^ You should present to downtown business owners. I expect that they would find your methodology interesting.
- 5,433
Mill204 wrote:We need a parking study so that we can definitively show our local leaders that downtown is drowning in parking. Hard data beats anecdotal data any day.Doug wrote:We don't need a parking study.
Look at the garages during the day and that's your study.
You're absolutely right. I think our leaders' reliance on anecdotal data (the perception that anything more than a block is too far to walk to one's workplace or to a shopping/dining destination) is what got us this glut of parking garages in the first place.
I'm a firm believer that parking garages/lots are cheap if land values are cheap. Parking won't come at a premium or limited until the emphasis is on additional class A office space, more residential units, and more employees downtown. Until then, any desire to limit parking spaces by ordinance will only convince a business to move somewhere else. That is the last thing downtown needs.
In the meantime, I think leadership is trying to make a deal to fill empty space in a current office tower by offering parking next door. Not excited about the prospect. But, I believe the trade off is worth it if they can keep street level retail intact, take down the skyway, and get a movie theater downtown.
In the meantime, I think leadership is trying to make a deal to fill empty space in a current office tower by offering parking next door. Not excited about the prospect. But, I believe the trade off is worth it if they can keep street level retail intact, take down the skyway, and get a movie theater downtown.
- 3,433
- 5,433
Dredger wrote:I'm a firm believer that parking garages/lots are cheap if land values are cheap. Parking won't come at a premium or limited until the emphasis is on additional class A office space, more residential units, and more employees downtown. Until then, any desire to limit parking spaces by ordinance will only convince a business to move somewhere else. That is the last thing downtown needs.
In the meantime, I think leadership is trying to make a deal to fill empty space in a current office tower by offering parking next door. Not excited about the prospect. But, I believe the trade off is worth it if they can keep street level retail intact, take down the skyway, and get a movie theater downtown.
Good points. I still think there should be a moratorium on parking garage construction until a comprehensive study is done, however, such a move would have to take into account Thompson Coburn's plans, and the need for more Class A office space and residential construction in downtown.
What I still don't understand is why the developers of St. Louis Centre appear to have taken any hope of residential and/or office space on the upper floors of the mall space off of the table. It seems to me like much more could be done with the space.
There must be a way to accommodate Thompson Coburn's wishes for additional parking with at least some residential and/or commercial space on the upper floors of the former St. Louis Centre. Instead, I believe we're going to wind up with a megagarage with parking stretching from Locust Street on the south to Washington Avenue on the north. How come the vision for St. Louis Centre as The Concord got tossed out the window when plans for The Laurel appear to be proceeding? I just don't get it. And I'm afraid our leaders are going to do the typical St. Louis thing and settle for much less, dooming the built environment of what was once the city's thriving retail core for decades to come.
St. Louis needs to be smart about where and how much parking it builds.
Take a walk down the Delmar Loop or Wash Ave and notice how the streetscapes are almost entirely devoid of surface or garage parking consuming the urban space. Almost all the parking, aside from street parking, is out of sight. These are two of our region's great streets. The entireties of the buildings on both sides of the streets are consumed with commercial and residential uses. The same can't be said about Pine St. or Clark Ave.
And does every downtown business need a parking garage of their own if they're all only 70% occupied? Is there a dearth of parking in one area and an excess of parking in another? Such data should be known before any new parking is approved in such an urban environment as downtown.
Take a walk down the Delmar Loop or Wash Ave and notice how the streetscapes are almost entirely devoid of surface or garage parking consuming the urban space. Almost all the parking, aside from street parking, is out of sight. These are two of our region's great streets. The entireties of the buildings on both sides of the streets are consumed with commercial and residential uses. The same can't be said about Pine St. or Clark Ave.
And does every downtown business need a parking garage of their own if they're all only 70% occupied? Is there a dearth of parking in one area and an excess of parking in another? Such data should be known before any new parking is approved in such an urban environment as downtown.
- 2,929
I remember waking up on a Saturday morning in 2006 hearing that StL Centre was on fire. Sure enough, I went down and saw about a dozen fire trucks and the last of the smoke going out. As a few bums and some strung-out party girls walked down the street, I was profoundly glad that it was contained, with no ambulances taking injured firefighters away, and that the building was riply maintained for being redeveloped.
Three years later, and I wonder if we'd all have been better off if that hulk just melted under the vinyl and cheap plastic jewelry sold inside.
Another parking lot for workers in the USBank building. Dammit. The only thing worse would be Larry Rice & his bums.
Three years later, and I wonder if we'd all have been better off if that hulk just melted under the vinyl and cheap plastic jewelry sold inside.
Another parking lot for workers in the USBank building. Dammit. The only thing worse would be Larry Rice & his bums.
New Class A and residential should not come with parking. We must minimize parking, increase its cost, and use revenue from that increased cost to increase funding for mass transit downtown and the proliferation of bike racks.
The reason we're getting a garage relates to the TIF; remember we put our full faith and credit on the line. The City does not want to make payments and thus sees parking as a way to generate revenue. In reality we're throwing away a great condo development which would happen in 5 years or less. TC also gets it's parking, but really City Hall leadership should have let them leave. Office employees who want to exodus immediately after work, and they do with their already existing parking, aren't the kind of people we need for a vibrant Downtown, but Slay wasn't going to speak the truth (assuming he even understands urbanism and I think that's impossible) even though he had no electoral opposition. The City took it in the backdoor to keep suburban St. Louisans happy -- and Downtown suffers yet again.
Members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment -- those who voted to back the TIF bonds on this project, should take a salary cut in order to repay our obligations. Already have budgetary problems? Too bad, cut services! Perhaps we shouldn't subsidize projects in this manner. The City should foot the bill instead of imposing a greater cost upon our already eviscerated Downtown built environment. This isn't simply bad urban planning, but shirking of responsibility.
The reason we're getting a garage relates to the TIF; remember we put our full faith and credit on the line. The City does not want to make payments and thus sees parking as a way to generate revenue. In reality we're throwing away a great condo development which would happen in 5 years or less. TC also gets it's parking, but really City Hall leadership should have let them leave. Office employees who want to exodus immediately after work, and they do with their already existing parking, aren't the kind of people we need for a vibrant Downtown, but Slay wasn't going to speak the truth (assuming he even understands urbanism and I think that's impossible) even though he had no electoral opposition. The City took it in the backdoor to keep suburban St. Louisans happy -- and Downtown suffers yet again.
Members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment -- those who voted to back the TIF bonds on this project, should take a salary cut in order to repay our obligations. Already have budgetary problems? Too bad, cut services! Perhaps we shouldn't subsidize projects in this manner. The City should foot the bill instead of imposing a greater cost upon our already eviscerated Downtown built environment. This isn't simply bad urban planning, but shirking of responsibility.
- 10K
Doug wrote:TC also gets it's parking, but really City Hall leadership should have let them leave. Office employees who want to exodus immediately after work, and they do with their already existing parking, aren't the kind of people we need for a vibrant Downtown.
Ummm, no.
We bulldoze the north side because "we need land to attract companies" while we construct excess parking in acquiescence to extortion?
In reality we have plenty of land on the North Side while a preponderance of parking exists Downtown.
A dense urban environment will attract firms, hopefully from out of town, to replace TC should they have left. Companies and residents are flocking to Vancouver for a reason, all of which why they aren't coming to St. Louis.
We played into the regional zero sum game once again.
In reality we have plenty of land on the North Side while a preponderance of parking exists Downtown.
A dense urban environment will attract firms, hopefully from out of town, to replace TC should they have left. Companies and residents are flocking to Vancouver for a reason, all of which why they aren't coming to St. Louis.
We played into the regional zero sum game once again.
- 1,610
Doug wrote:Companies and residents are flocking to Vancouver for a reason, all of which why they aren't coming to St. Louis.
Legal weed?
- 11K
^^ Mountains, oh and an ocean, oh and incredible weather (and socialized medicine).
So the following steps need to be taken to ensure St. Louis attracts new business:
1. build bio-dome over metro area (remember to put in big sliding door for Lambert and Scott AFB and install digital programable thermostat)
2. erect mountains
3. dig ocean (populate with whale and other aquatic life)
4. socialize medicine
So the following steps need to be taken to ensure St. Louis attracts new business:
1. build bio-dome over metro area (remember to put in big sliding door for Lambert and Scott AFB and install digital programable thermostat)
2. erect mountains
3. dig ocean (populate with whale and other aquatic life)
4. socialize medicine
- 10K
Grover wrote:^^ Mountains, oh and an ocean, oh and incredible weather (and socialized medicine).
So the following steps need to be taken to ensure St. Louis attracts new business:
1. build bio-dome over metro area (remember to put in big sliding door for Lambert and Scott AFB and install digital programable thermostat)
2. erect mountains
3. dig ocean (populate with whale and other aquatic life)
4. socialize medicine
Maybe we could dye the Mississippi a nice shade of blue.
None of these explain why people are moving to Vancouver.
Here's an idea.
For more I would suggest reading "An Anatomy of Civic Ambition in Vancouver: Toward Humane Density" which can be found in Urban Planning Today
The elements of their City Plan can be viewed here. The aforementioned journal article explains in exhaustive detail how business and civic leaders began working together in the 1970's in order to reach today's end result: density at the detriment of the automobile. This requires a long view something which Room 200/230, and some members of this forum, solely lack.
Here's an idea.
For more I would suggest reading "An Anatomy of Civic Ambition in Vancouver: Toward Humane Density" which can be found in Urban Planning Today
The elements of their City Plan can be viewed here. The aforementioned journal article explains in exhaustive detail how business and civic leaders began working together in the 1970's in order to reach today's end result: density at the detriment of the automobile. This requires a long view something which Room 200/230, and some members of this forum, solely lack.
- 11K
Doug wrote:None of these explain why people are moving to Vancouver.
Maybe not, but it does explain why I would consider moving there.
- 5,433
Grover wrote:So the following steps need to be taken to ensure St. Louis attracts new business:
1. build bio-dome over metro area (remember to put in big sliding door for Lambert and Scott AFB and install digital programable thermostat)
2. erect mountains
3. dig ocean (populate with whale and other aquatic life)
4. socialize medicine
Apparently, in 2009, implementing the first three changes would be much easier than any attempt to address the fourth item on the list.
The city of St. Louis is requesting $5 million from the Missouri Development Finance Board to pay for improvements to the One City Centre office tower downtown.
Missouri Development Finance Board (MDFB) Executive Director Bob Miserez will present the city’s request at the board’s meeting Tuesday in St. Louis.
Miserez said the city has not yet submitted finalized development details, and he does not expect a vote on the loan to occur at Tuesday’s meeting.
“We do not have final information yet, and we’re working on getting that information,” Miserez said.
St. Louis deputy mayor Barb Geisman said the loan request is an attempt to kick-start redevelopment of One City Centre, which is adjacent to the vacant St. Louis Centre. City officials have talked about converting a portion of St. Louis Centre mall, which closed in 2007, to parking with ground-floor, street-facing retail.
“You can’t solve one without solving the other,” Geisman said.
In July, the St. Louis Development Corp. approved $4 million in New Markets Tax Credits to pay for improvements to One City Centre to attract law firm Lewis Rice Fingersh. Lewis Rice is currently based at 500 N. Broadway and has not yet finalized a deal with One City Centre’s owner, SCR Investments, a partnership led by Stacy Hastie, chief executive of Environmental Operations Inc.
READ MORE/ENTIRE STORY:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ily41.html
Missouri Development Finance Board (MDFB) Executive Director Bob Miserez will present the city’s request at the board’s meeting Tuesday in St. Louis.
Miserez said the city has not yet submitted finalized development details, and he does not expect a vote on the loan to occur at Tuesday’s meeting.
“We do not have final information yet, and we’re working on getting that information,” Miserez said.
St. Louis deputy mayor Barb Geisman said the loan request is an attempt to kick-start redevelopment of One City Centre, which is adjacent to the vacant St. Louis Centre. City officials have talked about converting a portion of St. Louis Centre mall, which closed in 2007, to parking with ground-floor, street-facing retail.
“You can’t solve one without solving the other,” Geisman said.
In July, the St. Louis Development Corp. approved $4 million in New Markets Tax Credits to pay for improvements to One City Centre to attract law firm Lewis Rice Fingersh. Lewis Rice is currently based at 500 N. Broadway and has not yet finalized a deal with One City Centre’s owner, SCR Investments, a partnership led by Stacy Hastie, chief executive of Environmental Operations Inc.
READ MORE/ENTIRE STORY:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ily41.html
"One City Centre office building and the adjacent vacant St. Louis Centre mall in downtown St. Louis are poised to move forward with a $220 million overhaul."
- So they got the $5 million to help redo the office tower.
"SCR Investments plans to convert a bulk of the former St. Louis Centre mall into parking for One City Centre tenants and parking for tenants at the U.S. Bank Plaza office building at 505 N. Seventh St. The entire St. Louis Centre/One City Centre development has been renamed 600 Washington."
More parking!!! Nice! /sarcasm.
Look back on page 1 of this thread. It is sad to see how happy everyone was back in 2006 about the possibilities.
HOWEVER.... this should mean the bridge should be coming down next year!
Read more:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... a=from_rss
- So they got the $5 million to help redo the office tower.
"SCR Investments plans to convert a bulk of the former St. Louis Centre mall into parking for One City Centre tenants and parking for tenants at the U.S. Bank Plaza office building at 505 N. Seventh St. The entire St. Louis Centre/One City Centre development has been renamed 600 Washington."
More parking!!! Nice! /sarcasm.
Look back on page 1 of this thread. It is sad to see how happy everyone was back in 2006 about the possibilities.
HOWEVER.... this should mean the bridge should be coming down next year!
Read more:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... a=from_rss
- 8,912
^ From the article
More regional musical chairs...
More regional musical chairs...
Additionally, accounting firm LarsonAllen has signed a letter of intent to move its base of operations from Town & Country to One City Centre in 2010.
“The new ownership group of this building is committed to making it a Class A building,” said Scott Engelbrecht, principal in charge of the St. Louis office of LarsonAllen. “We just feel that it’s going to be a hot spot in the downtown business district.” Engelbrecht said about 100 employees will be moving downtown from the firm’s Town & Country office.
- 10K
^
If we're going to play musical chairs, I like the game a lot better when one firm stays downtown and another moves downtown from the burbs.
If we're going to play musical chairs, I like the game a lot better when one firm stays downtown and another moves downtown from the burbs.
Some points that seem to be a good thing out of all this.
- I think putting the main entrance on Washington and letting One Center be known as 600 Washington is a big plus.
- Having ground retail and hopefully a full service theater with parking above is better for the long run downtown. Trying to have a mall and consolidate retail on one location didn't help and failed miserably.
- Like most, I wish their was enough demand for lofts as originally proposed by John Stephen instead of parking. However, I would rather see the Laural developed and the briddge come down if the market will support one. Simply put, you can always convert the parking structure late.
- Getting a business back into the city sooner is better then hoping for another stalled development to get off the ground and risk losing the opportunity altogther.
John Stephen thought big but didn't have the resources to pull anything off. Slowly but surely you will see some downtown development move forward with the current players.
- I think putting the main entrance on Washington and letting One Center be known as 600 Washington is a big plus.
- Having ground retail and hopefully a full service theater with parking above is better for the long run downtown. Trying to have a mall and consolidate retail on one location didn't help and failed miserably.
- Like most, I wish their was enough demand for lofts as originally proposed by John Stephen instead of parking. However, I would rather see the Laural developed and the briddge come down if the market will support one. Simply put, you can always convert the parking structure late.
- Getting a business back into the city sooner is better then hoping for another stalled development to get off the ground and risk losing the opportunity altogther.
John Stephen thought big but didn't have the resources to pull anything off. Slowly but surely you will see some downtown development move forward with the current players.
Overall, I like the general plan for this project. However, am I missing something here? It will cost $25 million to "rehab" the office tower. Ok. However, it says it's a $220 million project. So does that mean it will cost $195 million to convert a portion of the existing structure into parking and ground floor retail?? How on earth will that be profitable? Also, what are the plans for the remaining structure not converted to parking? Is rehabbing that included in the $195 million?
I would think with $195 million, you could tear down the current structure and build a high density development in it's place including a parking structure, ground floor retail, residential AND commercial.
Hmm...
I would think with $195 million, you could tear down the current structure and build a high density development in it's place including a parking structure, ground floor retail, residential AND commercial.
Hmm...
- 8,912
I was under the impression the $220mil was for the previous proposal.