That's our trajectory.
About time we finally get the number of downtown parking space.Doug wrote:64,55, 70, and 44
- 11K
Sure. I thought what you wrote is basically true and humorous, but trajectories are funny things in that they're no linear nor predictable. When I'm walking somewhere and someone says, "we're never going to get there at this rate." I always respond, "at this rate we'll be in Kansas in four days." Things change.Doug wrote:That's our trajectory.
- 10K
Clayco just builds whatever the client pays them to build.Doug wrote:Clayco is really utilizing their scientific, engineering, and artistic talents for this fine example of economic development.
- 1,000
I thought it was funny.MattnSTL wrote:About time we finally get the number of downtown parking space.Doug wrote:64,55, 70, and 44
okay now, going for the forum's most hated member—
I don't hate the skybridge that much. I think it's a bad execution, not really a bad idea. Back in the day (when the Centre was hopping circa 1989, I used to love standing in the skybridge, looking west down Wash Ave with the cars/pedestrians going underneath. When this corner was happening, this bridge was cool.
I think the solid east wall is a huge mistake and the materials/structure are too heavy for the ornate facade of Stix. Having recently been in Mpls, I like the habitrail layering that goes on.
This type of architectural levels is really cool in other cities. Minneapolis Skyway, Marta station over I-85/75, Singapore and Lower Whacker.
![]()
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I don't hate the skybridge that much. I think it's a bad execution, not really a bad idea. Back in the day (when the Centre was hopping circa 1989, I used to love standing in the skybridge, looking west down Wash Ave with the cars/pedestrians going underneath. When this corner was happening, this bridge was cool.
I think the solid east wall is a huge mistake and the materials/structure are too heavy for the ornate facade of Stix. Having recently been in Mpls, I like the habitrail layering that goes on.
This type of architectural levels is really cool in other cities. Minneapolis Skyway, Marta station over I-85/75, Singapore and Lower Whacker.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I can see where you're going, but with the exception of Minneapolis, all of those are over highways, not in dense downtown areas blocking off light and line of sight to everything. Minneapolis is its own thing - very little street level anything, with almost all shops and such inside and connected by the expansive skyway system. It works due to the crap weather, but it still makes for pretty dead streets in most of downtown.
- 2,929
^^ Agree that the concept itself is not bad, only the execution of the concept as it had been done.
That said, I believe the execution to be absolutely horrendous, idiotic, and one of the ugliest things Downtown. When looking at the skybridges between the AT&T buildings over 10th and 11th, I don't have a problem, as they are minimal, transparent, and operate as a go-between. The StL Centre skybridge, however, is three stories tall, has a huge above-ground footprint, blocks out light (through and below), is overly conspicuous with that white/green east wall and multi-tiered glass paneling, and is a terminal walkway, having served as a seating area instead of a passageway.
Plus, this is the Gateway City, partially made so by the Eads Bridge itself, which connects to Washington Avenue. But looking east down Washington, you'd never know it's there because the view is absconded by that stupid skybridge. It acts as a prohibitive blight on the whole of the street.
Providing haven from deep freeze? I can see it.
Unique access over a highway? Pretty damn cool.
Underground roads done right? Excellent (wouldn't mind such as a parking thoroughway under the Gateway Mall).
As-is for StL Centre: I want to swing a sledgehammer and dance on the rubble.
That said, I believe the execution to be absolutely horrendous, idiotic, and one of the ugliest things Downtown. When looking at the skybridges between the AT&T buildings over 10th and 11th, I don't have a problem, as they are minimal, transparent, and operate as a go-between. The StL Centre skybridge, however, is three stories tall, has a huge above-ground footprint, blocks out light (through and below), is overly conspicuous with that white/green east wall and multi-tiered glass paneling, and is a terminal walkway, having served as a seating area instead of a passageway.
Plus, this is the Gateway City, partially made so by the Eads Bridge itself, which connects to Washington Avenue. But looking east down Washington, you'd never know it's there because the view is absconded by that stupid skybridge. It acts as a prohibitive blight on the whole of the street.
Providing haven from deep freeze? I can see it.
Unique access over a highway? Pretty damn cool.
Underground roads done right? Excellent (wouldn't mind such as a parking thoroughway under the Gateway Mall).
As-is for StL Centre: I want to swing a sledgehammer and dance on the rubble.
believe me, I agree with your comments.
I don't want the vocal hatred for this bridge to discourage any future developer from doing some cool because 'those people in St. Louis don't like walkways and bridges.'
(BTW, I'm surprised STL doesn't have more walkways with it being -15 windchill in winter and 120 asphalt/heat index in the summer.)
I don't want the vocal hatred for this bridge to discourage any future developer from doing some cool because 'those people in St. Louis don't like walkways and bridges.'
(BTW, I'm surprised STL doesn't have more walkways with it being -15 windchill in winter and 120 asphalt/heat index in the summer.)
- 5,433
I agree with you. It wasn't the worst idea, but it was perhaps the worst execution of that idea that I've ever seen.shadrach wrote:okay now, going for the forum's most hated member—
I don't hate the skybridge that much. I think it's a bad execution, not really a bad idea. Back in the day (when the Centre was hopping circa 1989, I used to love standing in the skybridge, looking west down Wash Ave with the cars/pedestrians going underneath. When this corner was happening, this bridge was cool.
I think the solid east wall is a huge mistake and the materials/structure are too heavy for the ornate facade of Stix.
- 11K
It's easy to mistake rundown or poorly maintained buildings (and sky bridges) as bad, ugly or failed. There's something to that, but St. Louis Center failed because it wasn't easily adapted to another use. Union Station struggles to a lesser extent for the same reason. Old warehouses survive because they can be reused. I dislike the fact that a good use couldn't be found for the development more than I dislike St. Louis Centre itself - if that makes sense. 
I'd suggest that a megamillion-dollar project that failed within about 20 years of opening did not do so because of no feasible adaptive reuse. Moral hazard combined with abominable planning probably had a whole lot more to do with it.
- 11K
By that criteria most malls and nearly every shopping center will be judged a failure. I'd argue that they succeed, but that a time comes for every building and every development to evolve. St. Louis Center was too insular to do that. My main complaint is that many seem to only judge a development a success if it never fails. Well, any major city, and development has a life span. St. Louis Center was relatively short-lived, but the difference I see is that in St. Louis people expect a solution to be THE solution. This is highlighted every time a business closes downtown. Each event brings out the "what's wrong with downtown, I guess it's not the great success they said it was going to be." That's crap - business turnover on Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Washington Street in Boston is a fact of life. Which brings us back to the problem that St. Louis Centre didn't adapt. It was a rigid plan that didn't allow for transition - it was all or nothing.bonwich wrote:I'd suggest that a megamillion-dollar project that failed within about 20 years of opening did not do so because of no feasible adaptive reuse. Moral hazard combined with abominable planning probably had a whole lot more to do with it.
- 5,433
That's very true. State Street in Chicago is another example. Carson's (Carson Pirie Scott) closed its flagship store almost three years ago, and Macy's (Marshall Field's) has suffered a bit from the backlash against the Federated takeover and the dilution of Field's traditions, but I'd hardly say State Street is suffering. And while I'm not as familiar with Boston, hasn't Downtown Crossing (the Washington Street area) been struggling for awhile? I know the new construction planned for the Filene's site (which preserved the store's facade) stalled, but even so, like you said this type of change is a fact of life and that area will bounce back as well.Alex Ihnen wrote:That's crap - business turnover on Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Washington Street in Boston is a fact of life. Which brings us back to the problem that St. Louis Centre didn't adapt. It was a rigid plan that didn't allow for transition - it was all or nothing.
Whenever I think of St. Louis Centre, I also think of Circle Centre in Indianapolis. I have been there a few times, and while I'm no expert on what makes the place tick, it seems like Simon Properties took everything they learned from the mistakes of St. Louis Centre and got it right with Circle Centre. Granted, it's not perfect either, but it is still viable unlike most downtown malls. It helps that Circle Centre preserved several original downtown storefronts which were still being used the last time I was in Indy. Attracting Nordstrom, and reusing the original L.S. Ayres as Parisian, and later, Carson's, helped as well. There is also reasonably priced parking adjacent, and St. Louis Centre (and the adjoining Dillard's and Famous-Barr/Macy's) didn't offer validated parking for many years.
Maybe Circle Centre isn't an appropriate or an analogous comparison to make, but it seems to change with the times, where St. Louis Centre never did. Once the Saint Louis Galleria opened in the early 1990s, taking many specialty shops like Brooks Brothers, A&F, and The Sharper Image with it, St. Louis Centre never responded. That misstep, along with the flawed design that didn't accommodate changing tastes or demographics either, was the beginning of the end for this mall in my opinion.
So while it's hard to get giddy about a parking garage, as long as the developers can get retailers to commit to the ground level space, that will be one step in the right direction that St. Louis Centre never embraced.
Great comment! I often find myself saying 'what's wrong' when businesses go under and lately (in the past 3 years) I've come around to 'that's just life in the big city.'Alex Ihnen wrote:That's crap - business turnover on Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Washington Street in Boston is a fact of life.
What got me rattled was the closing of DT stalwarts Dooleys and 2 Cent Plain. The loss of those two really has me bummed.
- 2,929
OT: 2 Cent Plain has reopened under a new name and new management. I forget the name, but I stopped in last Wednesday night when walking along Olive, heard a Sublime song from 40oz to Freedom, went in, met the new owners, and had a pint. Open 7 days, live bands and DJs on certain nights, still underground and with a quality punk feel like Galaxy used to be. May write more later on it as a new business.shadrach wrote:Great comment! I often find myself saying 'what's wrong' when businesses go under and lately (in the past 3 years) I've come around to 'that's just life in the big city.'Alex Ihnen wrote:That's crap - business turnover on Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Washington Street in Boston is a fact of life.
What got me rattled was the closing of DT stalwarts Dooleys and 2 Cent Plain. The loss of those two really has me bummed.
Back on track: Saint Louis Centre is dead and had been dying for over fifteen years. Pyramid was going to give it new life, but it died, too. I'm just glad some investors are going to give it a new life rather than let it sit there and fester.
If I'm a hungry man in a famine, I still would want a steak dinner. But, if there's not enough to eat, I'll happily settle with a simple sandwich to sustain me until better times arrive. Better than starving with food available... The economy is a true famine, and the garage with retail is peanut butter on white bread. The chance of having a porterhouse steak is not going to arrive anytime soon, and I'd rather eat now than starve.
Must be said: I'd still prefer a Dooley's cheddar burger with bacon & onion rings than peanut butter on white.
- 10K
Crack Fox.Gone Corporate wrote:OT: 2 Cent Plain has reopened under a new name and new management. I forget the name, but I stopped in last Wednesday night when walking along Olive, heard a Sublime song from 40oz to Freedom, went in, met the new owners, and had a pint. Open 7 days, live bands and DJs on certain nights, still underground and with a quality punk feel like Galaxy used to be. May write more later on it as a new business.
http://downtownstlbiz.blogspot.com/2009 ... olive.html
2 cents plain was, quite possibly, the worst bar i've ever been to in my life. "hey, what beers do you have on tap?" *bartender scowls* "we don't have beer on tap, BRO."shadrach wrote:Great comment! I often find myself saying 'what's wrong' when businesses go under and lately (in the past 3 years) I've come around to 'that's just life in the big city.'Alex Ihnen wrote:That's crap - business turnover on Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Washington Street in Boston is a fact of life.
What got me rattled was the closing of DT stalwarts Dooleys and 2 Cent Plain. The loss of those two really has me bummed.
there were other problems but that really sticks out.
I'm talking about the deli—pastrami, matzo ball soup and Dr. Brown's Cel-Ray soda. I don't know what you're talking about.Nerfdude wrote:[2 cents plain was, quite possibly, the worst bar i've ever been to in my life.
- 10K
In between its life as a deli and its new life as the Crack Fox, it was a bar/music venue called Two Cents Plain.shadrach wrote:I'm talking about the deli—pastrami, matzo ball soup and Dr. Brown's Cel-Ray soda. I don't know what you're talking about.Nerfdude wrote:[2 cents plain was, quite possibly, the worst bar i've ever been to in my life.
Please delineate a list of malls and shopping centers in the metropolitan area that have been built since 1985 and have failed. (You may include the two downtown and one on Manchester Avenue within the city if you wish.)Alex Ihnen wrote:By that criteria most malls and nearly every shopping center will be judged a failure. I'd argue that they succeed, but that a time comes for every building and every development to evolve. St. Louis Center was too insular to do that. My main complaint is that many seem to only judge a development a success if it never fails. Well, any major city, and development has a life span. St. Louis Center was relatively short-lived, but the difference I see is that in St. Louis people expect a solution to be THE solution. This is highlighted every time a business closes downtown. Each event brings out the "what's wrong with downtown, I guess it's not the great success they said it was going to be." That's crap - business turnover on Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Washington Street in Boston is a fact of life. Which brings us back to the problem that St. Louis Centre didn't adapt. It was a rigid plan that didn't allow for transition - it was all or nothing.bonwich wrote:I'd suggest that a megamillion-dollar project that failed within about 20 years of opening did not do so because of no feasible adaptive reuse. Moral hazard combined with abominable planning probably had a whole lot more to do with it.
You're being oversensitive to anti-downtown sentiments at the cost of misanalyzing the causes of St. Louis Centre's demise. St. Louis Centre didn't fail because it was downtown. It didn't fail because its horrid architecture/street context couldn't be "adapted." It failed, in large part, because it was yet another swing-for-the-fences urban planning experiment in the City of St. Louis -- and because it was opened at the same time as several other "retail is our savior" projects that grossly overestimated the concept of critical mass.
There is likely a message in here as related to highly subsidized, non-market-driven projects such as Ballpark Village, but I think many people will ignore it.
Really? It didn't fail because it was downtown? A shopping mall in the middle of downtown, with parking that was perceived to be inconvenient and a core market of shoppers who lived far away from it, and who also had closer malls, none of that contributed to its demise? Or the fact that, frankly, many people in its market were reluctant to go downtown in the first place because of, uh, the "demographics." Or the fact that shopping mall style shopping is not really conducive to attract office worker shoppers, who often shop for specific items, and don't go to "fill up the trunk." It's downtown location had nothing to do with it? Really?bonwich wrote: St. Louis Centre didn't fail because it was downtown. It didn't fail because its horrid architecture/street context couldn't be "adapted." It failed, in large part, because it was yet another swing-for-the-fences urban planning experiment in the City of St. Louis -- and because it was opened at the same time as several other "retail is our savior" projects that grossly overestimated the concept of critical mass.
There is likely a message in here as related to highly subsidized, non-market-driven projects such as Ballpark Village, but I think many people will ignore it.
It didn't fail because of its horrid design? Really? How so? How didn't the awful design contribute to its failure?
It failed because it was a "swing for the fences" project? Again, how did that contribute to its failure? How did that contribute to the dwindling demand? Individual shoppers don't care about whether a mall is a "swing for the fences" real estate development or not. They want convenience, safety, and a pleasant shopping experience.
I get you ultimate point. These "mega" projects rarely work out as planned. Rarely do they generate the spillover growth that they were originally trumpeted to do. I know you don't like the "mega projects" and I have been since been converted to your side, but I think you're misanalyzing the reasons for the Centre's failure just so you can again restate your point that "mega projects" rarely work.