in Overland should be troubling to anyone who cares about downtown, but to the mayor it's just another day for him to ignore another elephant in the room, just like all of those elephants that walked out of that room over the last few years/decades. And the trouble is that I think the region at large overlooks the growth in Midtown and the Central Corridor and still thinks of downtown as a dangerous place where businesses flee that they'd never visit if it weren't for the Cardinals or the Blues. Or perhaps that's my 'doom and gloom' side coming out.

One more thing to everyone as this conversation continues: As far as the overall state of downtown is concerned, I think we've gone far enough here with accusing those who want to offer constructive criticism about its future of spreading doom and gloom. I don't see excessive negativity here, nor do I see mindless cheerleaders. But I think we should all step back and appreciate the free flow of ideas and opinions here. It's not like you're going to see this level of intelligence and civil discourse on local media forums or their social media pages.

threeonefour wrote: One more thing to everyone as this conversation continues: As far as the overall state of downtown is concerned, I think we've gone far enough here with accusing those who want to offer constructive criticism about its future of spreading doom and gloom. I don't see excessive negativity here, nor do I see mindless cheerleaders. But I think we should all step back and appreciate the free flow of ideas and opinions here. It's not like you're going to see this level of intelligence and civil discourse on local media forums or their social media pages.

i'm also fine with constructive criticism. i just don't think much of the criticism offered in the last couple of pages has been constructive. hence my contribution to the free flow of ideas and opinions here.

Agree. Much of the criticism has been knee jerk reactions or stemmed from frustrations a prior experience didn't work out as planned.

I think people need to do some research of the evolution of the urban landscape in other cities over the past 20 years. Everyone seems very knowledgable but would benefit regarding this subject.

Every City in this country aspires to have 24/7 feel but unless your NYC and a few others i don't see that happening here ... All things have to be clicking at the same time doesn't mean downtown wont go through a boom in fact its still going through a major residential boom so that in itself is big progress and a start .... St.Charles boomed because the abundance of land the same with St.Louis County ... It seems like that trend is slowing down

downtown2007 wrote:Agree. Much of the criticism has been knee jerk reactions or stemmed from frustrations a prior experience didn't work out as planned.

I think people need to do some research of the evolution of the urban landscape in other cities over the past 20 years. Everyone seems very knowledgeable but would benefit regarding this subject.

Exactly, why is everyone so surprised that downtown isn't New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle etc. These places have been booming for decades and were always their respective regions place to be. St. Louis just started seeing major residential within the last decade, if Downtowns were people St. Louis would be in elementary school and Chicago would be in a doctorate program. My point being is that St. Louis has a lot of growing to do before it makes it to the big leagues, if ever. That doesn't mean we cant have a nice midsized downtown, we are just never going to have that big city 24/7 vibe until we add another 30-40,000 people and that will likely be in the year 2040.

With that said, I've been to a lot of downtown in the United States and downtown St. Louis is doing better than many of them. Yes, there are more vibrant ones, but there are also many that are where downtown was 15 years ago without the great host of historically significant buildings to rehab. One thing that makes downtown depressing to me (at times), is just the generally antiquated and ugly streetscapes, outside of Washington Ave, the downtown streetscapes are downright disgraceful and they likely contribute to the lack of vitality. People are attracted to beautiful places and busted up sidewalks, streetlights from the 1960s, lack of greenery, fading street paint, all add to the general gloomy mood of a place.

goat314 wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:Agree. Much of the criticism has been knee jerk reactions or stemmed from frustrations a prior experience didn't work out as planned.

I think people need to do some research of the evolution of the urban landscape in other cities over the past 20 years. Everyone seems very knowledgeable but would benefit regarding this subject.

Exactly, why is everyone so surprised that downtown isn't New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle etc. These places have been booming for decades and were always their respective regions place to be. St. Louis just started seeing major residential within the last decade, if Downtowns were people St. Louis would be in elementary school and Chicago would be in a doctorate program. My point being is that St. Louis has a lot of growing to do before it makes it to the big leagues, if ever. That doesn't mean we cant have a nice midsized downtown, we are just never going to have that big city 24/7 vibe until we add another 30-40,000 people and that will likely be in the year 2040.

With that said, I've been to a lot of downtown in the United States and downtown St. Louis is doing better than many of them. Yes, there are more vibrant ones, but there are also many that are where downtown was 15 years ago without the great host of historically significant buildings to rehab. One thing that makes downtown depressing to me (at times), is just the generally antiquated and ugly streetscapes, outside of Washington Ave, the downtown streetscapes are downright disgraceful and they likely contribute to the lack of vitality. People are attracted to beautiful places and busted up sidewalks, streetlights from the 1960s, lack of greenery, fading street paint, all add to the general gloomy mood of a place.

Can't agree more downtown really needs new streetscapes I would start with Olive first and while new streetscapes are being built high speed fiber lines should be built underneath them. Why there is not a grass root effort yet to try to get this done?

So i see a lot of people bring up Chemical and Aracade as the next big step forward. There was even a business journal article, that i couldn't read because it was for pay only members. However these two buildings still have not started construction. I read through the Jeffereson Arms thread, and the excitement by people, only to see that financing could not be secured. Could this possibly be that case for the delays of these two buildings? How confident are people with construction getting started this year? I posted in each of the threads but would like to see a more general conversation on the confidence of these rehabs. . .so i thought i would ask here

seanmcelligott644 wrote: Can't agree more downtown really needs new streetscapes I would start with Olive first and while new streetscapes are being built high speed fiber lines should be built underneath them. Why there is not a grass root effort yet to try to get this done?

I don't mean this to strictly target you. But I've seen similar questions asked a few times over that past couple of months here...

If you think a grassroots effort needs to be happening... start it. That's what a grass roots effort is. I haven't taken the next steps to organization yet, but I'm slowly but surely trying to get a transit grassroots effort started.

I encourage others to do the same. It doesn't have to be your expertise yet. If it's something you think we need, take action. We'll be better off for it. And I'm sure there's a lot of people here who would be eager to help the cause in some way.