Downtown development to be "Times Square of St. Louis"
St. Louis (KSDK) - A multi-million dollar development is underway in downtown St. Louis. The goal is for it to be St. Louis' next must-see destination.
The Mercantile Exchange development is located on Washington Avenue, in between 6th and 7th streets. Developers are calling it the Times Square of St. Louis.
The Times Square of St. Louis? Wow that's a heavy statement! The rendering made it look like a mini-mini-mini Times Square, but Times Square has way more activity, lights, advertisement, billboards etc. etc. etc.
Would an iconic sign such as this one work on Wash. Ave.? It'd be great to add that kind of energy and place making to the Mercatile Exchange, but I'm not sure the hotel/apartment dwellers would be too excited about it. Times Square is definitely a huge destination for tourists. It's an extremely busy shopping and entertainment district, but it's also trashy and awful and no one who lives in New York wants to go anywhere near there.
^ No to the giant, flapping Anheuser-Busch eagle as a Washington Avenue fixture. It's about where it should be.
As far as making Washington Avenue and the Mercantile Exchange becoming the "Times Square of St. Louis," well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Though I do remember in the initial rendering the north-facing side (corner of 6th or 7th -- can't remember) of the 600 Washington portion looked to have a large video screen attached to it. At the time, I thought t would be a great addition -- as both an electronic advertising billboard and as a medium by which the City and the CVC could promote St. Louis. I still think it's a great idea and hope it is included.
Not all of us our building hounds, but all of do like to look at things. This would be a neat visual that everyone could enjoy.
First John Steffen called it "Paris on the Mississippi." Now Amos Harris is calling it the "Times Square of St. Louis." Im all about being ambitious, but Times Square? Who does that appeal to? Who would want to live in times square? Sounds like he wants to design a place where people work and play, instead of live, work, play.
I would like to see a big screen along with a scrolling news board like the ones in Times Square on the ABC and NASDAQ buildings. It could broadcast news and events going on in the city.
Two of the bands are really lit up on the streetview, but this corner in Columbus, OH is pretty cool with the three-layer scrolling news marque: http://g.co/maps/nkjvf
Alex, I was just going to post that about Columbus - and there it was in your post. I agree. I always thought KMOV and KMOX had the perfect building at the Gateway Tower across from the Arch to ut the tickers and huge signs up for their stations.
I would rather see them here in Mercantile Exchange!
the count wrote:The Embassy Suites Hotel opened last week in the Laurel Building. MORE & PICS
Question for you, count. Heard any rumblings whether or not they plan to remove the skywalk between the Laurel and the America's Center? (Apologies if they have already...haven't been past in awhile to see...)
Thanks Count. Those are some really encouraging photos. It's amazing how the redevelopment of downtown continues to plod along despite the downturn. Just in the last 6 months the Park Pacific, Peabody, Leather Trades, and Embassy Suites have opened downtown. It's kind of incredible.
Kevin B wrote:Question for you, count. Heard any rumblings whether or not they plan to remove the skywalk between the Laurel and the America's Center? (Apologies if they have already...haven't been past in awhile to see...)
Haven't heard anything. I think it will stay. Let me find out.
Is there any hope for the old market space in the Drury being utilized for something better than parking? That could be a creative, vibrant spot with its location.
^ IMO, that Drury is rather isolated given that it's tucked back against the convention center/dome and cut off by I-70. It would be nice to have the surface parking lot at the dome entrance built on, however.
it is a challenging spot but being just around the corner of the M/X and at the dome's front door it would have potential. As for the surface lot, yeah, that needs to go and something much more useful and attractive could be put in its place. Here is an idea for parking in the area:
Underground parking is expensive and operators make a killing off surface lots. If you want to see them go then raise the parking tax and cite them for not maintaining their site.
doug wrote:Underground parking is expensive and operators make a killing off surface lots. If you want to see them go then raise the parking tax and cite them for not maintaining their site.
Yes, underground parking is expensive but the economics will work out when land is more valuable because their demand is for the vertical space above it. Unfortunately, putting a parking tax on surface lots in Downtown St. Louis will do neither, will not make downtown vertical space more valuable nor create demand for anything other then its current use which is surface parking lot. The added cost will be passed onto the user (Consumer/parkee) who might or might not change behavior and will most likely pursue a cheaper alternative if possible (stay outside of downtown because parking is free and whine to his or her boss that it would be better to work somewhere else)
If anything, at least surface parking lots create revenues for the the owner to make property tax payments which is very bid deal in a city with a lot of tax exempt property and its share of property taken over by the city. When and if their gets to be demand for infill you will see some of these surface parking lots dissappear. In the meantime, still confused why you advocate a parking tax.
We already have a 5% parking tax, paid by the operators to McMillan's office, and the PFM Group recommended it be raised as it's low compared to other cities.
If parking as a use becomes more expensive, yes parking operators might pass along that cost to consumers. But one of the reasons parking is so desired happens to be that it is cheap, perceived as free in some instances, and transit cannot compete because it thus does not have a strong enough constituency arguing for expansion. People don't use it because of cheap parking everywhere and highways with very low congestion. Thus will demand for urban living and office space increase if the city keeps stressing suburban values downtown which brings a built form that is not urban? St. Louis cannot "ape suburbia," as one critic from Fortune Magazine said back in the late 1970's. By poorly emulating an office park, downtown is removing the advantages that firms receive in the central business district's of many other places.
I would argue that the cost of parking should be higher, users should not be hidden from the cost as when employers pay for it or when they receive it bundled in a residential unit. If they are not hit with a price then they cannot respond by changing their preferences.
The idea that people are going to stay outside of downtown due to parking must be roundly rejected. Do you think so low of what has been done downtown to believe that parking is so much more important that it would keep people away? People pay a lot to visit other cities and we are still a lot cheaper. We have something unique. You can't get it anywhere else. Parking thus is the last factor which would keep people away if you consider the other problems facing our city: 100 murders and dogs running loose.
St. Louis needs to get over the fear of losing firms. They have lost a lot of jobs and parking is not the reason. If you look at where the city is growing, the downtown 'community,' it seems those people are self-selecting for a place that is the opposite of what has resulted from more than 50 years of building parking everywhere. Re-read the 1999 Plan. Downtown is not going to have 24/7 activity (something the journalist back in the late 1970's said would result from a residential community of 30,000 downtown, though he was dismissed as being a disconnected outsider) with an oversupply of cheap parking everywhere. So I think by stressing parking, something that has a very long record of not making a positive difference, the city is undermining one of its key planning and development goals. The only one really which happens to have produced positive results.
^ I agree with Doug. Downtown is littered with dead space in the form of hideous parking garages and surface lots. What is the point of having multiple Metrolink stations downtown if people aren't expected to take transit to the urban core? People take the Metrolink to sporting events with no problem. Metro should offer the same late night service on Friday and Saturday nights for the Washington Avenue crowd.
EW Gateway and Metrolink are currently doing a regional study on TOD. We can only hope that we get some really good TOD ideas for the downtown stations. Union Station, Gateway, and Busch Stadium stations come off as complete failures and are currently surrounded by a sea of parking. Also the Kiener Plaza Garages and Stadium Garages should be torn down and replaced with mixed use developments. Totally dead spaces! Even infill that is only 5-10 stories tall would be better than these garages. Of course I would be all for a ballpark village of 10 story mixed use buildings. We dont have the demand for many hi-rises now.
doug, I agree we just aren't ready for underground parking but I could see that sort of mechanical system taking off in some of our own denser cities. with respect to an increased parking tax, the problem here is that Larry Williams would probably just use the extra money to build new parking garages!
Enjoyed this story from All Things Consider, NPR, on my commute home. While Chicago, New York, and San Fran can talk congestion fees or tolls I still think St. Louis is a longs ways off from being in that position. Definitely agree that their is a lot more desireable uses in an urban core then surface lot parking nor does St. Louis lack parking garages. The issue in my mind comes down on how to get productive, taxpaying mixed use infill to happen?
I would also argue that St. Louis has just as much green space/squares as it does parking garages (Arch Grounds, Expansive Mall, post office plaza, etc - not too mention plans for Choutteau Greenway)
^ Excellent point about our substantial amount of parks. Some of these are productive, but too many are not. Between parking and parks, we have a lot of unproductive dead space. Maybe we should have a Department of Parks and Parking missioned with developing and executing a Master Plan that results in a rational parking plan and exceptional parks. For parking, this would mean identifying what's needed and what's excess and facilitate the purchase of "excess" lots that are particularly suitable for redevelopment. For parks, it would be making exceptional public spaces for fewer parks while again redeveloping "excess" parks.... essentially executing the Gateway Mall plan, figuring what to do with Lucas Park and redeveloping a lot of the remainder.
Of course, there are too many legal and fiscal constraints to realize such a creature, but it is interesting to think about.
