The Armory District

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 · PostFeb 10, 2022#3512022-02-10T17:31+00:00

^Then your opinion of the Steelcote development must be even harsher.

Look, this is adjacent to a two other major developments, mass transit (direct connection to Cortex and CWE and ready connection to Grove) and acts as a bridging element between SLU and S. Grand. In any major or mid major city progress is adjacent less desirable parcels. Often it is why the opportunity exists. When this area has the Foundry Towers, Top Golf, SteelCote phase 2 and 3 alongside a new Iron Hill plan it will look significantly less Bladerunner 2049. Possibly even impressive.

wabash · PostFeb 10, 2022#3522022-02-10T18:46+00:00

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
^Then your opinion of the Steelcote development must be even harsher.

Look, this is adjacent to a two other major developments, mass transit (direct connection to Cortex and CWE and ready connection to Grove) and acts as a bridging element between SLU and S. Grand. In any major or mid major city progress is adjacent less desirable parcels. Often it is why the opportunity exists. When this area has the Foundry Towers, Top Golf, SteelCote phase 2 and 3 alongside a new Iron Hill plan it will look significantly less Bladerunner 2049. Possibly even impressive.

SLU is involved with the Iron Hill development, as they are the landowner, so I wouldn't hold my breath on anything particularly beneficial happening there. But all of the other (non-SLU) projects are promising!

billikens&bricks · PostFeb 10, 2022#3532022-02-10T18:56+00:00

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
^Then your opinion of the Steelcote development must be even harsher.

Look, this is adjacent to a two other major developments, mass transit (direct connection to Cortex and CWE and ready connection to Grove) and acts as a bridging element between SLU and S. Grand. In any major or mid major city progress is adjacent less desirable parcels. Often it is why the opportunity exists. When this area has the Foundry Towers, Top Golf, SteelCote phase 2 and 3 alongside a new Iron Hill plan it will look significantly less Bladerunner 2049. Possibly even impressive.

It's not. I think the Steelcote development has more potential for more precise development - development that's walkable and woven into the existing urban fabric (although the rumored TopGolf will hurt the development in that regard). The Armory apartments are two massive towers atop parking podiums without any ground floor retail, isolated from the rest of the city, etc. If the pedestrian bridge to the Foundry gets built (currently a big IF), that will make things better but only so much.

Look, for all the obvious reasons you and others mentioned, the Armory apartments are a net positive. I get it. Happy to have more folks living near transit and in Midtown. Plus, given the existing street grid, train tracks, highway, etc., I'm not sure we can expect much better barring some significant infrastructure changes. All that being said, the development is on an island and walking to and from it will not be pleasant. I expect most residents will still rely heavily on their cars.

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 · PostFeb 10, 2022#3542022-02-10T19:15+00:00

Every argument you are making against the Armory towers applies similarly, if not more, to the Steelcote development. There is no urban fabric there to be woven into. They are literally creating it. Steelcote is an island unto itself for the moment, with the only benefit being that crossing Chouteau is an easier walk to get to nowhere. The Grand side has the same issues Armory does and the North side has the railyard. Meanwhile the Grove and Midtown are walkable from the ATs. I see your point that it is not "firmly" on the street grid, and agree the ped bridge to Foundry and the greenway buildout will alleviate many concerns regarding pedestrian activity in the immediate area, though in my opinion it seems a slight double standard to ballyhoo Steelcote while raising an eyebrow here. The retail at Steelcote makes sense, given the ease of access (yes- still auto access dictated) from main thoroughfares of Chouteau and Grand, while the location of these towers makes retail challenging, so by omitting it they neither compete with the Armory itself, but also with Foundry for commercial tenants. I see it as the best use for the land while increasing our mid town density. Lets hope that ped bridge gets built for the residents sake.

LArchitecture · PostFeb 10, 2022#3552022-02-10T19:54+00:00

I’m just here hoping they give the architecture another look. It’s fairly bland in my opinion.

billikens&bricks · PostFeb 10, 2022#3562022-02-10T20:36+00:00

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
Every argument you are making against the Armory towers applies similarly, if not more, to the Steelcote development. There is no urban fabric there to be woven into. They are literally creating it. Steelcote is an island unto itself for the moment, with the only benefit being that crossing Chouteau is an easier walk to get to nowhere. The Grand side has the same issues Armory does and the North side has the railyard. Meanwhile the Grove and Midtown are walkable from the ATs. I see your point that it is not "firmly" on the street grid, and agree the ped bridge to Foundry and the greenway buildout will alleviate many concerns regarding pedestrian activity in the immediate area, though in my opinion it seems a slight double standard to ballyhoo Steelcote while raising an eyebrow here. The retail at Steelcote makes sense, given the ease of access (yes- still auto access dictated) from main thoroughfares of Chouteau and Grand, while the location of these towers makes retail challenging, so by omitting it they neither compete with the Armory itself, but also with Foundry for commercial tenants. I see it as the best use for the land while increasing our mid town density. Lets hope that ped bridge gets built for the residents sake.

Perhaps I should have emphasized the word potential more. Steelcote has the potential to rebuild/reconnect the street grid and if SLU progresses in their development approach, we could see more smarter development across Chouteau (not that I'm counting on it). Either way, I never praised Steelcote. I wouldn't argue that its human-scaled development so far or not dealing with similar issues - just that it's got a higher ceiling. As I implied, there's only so much one can do with the Amory parcels so what's being proposed makes a certain degree of sense. I just wouldn't want to live there, as PeterXCV said. Nothing human-scaled around even though transit proximity is great.

Agreed on your retail points. Based on the rendering below though, it seems like they maybe were considering it at one point though and I'd prefer they push for some in the tower closest to the station as it'd help draw people in, etc. Selfishly, I also just wish STL had more convenience stores, etc. adjacent to stations and we should encourage it in all new development. But I see how this spot may not support that so hard to argue too much.

mjbais1489 · PostFeb 10, 2022#3572022-02-10T20:41+00:00

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
Every argument you are making against the Armory towers applies similarly, if not more, to the Steelcote development. There is no urban fabric there to be woven into. They are literally creating it. Steelcote is an island unto itself for the moment, with the only benefit being that crossing Chouteau is an easier walk to get to nowhere. The Grand side has the same issues Armory does and the North side has the railyard. Meanwhile the Grove and Midtown are walkable from the ATs. I see your point that it is not "firmly" on the street grid, and agree the ped bridge to Foundry and the greenway buildout will alleviate many concerns regarding pedestrian activity in the immediate area, though in my opinion it seems a slight double standard to ballyhoo Steelcote while raising an eyebrow here. The retail at Steelcote makes sense, given the ease of access (yes- still auto access dictated) from main thoroughfares of Chouteau and Grand, while the location of these towers makes retail challenging, so by omitting it they neither compete with the Armory itself, but also with Foundry for commercial tenants. I see it as the best use for the land while increasing our mid town density. Lets hope that ped bridge gets built for the residents sake.

I actually disgree. I drive by both sites everyday - its a lot easier to understand how to get into the Steelecote area & its not literally next to a highway offramp/up against a highway. Its not very intuitive to get to the armory site.

All that said, I assume I presume once the Armoy and these towers are done; the urban fabric/walkable routes/ driveable routes will make alot more sense. Maybe I'm just bad at visualizing things that arent there right now.

But yeah, all is super positive on net. Excited for these developments to happen.

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 · PostFeb 10, 2022#3582022-02-10T22:18+00:00

mjbais1489 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
Every argument you are making against the Armory towers applies similarly, if not more, to the Steelcote development. There is no urban fabric there to be woven into. They are literally creating it. Steelcote is an island unto itself for the moment, with the only benefit being that crossing Chouteau is an easier walk to get to nowhere. The Grand side has the same issues Armory does and the North side has the railyard. Meanwhile the Grove and Midtown are walkable from the ATs. I see your point that it is not "firmly" on the street grid, and agree the ped bridge to Foundry and the greenway buildout will alleviate many concerns regarding pedestrian activity in the immediate area, though in my opinion it seems a slight double standard to ballyhoo Steelcote while raising an eyebrow here. The retail at Steelcote makes sense, given the ease of access (yes- still auto access dictated) from main thoroughfares of Chouteau and Grand, while the location of these towers makes retail challenging, so by omitting it they neither compete with the Armory itself, but also with Foundry for commercial tenants. I see it as the best use for the land while increasing our mid town density. Lets hope that ped bridge gets built for the residents sake.
I actually disgree. I drive by both sites everyday - its a lot easier to understand how to get into the Steelecote area & its not literally next to a highway offramp/up against a highway. Its not very intuitive to get to the armory site.

Yeah, I think we agree on this. I make the retail argument in favor of Steelcote and not Armory because of this intuitive access. My point was that Armory towers - given a the greenway and ped bridge - has immediate walkability Steelecote does not and likely will not until it and Iron Hill are built out. Steelecote, while attempting to restore part of the street grid, will be very auto centric for the foreseeable future, IMO. I'm beating a dead horse here, but you cant look at the ATs and call it auto centric without doing the same to Steelecote. Apologies for belaboring the point.

All that said, I assume I presume once the Armoy and these towers are done; the urban fabric/walkable routes/ driveable routes will make a lot more sense. Maybe I'm just bad at visualizing things that arent there right now.
Agree. Hoping that Prospect / Market get a solid redo in addition to the expected pedestrian improvements. Market coming off Vandy is particularly rough at the moment.
But yeah, all is super positive on net. Excited for these developments to happen.
Agree!

And I obviously don't know how to break up quotes properly....

PostFeb 10, 2022#3592022-02-10T22:20+00:00

billikens&bricks wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
Every argument you are making against the Armory towers applies similarly, if not more, to the Steelcote development. There is no urban fabric there to be woven into. They are literally creating it. Steelcote is an island unto itself for the moment, with the only benefit being that crossing Chouteau is an easier walk to get to nowhere. The Grand side has the same issues Armory does and the North side has the railyard. Meanwhile the Grove and Midtown are walkable from the ATs. I see your point that it is not "firmly" on the street grid, and agree the ped bridge to Foundry and the greenway buildout will alleviate many concerns regarding pedestrian activity in the immediate area, though in my opinion it seems a slight double standard to ballyhoo Steelcote while raising an eyebrow here. The retail at Steelcote makes sense, given the ease of access (yes- still auto access dictated) from main thoroughfares of Chouteau and Grand, while the location of these towers makes retail challenging, so by omitting it they neither compete with the Armory itself, but also with Foundry for commercial tenants. I see it as the best use for the land while increasing our mid town density. Lets hope that ped bridge gets built for the residents sake.
Perhaps I should have emphasized the word potential more. Steelcote has the potential to rebuild/reconnect the street grid and if SLU progresses in their development approach, we could see more smarter development across Chouteau (not that I'm counting on it). Either way, I never praised Steelcote. I wouldn't argue that its human-scaled development so far or not dealing with similar issues - just that it's got a higher ceiling. As I implied, there's only so much one can do with the Amory parcels so what's being proposed makes a certain degree of sense. I just wouldn't want to live there, as PeterXCV said. Nothing human-scaled around even though transit proximity is great.

Agreed on your retail points. Based on the rendering below though, it seems like they maybe were considering it at one point though and I'd prefer they push for some in the tower closest to the station as it'd help draw people in, etc. Selfishly, I also just wish STL had more convenience stores, etc. adjacent to stations and we should encourage it in all new development. But I see how this spot may not support that so hard to argue too much.

All fair points. I suppose maybe you could ask for a north facing apartment. Might not be so bleak a view then?

MTaylorSTL76 · PostFeb 10, 2022#3602022-02-10T23:46+00:00

Last night's planning commission meeting yielded some interesting comments.

Shane Cohn asked about the entrance and exit on Grand. The architect said it was right in/right out only, but the argument was made that it was still a hazard, people wouldn't listen to that, and it would cause other problems. The architect said he'll pass along the comments to the development team to work on a better solution.
Discussions about retail space weren't really held yet but could now be held.
Facade will be a mix of metal, glass, and brick (or a terra cotta style panel).
Zoning rules limit height here to 8-stories or 100ft but a stipulation allows buildings to go taller if they step back from the property line. Expect a future design revision to have a step back.
Mary Hart Burton, the zoning administrator, continued to bring up the city's antique zoning regulations.
The full site plan showing both towers did not show the driveway on Grand going down to Prospect Avenue. The connection will stop at the pick-up/drop-off zone for tower 2.
Plans call for studios-2-bedroom units. Shane Cohn asked why a 3-bedroom option wasn't considered and the architect said an analysis didn't defined proof that having 3-bedroom units were beneficial. The final unit mix is still being worked on.
Planning Commission approved of the rezoning request with 4 yes votes and 3 present votes (Jeffrey Boyd, Shane Cohn, and Nahuel Fefer voted present).

rbeedee · PostFeb 11, 2022#3612022-02-11T01:19+00:00

MTaylorSTL76 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022

Zoning rules limit height here to 8-stories or 100ft but a stipulation allows buildings to go taller if they step back from the property line. Expect a future design revision to have a step back.

Mary Hart Burton, the zoning administrator, continued to bring up the city's antique zoning regulations.

I can see Burton's point about outdated zoning, especially here--what is the constituency that would object to a taller building in what is an essentially a railyard next to a highway and light industry? I wouldn't think NIMBYs would be a problem there, and an 8-story building without setbacks would block whatever views there are as much as a taller one. The nearby Council Towers building looks to be over 25 stories with no setbacks.

Did the developers say if they would have gone even bigger development if the zoning permitted? I would guess not given that this is the first residential development at that particular site and untested, but I would hate to think unfortunate zoning rules are limiting ambition. Did they mention looking into getting a variance rather than doing design changes? I have no objection to a step-back design but don't think it should be necessary.

Miss Shell · PostFeb 11, 2022#3622022-02-11T05:27+00:00

This might be slightly off topic but related to the vicinity of the project. Can anyone explain why the EB exit for Grand loops around a building on the west side instead of just being a straight line? (Pardon my lack of knowledge on proper terminology.) I feel like that loop can be eliminated if the Bernard and Grand exits combined. Stay left on the ramp for Grand and right for Bernard/Market. I just feel like that would be one step towards trying to make the area more walkable. I know dredger would back me up, as they have grander plans to get rid of all the spaghetti.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

LArchitecture · PostFeb 11, 2022#3632022-02-11T12:56+00:00

Miss Shell wrote:This might be slightly off topic but related to the vicinity of the project. Can anyone explain why the EB exit for Grand loops around a building on the west side instead of just being a straight line? (Pardon my lack of knowledge on proper terminology.) I feel like that loop can be eliminated if the Bernard and Grand exits combined. Stay left on the ramp for Grand and right for Bernard/Market. I just feel like that would be one step towards trying to make the area more walkable. I know dredger would back me up, as he has grander plans to get rid of all the spaghetti.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Possibly to much elevation change in that short of distance when it was first done. I do agree technology has changed and it could be simplified. I drew a large road change in this area once and showed it to a couple engineers for fun they all said it was a good idea if somebody would pay for it. I have no clue where I put the drawing now though.

billikens&bricks · PostFeb 11, 2022#3642022-02-11T13:45+00:00

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
billikens&bricks wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑
Feb 10, 2022
Every argument you are making against the Armory towers applies similarly, if not more, to the Steelcote development. There is no urban fabric there to be woven into. They are literally creating it. Steelcote is an island unto itself for the moment, with the only benefit being that crossing Chouteau is an easier walk to get to nowhere. The Grand side has the same issues Armory does and the North side has the railyard. Meanwhile the Grove and Midtown are walkable from the ATs. I see your point that it is not "firmly" on the street grid, and agree the ped bridge to Foundry and the greenway buildout will alleviate many concerns regarding pedestrian activity in the immediate area, though in my opinion it seems a slight double standard to ballyhoo Steelcote while raising an eyebrow here. The retail at Steelcote makes sense, given the ease of access (yes- still auto access dictated) from main thoroughfares of Chouteau and Grand, while the location of these towers makes retail challenging, so by omitting it they neither compete with the Armory itself, but also with Foundry for commercial tenants. I see it as the best use for the land while increasing our mid town density. Lets hope that ped bridge gets built for the residents sake.
Perhaps I should have emphasized the word potential more. Steelcote has the potential to rebuild/reconnect the street grid and if SLU progresses in their development approach, we could see more smarter development across Chouteau (not that I'm counting on it). Either way, I never praised Steelcote. I wouldn't argue that its human-scaled development so far or not dealing with similar issues - just that it's got a higher ceiling. As I implied, there's only so much one can do with the Amory parcels so what's being proposed makes a certain degree of sense. I just wouldn't want to live there, as PeterXCV said. Nothing human-scaled around even though transit proximity is great.

Agreed on your retail points. Based on the rendering below though, it seems like they maybe were considering it at one point though and I'd prefer they push for some in the tower closest to the station as it'd help draw people in, etc. Selfishly, I also just wish STL had more convenience stores, etc. adjacent to stations and we should encourage it in all new development. But I see how this spot may not support that so hard to argue too much.

All fair points. I suppose maybe you could ask for a north facing apartment. Might not be so bleak a view then?

I had the same thought - I'm sure the units will sell for the views alone.

Suds · PostFeb 11, 2022#3652022-02-11T15:21+00:00

Really hope this encourages changes to the Grand metrolink stop. It and the Delmar stop are both awful as is. Far away from any of the things in their respective areas, and both feel substantially less safe than other stops.

wabash · PostFeb 11, 2022#3662022-02-11T15:46+00:00

Suds wrote: ↑
Feb 11, 2022
Really hope this encourages changes to the Grand metrolink stop. It and the Delmar stop are both awful as is. Far away from any of the things in their respective areas, and both feel substantially less safe than other stops.

What kind of changes would you like to see?

pop_scientist · PostFeb 11, 2022#3672022-02-11T15:58+00:00

wabash wrote: ↑
Feb 11, 2022
Suds wrote: ↑
Feb 11, 2022
Really hope this encourages changes to the Grand metrolink stop. It and the Delmar stop are both awful as is. Far away from any of the things in their respective areas, and both feel substantially less safe than other stops.
What kind of changes would you like to see?

I know this is a pipedream, but if Metro could jog north from the Cortex station to FPP, run down the middle of FPP with a stop at Grand. From the Grand stop run to Clark at Ewing, and then take Clark to the normal Union Station stop. It would probably be the most expensive upgrade to an existing line, but I think it might flow better from Cortex to Union Station.

Suds · PostFeb 11, 2022#3682022-02-11T15:59+00:00

wabash wrote: ↑
Feb 11, 2022
Suds wrote: ↑
Feb 11, 2022
Really hope this encourages changes to the Grand metrolink stop. It and the Delmar stop are both awful as is. Far away from any of the things in their respective areas, and both feel substantially less safe than other stops.
What kind of changes would you like to see?

Not sure exactly how to articulate it, but if possible make it less convoluted to get to and from the actual platform. It's a pretty long trek from Grand bridge to the platform, whereas other stops are either right there (Cortex) or only a short flight of stairs away (Debaliviere; Big Bend; etc.). I know a lot SLU students don't use it all because of safety concerns and how separated the platform seems from everything else. Maybe some aesthetic changes would help some.

I think the Armory developments and Steelcote developments could fix a lot of this naturally. Most metrolink stops come out right near where the action is. E.g., Cortex is in the middle of the Cortex, CWE is at BJC, all of the downtown stops have something nearby, Forest Park/Kaldi's/WashU at Skinker, etc. At Grand, though, it's a several minute walk north or south to anything. Having apartment buildings and the Armory a block away will be much better than how it is now with just the industrial equipment.

PostFeb 11, 2022#3692022-02-11T16:05+00:00

Everything I said above mostly holds true for the Delmar stop too.

SeattleNative · PostFeb 11, 2022#3702022-02-11T16:33+00:00

Suds wrote:Everything I said above mostly holds true for the Delmar stop too.

That becomes less true as Delmar’s East Loop grows and the WashU north campus gets redeveloped (if that ever happens). I think the delmar station is in a good spot (would have been better if it used the old Wabash station, though).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wabash · PostFeb 11, 2022#3712022-02-11T17:27+00:00

^^^ & ^^ The tracks aren't going to be moved closer to dense areas, but fortunately the dense areas are moving closer to the tracks.

The layout of the Grand Station reconstruction is unfortunate though. The actual finishes and design elements are nice, but eliminating the ability to go directly from the platform to the 70 bus was a detriment. I believe it was done partially as a safety measure. There's been an effort to more clearly define the ticketed MetroLink areas, which means limiting access points and perhaps in this case limiting a seamless connection of MetroLink platform and bus stop. It's kind of a Catch-22 - help the rider experience by restricting station access to improve safety, while hurting the rider experience by making station access slightly less convenient.

PeterXCV · PostFeb 11, 2022#3722022-02-11T17:48+00:00

Yeah that's why they did it, so there would be a sightline across the platform. As far as I'm concerned, almost all of Metro's measures to make the system safer have made life harder for riders. Exhibit B would be how they fenced off the eastern entrance of the Delmar Loop station.

quincunx · PostFeb 11, 2022#3732022-02-11T18:28+00:00

Yep, putting the elevators and stairs way far away from the platform, especially the one to northbound Grand, just wastes everyone's time and makes the system less useful.

Suds · PostFeb 11, 2022#3742022-02-11T19:15+00:00

SeattleNative wrote: ↑
Feb 11, 2022
Everything I said above mostly holds true for the Delmar stop too.
That becomes less true as Delmar’s East Loop grows and the WashU north campus gets redeveloped (if that ever happens). I think the delmar station is in a good spot (would have been better if it used the old Wabash station, though).

Yeah I agree. Both stops are located well for future development. Grand especially will be right in the middle of these upcoming developments. It's just a shame that these stops are so poor right now when they should be two of the most important ones. If they were better, we'd probably see much more traffic from WashU and SLU students.

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 · PostFeb 12, 2022#3752022-02-12T01:07+00:00

MTaylorSTL76 wrote: ↑
Feb 09, 2022
Check out this view. I'm excited for them to go up.
51871007420_6c1e20a94e_o.png

Is this the most recent proposal? I noted these are much different than the renderings from billikens...
Went to the Green Street website and didn't see much about this in general.

The Armory District

Choose Display Mode