urbanSTL

gstone wrote:Yeah, it is too bad they couldn't design the MetroLink to come right in to Union Station like the old trains used to.

That is a great idea - should have been incorporated in some portion of that huge shed area.

Come on, how much closer can MetroLink get Union Station than it is already? The original line already reused the service tunnels underneath the station.



Plus, the Union Station MetroLink station isn't meant to solely serve the mall/hotel in Union Station, but also the Main Post Office, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Station Plaza, Plaza Square, Union Station offices (south of the parking lot), federal offices, even Ameren UE via the 18th Street viaduct. For this reason, the station is located at 18th/Clark to be within close walking distance of the mall's southern entrance, but still largely serve surrounding employment.



Fixed rail stations have stronger ridership when serving multiple origins and destinations, including major bus transfers, clustered employers and walkable activity centers.

southslider wrote:Come on, how much closer can MetroLink get Union Station than it is already? The original line already reused the service tunnels underneath the station.



Plus, the Union Station MetroLink station isn't meant to solely serve the mall/hotel in Union Station, but also the Main Post Office, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Station Plaza, Plaza Square, Union Station offices (south of the parking lot), federal offices, even Ameren UE via the 18th Street viaduct. For this reason, the station is located at 18th/Clark to be within close walking distance of the mall's southern entrance, but still largely serve surrounding employment.



Fixed rail stations have stronger ridership when serving multiple origins and destinations, including major bus transfers, clustered employers and walkable activity centers.

southslider,

good point, it just seems like Union Station is a little detached from our light rail system (not sure why it feels that way, since there are stations in close proximity).

The station isn't just in close proximity, but right at Union Station. It really can't get any closer unless it pulled into the mall itself.

The same goes for St. Louis Centre, where the station entrance is even closer to that mall's doors. So having direct MetroLink access does not a successful mall make. But too direct of station access does hinder ridership. Fortunately, despite St. Louis Centre's failures, MetroLink can still have ridership associated with the Convention Center station, since it serves multiple destinations in the CBD.



So having a station within a mall, whether Union Station, St. Louis Centre, or now Galleria would limit station access to other destinations. Only very captive places like airports and university campuses where the trip generators are high but isolated from surrounding uses, do you locate stations with limited public street access. But generally speaking, only serving one destination limits ridership, since then tied too much to the variable travel flows of a single destination, or putting all your eggs in one basket.

southslider wrote:The same goes for St. Louis Centre, where the station entrance is even closer to that mall's doors. So having direct MetroLink access does not a successful mall make. But too direct of station access does hinder ridership. Fortunately, despite St. Louis Centre's failures, MetroLink can still have ridership associated with the Convention Center station, since it serves multiple destinations in the CBD.



So having a station within a mall, whether Union Station, St. Louis Centre, or now Galleria would limit station access to other destinations. Only very captive places like airports and university campuses where the trip generators are high but isolated from surrounding uses, do you locate stations with limited public street access. But generally speaking, only serving one destination limits ridership, since then tied too much to the variable travel flows of a single destination, or putting all your eggs in one basket.

What? If it did go directly into a mall it would not be serving a single destination. Malls aren't jails. People can walk through them and out of them. Take a ride on D.C.'s metro system, see what I mean.



Hopefully that wasn't too standoffish.



Away from the metro thing... what is the talk I hear about residential in Union Station? That'd be cool, in my opinion.

Well yes, it is a good thing that the multi-modal station will offer many types of operators and help provide many tenents and multiple financing sources, but I disagree about its location. Using the old train shed would have been a poor decision, but the location of multimodal trasit center to me is too remote from other possible downtown options. It really feels like it is some poor child stuck in a corner, with little space for proper expansion. Really I think that positioning it at the far end of the UNion Station lot, as southslider suguested, could have been a really intersting design, in additon to brining more traffic to Union Station, something the mall could cleary need since it is tourist centric.

As for proximity to malls. The metro stop at Union Station is plenty close. However, that is not the case for the Gallariea stop. If i am gonna shop there i am not making that hike under 170 and across brentwood. It will be intersesting to see how many feel the same as I do.

I agree...it's very univiting. But perhaps the City Of Brentwood and the County would work on making the street, and the sub-170 access for inviting to pedestrians. This would be very important for shoppers to consider crossing Brentwood to get to the Galleria.

My guess is instead of improving the streetscape, they'll build some kind of pedestrian bridge. I'm not saying they should, but that is my guess. Also this is in Richmond Heights not Brentwood. Not that it really makes a difference, but it just show how fragmented this area is. The Brentwood/Hanley - I64 area is in 3 different cities, Brentwood, Maplewood and Richmond Heights.

Sadly, I don't think the Galleria or even The Boulevard will push for improved pedestrian access until the 40/170 mess of New 64 construction makes a dent into sales. Then, maybe these Richmond Heights' retail giants will demand of the County (Brentwood Blvd.) and MODOT (170 underpass) or help finance improvements that will continued to be used even after the three-year 40/170 mess.



But getting back on topic, maybe Union Station and other downtown shopping will be rediscovered by City residents, during New 64 construction, since such mess will easily be impacting all of the Mid-County auto-oriented retailers that live off City purchasing power.

By the way, is the Cinema Grill franchise definitely no longer considering a Union Station location? I had heard that this plan fizzled out.

I'm pretty sure that plan died. I remember hearing they pulled out, and there hasn't been any news about it for a long time.

trent wrote:I agree...it's very univiting. But perhaps the City Of Brentwood and the County would work on making the street, and the sub-170 access for inviting to pedestrians. This would be very important for shoppers to consider crossing Brentwood to get to the Galleria.

The whole "let's not build sidewalks, and let's have ocean sized parking lots." thing doesn't suit pedestrain traffic very well. It's a bit late to think about that in these suburban mega mall areas anyway. I hope people realize downtown is better suited for that, if that's what they're looking for.

I?ve been to Union Station twice in the past few weeks, and I have to say I?m quite concerned about the place. I went on a Friday night and a Sunday afternoon and there was very little traffic both times. I just can?t see many of those stores and restaurants turning a profit if their business is slow like that through the week. Maybe there are more people during the weekdays. Let?s just hope that Union Station will be positioned to survive once Ballpark Village and the Bottle District have opened.

People should be worried. One can only hope that the Blues attendence will improve, because that has been a huge source of revenue for the area.

I think this really supports the idea that residential would greatly improve that area. Union Station shouldn't have to depend on Blues attendance to be successful.

Scaffolding is set up on the front East corner of Union Station. Looks like they are just cleaning the outside up and doing some touch up work.

Goes to show that Union Station is very "touristy".... the traffic through that place in the spring and summer is great - but they suffer a bit in the winter.

SoulardD, you got it right. Much housing is needed...no low rise, but mid and highrise construction for density. When you go to a place like Union Station and see crowds, that's what makes it exciting. Wish the powers that be would wake up on this one already. Union Station has the uniqueness in its architecture, urban setting and interesting spaces and layout, yet whats lacking is residents (and I don't neccessarily mean under the shed or directly on Union Station property. Look at all the surface parking just west that could be utilized for housing, as well as other adjoining areas.)

^^^Ditto

Retailers at Union Station usually rely on out of towners to shop there, and the management hasn't been attracting them as well. I spoke with some retailers in the Station, and they site the paid parking as a reason St. Louis shoppers stay away. Its true that I don't like to tack on a $5 parking charge after spending money on dinner and shopping.



St. Louis is an auto town. Even with the new lofts going up, there isn't much within easy walking distance of Union Station. They should try a larger scale free-parking promotion, and see how it goes.

Andy Murphy wrote:Retailers at Union Station usually rely on out of towners to shop there, and the management hasn't been attracting them as well. I spoke with some retailers in the Station, and they site the paid parking as a reason St. Louis shoppers stay away. Its true that I don't like to tack on a $5 parking charge after spending money on dinner and shopping.



St. Louis is an auto town. Even with the new lofts going up, there isn't much within easy walking distance of Union Station. They should try a larger scale free-parking promotion, and see how it goes.

No offense, but parking would be much less of an issue if there were residential around Union Station. The foot traffic generated by residents and thier guests would definitely improve business. Eveything just turns into a parking discussion when downtown is involved, and that's ridiculous.

Can you get parking validated at restaurants or shops at Union Station? It'd make sense if you would be able to. Here are some rates I pulled from their website:



$2.00 First ? hour

Per additional ? hour or any fraction thereof

$7.00 Maxium to 8 hours

$9.00 8 hours to 12 hours

$12.00 12 hours to 24 hours



I understand charging during the day, but after 5:00 there should be reduced rates. When I go to Union Station I'll park on the street and walk there. SoulardD I couldn't agree with you more about residential.

Residences within an easy walk from Union Station ->

More customers ->

More sales ->

Less need to make a buck from parking lots ->

Cheaper parking or validated parking ->

More customers ->

More sales ->

Everyone happier

Isn't the underlying concept for Union Station a "festival marketplace" that relies on tourists?



The inner harbour in Baltimore was redeveloped with this concept and it was faltering badly until just recently...I've heard that it has made a huge comeback.



Maybe Union Station needs to examine it's purpose, goals and objectices?



Crown Center is K.C. seems to have always been extremely popular with tourists BUT draws locals in huge numbers. Since its inception in the 1970s, it has been fabulously successful. Ah, and it has residential.