urbanSTL

FloInSoulard wrote:

Urban Elitist wrote:^I think time has already told. Right now prices are still steadily rising as DT continues to mature. Now if you're talking 10 years down the line, obviously no one knows, but in the near term, just by looking at the market(and current resales) and the fact that interest rates have stabalized at below 6.5%, everything looks great. Please don't fear monger. Sounds more like you're more jealous of loft-dwellers than you are scared of the bottom falling out of the DT loft market to me.

Wow. That is an interesting conclusion to jump to. Nothing I said has anything do to with fear mogering. Maybe you as a loft owner? fail to see any risks associated with purchasing downtown, but that doesnt mean they don't exist.

Yeah, that was quite a bizarre leap.



I will soon be a downtown resident. I really don't consider it to be a risky purchase, but of course, I could be proven wrong.

I think a bigger key, than urbanism or baby boomers, to sustaining downtown growth is job growth. Something downtown hasn't seen in quite a while. The powers that be need to figure out a way to attract more businesses downtown. Hopefull BPV will help with that.

To be honest I just don't know how successful The Bottle District will be. I'm not trying to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but I just don't get the warm fuzzy feeling from the area.



My friends and I have prepaid for season parking for Rams game tailgating right in the heart of the Bottle District. Both games so far I've stood there, looked around and just don't see how it could be successful. (and it's not because of loosing a parking spot right by the entrance closest to our seats) The biggest problem is the Dome and the convention center cut the area off from the rest of downtown. If it was only the Dome I would say no big deal: but the rest of the convention center really creates a barrier.



To the east and north you've got I-70 and to the west you're got public housing.



It just doesn't have the feeling like Cupples Station and the Ballpark Village. I just have this horrible feeling we would end up with another St. Louis Center or Union Station situation.



Somebody talk me out of these feelings.

dweebe wrote:Somebody talk me out of these feelings.

I wish I could, but I pretty much share the same feelings.

Matthew/E36 wrote:I would love to see the original plans come to fruition, but I was skeptical ever since I saw competing renderings released. How could they go from planning a Libeskind skyscraper to a few brick mid-rise buildings? Some of the renderings looked like a school project, not like anything with grandness to me. Sure I would love to see growth downtown, but not buildings to be building.



The location of TBD is ok. I don't really think it being close to the highway is helpful. If anyone is going there, a couple blocks away wouldn't make a difference. Would you say you won't go to the city museum because it isn't near the highway?



Yeah, it is close to Washington, but not the best proximity. If you were walking on Wash and went to TBD, you would cross through the convention and Dome area...which are lively when there is an event, but even then, you would just be trying to "get through" to TBD.



So I actually think BPV is a better location for good growth...including infill on surrounding streets. You would pass by more ground level buisinesses from Wash. Also, BPV is slightly parallel to Wash, so nearing the end of the street, there are a number of paths/streets to take to get there, so there are great oppurtunities for infill, as opposed to just 9th or Broadway to TBD.

Welcome Matthew! You've pretty much summed up how I feel about this development.



I was excited to see the Liebeskind renderings, but highly skeptical. As delays continued, and as the project was scaled down, I became even more skeptical. Now I doubt that anything remotely close to what was proposed will be built, and like DeBaliviere and others here, I can't say I'm that disappointed.



I think Ballpark Village is better positioned for success. I think something can and will be done with the Bottle District site, but I'd just as soon see multiple developers take it one parcel at a time.

No need to talk you out of those feelings as the concerns seem valid. It's not even our problem, really. The problem primarily rests with those that finance it. I think this area will evolve slowly due to the risk. Maybe parcel by parcel as others suggest.



What it has going for it

- Proximity to Dome/Convention Center & the foot traffic it creates (minor-medium)

- Proximity to the new casino (minor because casinos are designed to be black holes)

- Proximity to the Landing (minor)



What it doesn't

- As you say, it's blocked off from almost all residential which is a pretty big strike against it... Sure, they may build some residential on location, but not enough to make a difference by itself.

dweebe wrote:To be honest I just don't know how successful The Bottle District will be. I'm not trying to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but I just don't get the warm fuzzy feeling from the area.



My friends and I have prepaid for season parking for Rams game tailgating right in the heart of the Bottle District. Both games so far I've stood there, looked around and just don't see how it could be successful. (and it's not because of loosing a parking spot right by the entrance closest to our seats) The biggest problem is the Dome and the convention center cut the area off from the rest of downtown. If it was only the Dome I would say no big deal: but the rest of the convention center really creates a barrier.



To the east and north you've got I-70 and to the west you're got public housing.



It just doesn't have the feeling like Cupples Station and the Ballpark Village. I just have this horrible feeling we would end up with another St. Louis Center or Union Station situation.



Somebody talk me out of these feelings.

innov8ion wrote:No need to talk you out of those feelings as the concerns seem valid. It's not even our problem, really. The problem primarily rests with those that finance it. I think this area will evolve slowly due to the risk. Maybe parcel by parcel as others suggest.



What it has going for it

- Proximity to Dome/Convention Center & the foot traffic it creates (minor-medium)

- Proximity to the new casino (minor because casinos are designed to be black holes)

- Proximity to the Landing (minor)



What it doesn't

- As you say, it's blocked off from almost all residential which is a pretty big strike against it... Sure, they may build some residential on location, but not enough to make a difference by itself.

dweebe wrote:To be honest I just don't know how successful The Bottle District will be. I'm not trying to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but I just don't get the warm fuzzy feeling from the area.



My friends and I have prepaid for season parking for Rams game tailgating right in the heart of the Bottle District. Both games so far I've stood there, looked around and just don't see how it could be successful. (and it's not because of loosing a parking spot right by the entrance closest to our seats) The biggest problem is the Dome and the convention center cut the area off from the rest of downtown. If it was only the Dome I would say no big deal: but the rest of the convention center really creates a barrier.



To the east and north you've got I-70 and to the west you're got public housing.



It just doesn't have the feeling like Cupples Station and the Ballpark Village. I just have this horrible feeling we would end up with another St. Louis Center or Union Station situation.



Somebody talk me out of these feelings.

And parking is also a problem. Any parking will have to be in the BD. There's that one garage at like Cole and 10th. But other than that you would be looking at a situation like Navy Pier in Chicago where you are forced to park in their garage.



But like I said the cutoff from Washington Ave is big. Nobody will be hanging out at the Dubliner, the Flamingo Bowl, Copia or whatever and say to their friends: "Let's walk around the Convention Center and hit Bar X or Bar Y in The Bottle District."

There you go. You just stated what most people were thinking but were too PC to mention... I know this has been mentioned previously in the thread but I don't think many have read through it all and thus it deserves to be mentioned again... Probably the only way to make TBD successful is to make it less street accessible to the high-crime areas. I know someone's gonna give me sh*t for that, but would this person or persons put down at least 200k to live in an area which is more dangerous to live than WashAve or the rest of the Central Business District? I don't give a damn what they think....given the choice I'll live in a safer area. If they think it's so bad to think that way, let's see them put their money where their big mouths are and buy in.



And if it is designed to make the street less accessible to the high-crime areas, it's already cut off from the south... It's like its own little island or something. But maybe then people from WashAve and CBD would feel safer to walk north to the Bottle District. Who knows, it's kind of a long walk and is still kinda dicy. So many have commented on it, it just makes much more sense for these residents to shop, eat, party, chill in the greater neighborhood which is cut off from TBD.

Bastiat wrote:I had no idea how cut off this area is from everything until I visited it. It's close in proximity to the convention center..... loading docks. It doesn't matter if you view public housing as a good or bad thing, but no one is going to fork out over a hundred thousand dollars to live next to people who pay nothing (or close to it) for their living space. It also can't be a good sign that the new public housing units that are nearly completed already had a good number of their windows busted out. Why can't we be like France and build welfare slums outside of the city? If we MUST (I don't think we should) have public housing, why not build it around one of those Metro stops in Illinois? It really is a hindrance to development and the connection of viable areas. King Louis is right at the strategic connecting point of the Frenchtowns and Downtown/Chouteau Lake. Having the convention center-dome superblock was bad enough, but public housing to north of it makes it very hard to connect downtown to Old North St. Louis, etc.

There you go. You just stated what most people were thinking but were too PC to mention... I know this has been mentioned previously in the thread but I don't think many have read through it all and thus it deserves to be mentioned again... Probably the only way to make TBD successful is to make it less street accessible to the high-crime areas. I know someone's gonna give me sh*t for that, but would this person or persons put down at least 200k to live in an area which is more dangerous to live than WashAve or the rest of the Central Business District? I don't give a damn what they think....given the choice I'll live in a safer area. If they think it's so bad to think that way, let's see them put their money where their big mouths are and buy in.



And if it is designed to make the street less accessible to the high-crime areas, it's already cut off from the south... It's like its own little island or something. But maybe then people from WashAve and CBD would feel safer to walk north to the Bottle District. Who knows, it's kind of a long walk and is still kinda dicy. So many have commented on it, it just makes much more sense for these residents to shop, eat, party, chill in the greater neighborhood which is cut off from TBD.

Ok, lets all take a step back and CALM DOWN.



Frankly, no one should be dissapointed that TBD is dead. I look at it as a good thing, because it would have been very difficult for it to succeed, given its location and designs. Not a single one accounted for its isolation in a good way, instead making it an attraction onto itself (which worked WODNERS for Laclede's Landing . If it had been built and failed (as I suspected it would), it would have sent fear and shockwaves through the development community.



If TBD is to work anywhere, it would be in replacing the 1980s' office buildings just to the west of the convention center. There's a number of parking garages there to account for parkign concerns, and the through streets tie right into washington. We shouldn't be concerned with 'extending' downtown into upcoming residential areas, but rather consolidating and intensifying the one we already have. Why bother building massive entertainment districts when we have huge vacant or underused lots WITHIN the downtown grid we alreay have?



Burnham said make no small plans because they fail to stir mens' minds(or something to that effect), but he failed to mention that big plans rarely ever succeed under the weight of their own expectations. Baby steps folks, baby steps.

migueltejada wrote:

We shouldn't be concerned with 'extending' downtown into upcoming residential areas, but rather consolidating and intensifying the one we already have. Why bother building massive entertainment districts when we have huge vacant or underused lots WITHIN the downtown grid we alreay have?

Good point. Kind of similar to suburban sprawl only fanning-out from the CBD.

Bastiat wrote:It is much better that there are many firms redeveloping Wash Ave rather than a city backed "Washington Avenue Revival Project" handed over to one large developer.

Why do you think that a single-developer would necessarily be "city backed?" Who's to say that one developer couldn't have bought every last available building on Washington and developed them largely without the city's "backing?"

The question is "is it dead?"



There is no definate answer. The only thing we all know is that the plans have been changed and now are being revised (STL Biz Journal)

matguy70 wrote:The question is "is it dead?"



There is no definate answer. The only thing we all know is that the plans have been changed and now are being revised (STL Biz Journal)

Exactly--



MiguelT., speaking matter-of-factly above as if that is the true case is a bit irresponsible, don't you think?

Let's just stick to the facts and what IS known.

Apparently I wasn't the only one with this idea. There are now plans to cut off the more dangerous areas from TBD. Reference: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000884.php



This is a sign that TBD may still be alive in some shape or form.

matguy70 wrote:Let's just stick to the facts and what IS known.

MiguelT., speaking matter-of-factly above as if that is the true case is a bit irresponsible, don't you think?

Not really. Premature maybe, but we're talking about a proposed billion dollars (or more) worth of development here, and we haven't heard a peep in what, well over 9 months now? Conversely there's a new BPV story or rumor every weekend. Hard to think TBD is anything but dead.

Both of you are probably right in your respective views. Yes, TBD is not going to be built as originally proposed. So many retailers, restaurants, and even the primary developer have dropped out. Will something be developed on the land and also be called TBD? Most likely!

migueltejada wrote:

MiguelT., speaking matter-of-factly above as if that is the true case is a bit irresponsible, don't you think?

Not really. Premature maybe, but we're talking about a proposed billion dollars (or more) worth of development here, and we haven't heard a peep in what, well over 9 months now? Conversely there's a new BPV story or rumor every weekend. Hard to think TBD is anything but dead.

The land where TBD would be is currently private anyway. Therefore the argument appears to be moot. If they charged insane parking fees, it would likely hurt their own business. Could they do it? Yes. Would they do it? That would be stupid.



No one said these streets would remain. They would be granted to TBD for the consolidation of the project. The streets mentioned in the legislation could be removed.

Doug wrote:Private streets mean they can charge insane parking fees, charge fees for simply walking on the property, or kick anyone out of the complex.



City streets should stay City streets. You do not have any rights on private property.