urbanSTL

Dredger wrote:My combined throw in the hat plus pie in the sky suggestion. Open air football stadium with built in snowmakers on this property and replace the Edwards Dome with an expanded convention center and mixed used anchored by the Edward Jones Tower (Centene gets views of the Cards, Edwards gets views of the Rams, both get views of the Arch and River). The bonus, in my mind, is that this would tie in better with Washington Street, Mercantile Exchange, Convention Center, Casino and Laclede Landing.

This one's my favorite so far! I like your way of thinking!



Like others here, I think this project is hindered by the constant uncertainty along with poor location and accessibility. Barring any further delays, construction should be well underway on Ballpark Village and the Mercantile Exchange by the time ground is broken at the Bottle District.



So instead of something forced and contrived, wait for conditions to change that would make development there more favorable. A relocated Interstate 70 with a parkway leading from the new MRB would improve accessibility dramatically. The market for highrise residential on this site may be there after currently proposed/under construction projects have been completed and excess capacity in the downtown market has been absorbed. Or, maybe the Rams decide to move north to get an outdoor venue and allow for expansion of America's Center.



So much is riding on this land, and its future looks bright long-term even if that's not necessarily the case in the short-term. So why settle for a hokey and half-hearted entertainment district that's probably doomed to failure in a town with no dearth of entertainment districts, existing and proposed? I'm content to see it as a parking/tailgating area to offset the area lost to Lumiere Place, at least until a better and higher use comes along. The comments made by the developers in the article smack of desperation. I'm rather bullish on the future of downtown and St. Louis in general, so if this makes me a naysayer in the eyes of some, well, so be it.

honestly, this project terrifies me. The fact that it may still be kicking strikes me as very dangerous. Given its location, I am almost certain it will fail, especially if it includes no residential. I don't know what makes him think that sandwiching his development between a highway, a perennially deadzone and a housing project is a good idea. And if this ever gets off the ground and does fail, there maybe several developers who look at this project and use it as proof that the stl market is bad. Bah. So long as he's willing to invest a few hundred million dollars, there are so many better places to invest it.

matguy70 wrote:Wow - there are so many naysayers here. I would have loved to see an internet thread about the Gateway Arch Concept in 1947 online through the 1960's.



I, for one, am just happy to hear some news on the district and that it is still "in the works" and they wanted the media to release the information that the district is not "dead" as so many excused it to be here.



Let's just all sit back, relax and chill out for awhile and see what the plans will be when they are released.

Yes, that would have been rough - that poject took the better part of three decades AFTER federal money was set aside!!!

JMedwick wrote:This project just continues to devolve further into a joke. The Branson idea would be a colossal mistake. If McGuire and Clayco really think this is a winning concept, then let them build it without massive government subsidies, because the "silver bullets" of the public sector should be saved for something with a more realistic chance of being a success.



If Clayco is smart, sitting on the property and waiting out the massive change is the way to go. At the worst, in a decade or so the CVC will come whining to the region about the need to expand the convention center and the property they hold will be a prime location for expansion. At the best, Clayco and HOK can throw their weight behind creative solutions to better connect the property with downtown and the landing through the proposed MRB project.

Agreed. The conference center is the only reasonable idea that's been floated so far. I wouldn't want a penny of TIF money going towards this project.

I thought TIF as well as approval was tied into specific proposals floated by the developers. If the TIF was approved for the 3 tower proposal (with the 630 ft building) and the other ideas, I thought TIF would only apply if that project is built. A drastic re-working of the project (as it seems they are doing now) would have to be presented again before they could be granted any TIF. (Otherwise, every developer could float a plan for a huge building with tons of clients/uses/etc., get 75 mil. in financing for a 300 mil project, and then build a project that only costs 75 and negate any personal contribution.)

newstl2020 wrote:I thought TIF as well as approval was tied into specific proposals floated by the developers. If the TIF was approved for the 3 tower proposal (with the 630 ft building) and the other ideas, I thought TIF would only apply if that project is built. A drastic re-working of the project (as it seems they are doing now) would have to be presented again before they could be granted any TIF. (Otherwise, every developer could float a plan for a huge building with tons of clients/uses/etc., get 75 mil. in financing for a 300 mil project, and then build a project that only costs 75 and negate any personal contribution.)

I believe you've just described the Grand Center TIF.

Perhaps it has been posted before but if they could lure them would this site not be ideal for an IKEA?

Perhaps it has been posted before but if they could lure them would this site not be ideal for an IKEA?

Not even close.



1. Not enough population

2. Difficult entry/exit

3. Not highly visibile enough

4. There is already an ideal location

irocktheparty2000 wrote:Perhaps it has been posted before but if they could lure them would this site not be ideal for an IKEA?

a big box retailer with a sea of parking steps from DT?

TB1000 wrote:

Perhaps it has been posted before but if they could lure them would this site not be ideal for an IKEA?

Not even close.



1. Not enough population

2. Difficult entry/exit

3. Not highly visibile enough

4. There is already an ideal location

I don't know. Population, are there not other IKEA's in less dense areas? To me a non factor as tons drive in for Rams and Cards games. Tons would also drive in to shop at an IKEA and not just locally. And if population is a true concern then you would have to put something here to draw on a regional basis. An IKEA would do this and then some. I have driven to Chicago, spent money on food, lodging and entertainment for the sole purpose to go to the IKEA.



Difficult entry/exit? Hop off 70 no prob. Coming from the east side no prob. Come down 40, snake a few blocks throught DT, no prob. People would come no matter how difficult it was to get there.



Visibility? It would be one of the first things you see driving 70 east into DT. And signage can help out elsewhere.



I know it won't happen but I think it could work closer than you think.

An ikea isn't going to go here. This topic is pointless. (Not to negate others opinions, this is just never going to happen.)

I don't think population is an issue. Ikea is a regional store...it would attract customers regardless of what part of the St. Louis region it's located, be it in the metro-east or in St. Charles county. It just won't happen because that would tie up too much of their land...I'm certain it will be a more dense development.



What ideas have been proposed in the past to connect the area more with downtown? They could run Carr under I-70 and restore that street again. Maybe some how work Cole into a one way street east bound and Carr as a one way west bound which would help get more traffic and visibility to the north side of the dome. haha that's a bit far fetched...and if Cole became a one way east bound, the lanes along the Courtyards at Cityside could carry that traffic. Then the all of the parking spots they have next to the dome could be shifted about 10 feet away from the dome to make an actual sidewalk/pedestrian path much like the side on Broadway with trees and all and those parking spots could just be shifted further into Cole and take up those lanes of traffic that would be relieved by turning the street into a one way. I know i know...way complex...but if that side of the building had trees against it, that'd do wonders for hiding the hideousness of it. Oh and allow traffic that is southbound on Broadway to exit onto 6th street there in front of the McGuire building. That's a no brainer.

irocktheparty2000 wrote:...Tons would also drive in to shop at an IKEA and not just locally. And if population is a true concern then you would have to put something here to draw on a regional basis. An IKEA would do this and then some. I have driven to Chicago, spent money on food, lodging and entertainment for the sole purpose to go to the IKEA.

Really? No offense, but step back for a moment and think about the bigger picture. You seem to be projecting your taste in furniture and your shopping habits onto the whole St. Louis region.



I don't see very many people making a special trip into downtown St. Louis just to go to Ikea -- especially if it is the only big-box tenant in an isolated development like TBD. If it were part of Mercantile Exchange, sure, it would get a fair share of casual browsing. But beyond the downtown and immediate surrounding area, not many people would be motivated to go there. And what's more -- most suburban people are drawn to more "traditional" styles. Ikea has the whole "Collegiate Chic" thing going, but a lot of people don't care for the modernist Scandanavian look -- or if they are people of means they want to buy someing more expensive and better constructed than what's availabe at Ikea.

Tysalpha wrote:

irocktheparty2000 wrote:...Tons would also drive in to shop at an IKEA and not just locally. And if population is a true concern then you would have to put something here to draw on a regional basis. An IKEA would do this and then some. I have driven to Chicago, spent money on food, lodging and entertainment for the sole purpose to go to the IKEA.

Really? No offense, but step back for a moment and think about the bigger picture. You seem to be projecting your taste in furniture and your shopping habits onto the whole St. Louis region.



I don't see very many people making a special trip into downtown St. Louis just to go to Ikea -- especially if it is the only big-box tenant in an isolated development like TBD. If it were part of Mercantile Exchange, sure, it would get a fair share of casual browsing. But beyond the downtown and immediate surrounding area, not many people would be motivated to go there. And what's more -- most suburban people are drawn to more "traditional" styles. Ikea has the whole "Collegiate Chic" thing going, but a lot of people don't care for the modernist Scandanavian look -- or if they are people of means they want to buy someing more expensive and better constructed than what's availabe at Ikea.

I'm projecting my taste on the region because I think this locale could work for an IKEA? Funny, as I really don't even like IKEA. Even though I made a special trip to Chicago, I did not buy anything other than a box of wooden hangers. I actually thought most of their stuff looked and felt cheap so not my taste at all. BUT it serves a purpose for decent looking stuff at a very affordable price.



You can take this to the bank. If and when an IKEA comes here people will come in droves, no matter where it is located. And if it were located in DT or close to it, DT would benefit from all the year-round traffic. I don't think you give a place like IKEA enough credit on its mass appeal. I have to assume you have been to one of their stores. When I was there, every walk of life was represented, not just the poor college crowd.



And as another pointed out, this is a meaningless conversation as IKEA will never go in here. BUT, I sure would like to see an IKEA here over a mini Branson. And with this project constantly being delayed and changed, what else do we have to talk about.

JMedwick wrote:

DeBaliviere wrote: I wouldn't want a penny of TIF money going towards this project.

Unfortunately, I think the TIF has already been approved. If the TIF is a done deal, then so be it. But the City should not be looking to sweeten the pot any (or go out on a limb with City guarantees for the TIF).

Actually, the original $51.3 million dollar TIF package was tied directly to the original concept (RE: page 1 of this thread). If this team is going to attempt to secure any public financing they will have to resubmit their TIF package for consideration.....once they can decide how many of the 50 ideas they plan to pull out of a hat during their "brainstorming session". TIF financing is based upon the projects ability to pay back the bonds sold (typically by some specific tax tied to the development). With this project being run by Moe, Larry and Curly, I would not be in favor of any public financing for this project - this team has no vision and no clue.

Thid could be a good location for Brown Shoe's new corporate headquarters.

markinlondon wrote:Thid could be a good location for Brown Shoe's new corporate headquarters.

Only because of Clayco's involvement in the project, IMO.

I wonder what impact (if any) will result from Rawlings pulling all their license agreements with Sports Destination Entertainment, LLC? This was the group that was supposed to bring a Rawlings Restaurant to TBD, so we can probably remove Rawlings as a potential tenant (they should and probably will end up in BPV).



In response to markinlondon, this probably would be a great corporate campus/headquarters location - and not because of Clayco's involvement.

I just had a tremendous idea this evening while eating at sansai...how about building the biggest Haufbrauhaus in the world...bigger than the real one in Germany. Now that's an idea I'd support.