urbanSTL

Jambalaya,



Your aggressiveness and hostility can be interpretted that way because you continue to say the same things over and over again, without making new points, and not being all that constructive. For example, you've said 'if done correctly' quite a bit. Yet, I'm not completely sure what you mean by that. Also, the fact that you haven't let this discussion die, despite the fact that we are all regurgitating the same things we've said over the past week, or so. Everytime somebody says something, you reply. That's aggressive.



As I've said before, I think we all think there are general design flaws with the BD. It does seem a bit severed from the rest of the area, but there are ways of getting around that. For one, it's the residential buildings. They need to succeed. Also, there is always the chance that the plans could be modified once the project is underway. Things like entrypoints (specifically for vehicles) could be added, and the overall plan changed. We just don't know what is in store, if anything at all, for that matter.



Overall, I like the fact that you are here. You're not the first person to come in negative, and that's fine. I hope you post your ideas for making our area better, and not just discuss a couple issues that you have problems with, without offering ideas for solutions. Like I am not a big supporter of the new 30 story Renaissance On Euclid. But I did my best to show some options for the design.



Anyway, I hope I did a good job of clarifying what others were talking about.

No two people are gonna agree on astetics. I happen to like look of the buildings. And yes, we all do want to see projects done right so that we don't end up with another Saint Louis Centre like failure.



I'm sure if everyone on this forum could modify the BD plan we would end up with no two plans the same. Many have defended both sides of debated issues, such as:



1) continuation of the street grid thru the BD.

2) car traffic thru the BD.

3) street side access to stores, restuarants, etc.. so as not to create a

fortress environment.

4) the BD's isolation caused by the Dome in-between it and the rest of

downtown versus it growing downtown towards North Broadway and

Lacledes Landing.



Despite some of these apprehensions many are overall positive on this project since it includes a significant emphasis on residential rather than purely retail/restaurants dependent, exclusivily, upon attracting tourists, metro area residents or those employed downtown. As was done with Union Station and Saint Louis Centre.

jambalaya wrote:If the bd is so heavily saturated with residential units the only way to pay those bonds down is through real estate taxes. If the bd had a better tenant mix (like successful urban entertainment districts do) they could pay down the bonds through sales tax, earnings tax and real estate taxes.

But, you do make an good point in that the residential and retail/entertainment/restaurant portions need to be balanced. It's just with downtown having troubles keeping or attracting large downtown there is not much else to do with tower except residential (not sure if there is much of a market for more hotels with the Pinnacle going up). Perhaps if the market improves the phase three tower could be built as an Office tower instead? Surely by phase two or three, they will have a better idea of whether more towers will or will not be sucessful as residential towers. And in the meantime the BD will be more heavily weighted as non-residential until the second tower is constructed. The developers have a lot of time before they must absolutely commit to three residential towers.

trent wrote:Jambalaya,



Your aggressiveness and hostility can be interpretted that way because you continue to say the same things over and over again, without making new points, and not being all that constructive. For example, you've said 'if done correctly' quite a bit. Yet, I'm not completely sure what you mean by that. Also, the fact that you haven't let this discussion die, despite the fact that we are all regurgitating the same things we've said over the past week, or so. Everytime somebody says something, you reply. That's aggressive.



As I've said before, I think we all think there are general design flaws with the BD. It does seem a bit severed from the rest of the area, but there are ways of getting around that. For one, it's the residential buildings. They need to succeed. Also, there is always the chance that the plans could be modified once the project is underway. Things like entrypoints (specifically for vehicles) could be added, and the overall plan changed. We just don't know what is in store, if anything at all, for that matter.



Overall, I like the fact that you are here. You're not the first person to come in negative, and that's fine. I hope you post your ideas for making our area better, and not just discuss a couple issues that you have problems with, without offering ideas for solutions. Like I am not a big supporter of the new 30 story Renaissance On Euclid. But I did my best to show some options for the design.



Anyway, I hope I did a good job of clarifying what others were talking about.

trent,

well stated - thank you for pointing this perception out to me (again, not my intent, but I will work on my delivery).



As far as offering more constructive feedback - here goes. When I saw this first post from xing (page 1 of this thread) I was very intrigued - I could see this development providing an environment currently lacking in downtown - a true mixed-use development incorporating entertainment, dining, retail, services, residential and hospitality - an area in downtown that could truly be active 24/7. And it just seems like every step the developers have taken since that first release have been steps backward. The initial design seemed to be very pedestrian friendly - this re-design seems "cold" at the street level. Sidebar - as much as I love the buildings along Wash. Ave. - with the east-west orientation and the height of the buildings it always seems like Wash. Ave. is in the shade (less than desirable for restaurants with outdoor dining options). The initial plan of the bd seemed to take advantage of their north-south orientation and took full advantage of the solar benefit this site offers - these initial components seemed to activate the street which downtown needs and I do not see that in the new design. I agree that this project needs to allow for the existing street grid to continue on through it to connect with the city - otherwise it is just another urban island. If you want certain times to be pedestrian only - okay, but allow for vehicular traffic during most of the day.



A main sticking point is still the tenant mix - if the desire is to create an active urban area (24/7). There is too much residential and the problem with developing too much residential is you have a more challenging exit strategy as a developer. Being north of the dome, this area needs to "place make" itself and become a destination for cultural/educational/entertainment venues and only unique retail opportunities (people are not going to drive past 5 shopping malls to come down are see the same stores downtown - it wont happen and that is one of the reasons St. Louis Centre failed). If there is going to be successful retail in the bd it needs to be either consumer/service based retail (grocery store is a great start) and/or unique/one-of-a-kind/product showcase retail (niketown is an example) - where retailers show-off their r&d on their products, but it has to be unique, not another gap store. The placement of the bd is perfect as a vehicle to unite the landing and the pinnacle development with downtown (any connection east of the barrier of highway 70) and I my concern is they are apparently breaking ground which would make you think they have their design finalized - if what they are showing is their final design I think they are missing the mark and cheapening the potential of this site and this project. With all the activity brought to this part of downtown (events at the dome and the convention center) the bd needs to capitalize and create an open, inviting area for visitor, tourists, business travels and residents alike - I think with each step away from the original idea they provided is a step further away from a long-term successful project. Thank you again for this forum of discussion.

I am a bit worried about this project as well. I like the tower designs, I think they will really add to the skyline, but I think the decision to basically close the development in on itself was not a good one. Without street traffic and without the connection to the surrounding neighborhood, I'm not sure that there is going to be the traffic to support retail. Also the confined space may create an unsafe feeling in the center area. The location is already physically isolated from the reast of downtown by the convention center and the dome, I don't think it was a good decision to further isolate it. I think the decision was made that this was going to be an entertainment district, not an addition to urban fabric. (Think Grand Center, instead of the CWE). It can work that way, but it may be a struggle.

Maybe one of the more eloquent among us can write a letter to the Bottle District developer regarding their decision to close off the District.

A member of the development team has posted here in the past, so I'm sure they read what we post here.

Well, this forum is a bit informal compared to a letter signed by a couple dozen concerned citizens, even if they are all members of the forum anyway. We could even circulate a petition. I'm just not sure how many people would care about the BD's self-containment--or, if those that do care would even want it to be integrated with the surrounding urban fabric.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Well, this forum is a bit informal compared to a letter signed by a couple dozen concerned citizens, even if they are all members of the forum anyway. We could even circulate a petition. I'm just not sure how many people would care about the BD's self-containment--or, if those that do care would even want it to be integrated with the surrounding urban fabric.

mattdropstheh

very good point - not sure what the answer would be, but a couple of very good questions.

For a development such as this, with commercial/entertainment already proposed into the mix, I fail to see how there could EVER be too much residential development built into the area. This is the only way to sustain something like this. You cannot rely on suburban or even city residents to come here and just hang out all day and night. It must have a 24 hour occupancy within itself. How can any development have too much residential??? That would only increase the amount of future commercial/entertainment. There is obviously a market, because as said earlier, the taller buildings were not part of the original plan, and I know from people currently looking for condos, there is a lot of interest in this development, as well as the continuous market for any residential downtown. I don't see it ending any time soon.



Also, as was stated previously about the view of the arch/downtown being interrupted by the new courthouse, that is absurd. We don't and shouldn't design our environment based on what someone will see as they are driving into the city in their car. This view of the cityscape happens on its own in a natural way. If building the courthouse or any other highrise that potentially blocks someone's view of a particular building or monument is a design concern, than we would definitely have the wrong people planning our environment.



Lastly, on the subject of the new building's height, I fail to see how there could be a reason to limit the height. This shouldn't be a concern at all.

MattH wrote:For a development such as this, with commercial/entertainment already proposed into the mix, I fail to see how there could EVER be too much residential development built into the area. This is the only way to sustain something like this. You cannot rely on suburban or even city residents to come here and just hang out all day and night. It must have a 24 hour occupancy within itself. How can any development have too much residential??? That would only increase the amount of future commercial/entertainment. There is obviously a market, because as said earlier, the taller buildings were not part of the original plan, and I know from people currently looking for condos, there is a lot of interest in this development, as well as the continuous market for any residential downtown. I don't see it ending any time soon.



Also, as was stated previously about the view of the arch/downtown being interrupted by the new courthouse, that is absurd. We don't and shouldn't design our environment based on what someone will see as they are driving into the city in their car. This view of the cityscape happens on its own in a natural way. If building the courthouse or any other highrise that potentially blocks someone's view of a particular building or monument is a design concern, than we would definitely have the wrong people planning our environment.



Lastly, on the subject of the new building's height, I fail to see how there could be a reason to limit the height. This shouldn't be a concern at all.

matth,

there can definitely be too much residential built (with any mixed-use development if the ratios are not balanced with the specific market it will either be moderately successful or fail). The bd and ballpark village need urban and suburban residents, visitors and tourists alike frequenting these develoments to provide the desired activity level - it will not make it being self-supporting with the 600 condo units on campus. Again, remember that a majority of our residential market is currently made up from 2 demographic groups (empty-nesters and young professionals). There is not enough diversity or critical mass currently in our residential market to self sustain the bd. To broaden our residential demographic there are a base level of consumer based services to be provided (some retail services and some civic amenities). If the bd was more inviting to their neighbor to the west (once that development is completed) and to the landing (if it ever becomes a residential neighborhood itself) it would have a greater opportunity for some sustained growth. One other question I had with this development was a portion of the last article in the PD stating the current McGuire building would be renovated into lofts. Great idea - that is the best building on site, but why does the current plan for the bd turn a cold shoulder to this building. The bd should incorporate this great building into this development to engage the future residents in their proposed campus.

As a resident of the Castle townhomes I would like to throw in my 2 cents, I agree with jambalaya that the current design just does not fit with the area, I would rather see something more along the lines of the Boulevard @Galleria. You can still have your go kart track, Cabo Wabo, Rawlings but in a much more inviting environment. This current design makes me think of Las Vegas, can't explain why but just to much glass and seclusion. As much as I want this project to succeed(increase in property values) I feel the current design won't go much further than the ground breaking, again just my 2 cents.

WKnDACity wrote:As a resident of the Castle townhomes I would like to throw in my 2 cents, I agree with jambalaya that the current design just does not fit with the area, I would rather see something more along the lines of the Boulevard @Galleria. You can still have your go kart track, Cabo Wabo, Rawlings but in a much more inviting environment. This current design makes me think of Las Vegas, can't explain why but just to much glass and seclusion. As much as I want this project to succeed(increase in property values) I feel the current design won't go much further than the ground breaking, again just my 2 cents.

Yeah! After all, this is St. Louis. Anything "New" or "Different" doesn't belong here! We need "Brick" and "Old" and "Same as everything else"! This new development definitely doesn't fit in to the area. It should be more "barren", and have "obvious decay". It'd be best to leave it as a vacant-looking moving company building, but if we MUST build something it should be small and inconspicuous. Something that nobody will notice. I mean, come on! This design looks "cool" and "will draw attention". Tourists and natives alike will want to "shop" and "live" in this district. Definitely not what is occuring in that area now. If this thing belongs anywhere it's out west of the city... the farther the better. Down with change! Down with Progress!

The terrible notion that there can be too much residential harkens back to the good old days of urban planning that destroyed this city. Commercial or entertainment "districts" DO NOT succeed, anywhere, without residential. A lot of residential. There is no possible way that there can ever be too much residential, and I have never heard or seen any proof to the contrary. I am by no means saying it has to be self-sustaining, but will not succeed without a residential occupancy within itself to somewhat sustain itself on those days when visitors are not there, whatever the reason.



Downtown is experiencing a rebirth, but if residential development is curbed, than it will not be any different than it ever was. Even with the new addition of residents recently, it is still relatively "empty" at night. We need all of the proposed residential projects to go through and many, many more to make downtown a true 24 hour place, and an entertainment district with watered down residential numbers will not help and eventually will fail after the newness wears off. This applies to the Ballpark Village and any other "planned" districts. The proposed residential at Union Station will not have an impact at all on the mall if it isn't concentrated and dense, for lack of a better term.



And with no offense to WKnDACity, I don't think that as a city we want anything resembling the Boulevard. But that is my personal opinion. I will not visit that place, simply because of its fake movie set appearance. Also, with the minimal token residential units as part of it, it will never be a 24 hour space. There just isn't enough residential close enough to the area.

MattH wrote:
And with no offense to WKnDACity, I don't think that as a city we want anything resembling the Boulevard. But that is my personal opinion. I will not visit that place, simply because of its fake movie set appearance. Also, with the minimal token residential units as part of it, it will never be a 24 hour space. There just isn't enough residential close enough to the area.

I disagree. I think the City could "authenticate" New Urbanism and diminish the "movie set" look and feel of the Boulevard (which is a totally accurate description for most New Urbanism projects so far). Any "urban" development built in a "suburban" area is going to appear, if not by virtue of its intended contrast, "fake."



Take Six Flags St. Louis for instance. There's nothing urban about Eureka, or, for that matter, a theme park. But one of the "themes" is to recreate an old river town atmosphere, which is accomplished by placing old-style lighting and traditional storefronts. Much of Six Flags's shopping areas toward the entrance seem, retrospectively, like inspirations for New Urbanism.



The movement, as it has been applied in St. Louis so far, takes sound planning concepts (pedestrian-friendly environment, mixed uses, a degree of density, an attempt to recreate appealing urban aesthetics) and places them in a hostile environment. And I think developers in St. Louis who have employed the NU tool deliberately want to make a contrast to the surroundings, though it is that very contrast that turns their well-intentioned developments into Disneylands and Six Flags.



New Urbanism within the City, where there is an urban context, where there should be a need to respect the history of the architecture*, is a step in the right direction. Of course, I am blinded by a contrast as well. Compared to the city's newest retail centers, the Boulevard looks like a slice of heaven. The former group is openly and unapologetically suburban. The latter, even if not entirely genuine, seeks to emulate urbanity.



The most bothersome notion of the City's allowance of, say, my mortal enemy, the Southtown Centre, is that its developers did nothing to distinguish these centers from any of the thousands across the country in any way. To achieve that degree of blandness is impressive in a perverse sense. And to allow these new lifeless retail centers in St. Louis--a historic city teeming with beautiful red brick and potentially vibrant street corners--is little short of a crime.



Now would the Bottle District have been better if it implemented the design features of the Boulevard? Well...I do worry a lot that in 15 years (note that it's been 15 years since St. Louis Centre opened), we'll be talking about how stupid it was to build the Bottle District. Why not tackle the problems of the District, countered, for the most part, in the ideals of New Urbanism, now before the massive project is built? Why not give the District a more postmodern urban feel new to St. Louis. The Boulevard markets itself as something you formerly couldn't have in St. Louis. The Bottle District is already sending the same message (and with a more innovative architectural design, IMO). However, it's heavy on the "New" and not as much so on the "Urbanism" with regards to the streetscape and integration with the surrounding neighborhoods.





* This statement does not mean I don't support modern infill in the City.

I honestly don't know how you guys find the time to write this stuff, I can barely find the time to read it! I just wanted to ground this debate by recalling the day I moved to St Louis (less than two years ago) and my real estate agent telling me about the "potential" of this new development called the "bottle district". When I first joined this forum, there was huge disbelief that the project would even get off the ground. Then, when the renderings were released, there was a "holy sh**" this is amazing response!! Let's remember that someone's got a vision, hired an architecht, got $$$, and willing to put it out there, without any guarantees. I, for one, applaud the effort, and pray for success. This city needs this, times have changed, St Louis is back!! Go BD!!

MattH wrote:The terrible notion that there can be too much residential harkens back to the good old days of urban planning that destroyed this city. Commercial or entertainment "districts" DO NOT succeed, anywhere, without residential. A lot of residential. There is no possible way that there can ever be too much residential, and I have never heard or seen any proof to the contrary. I am by no means saying it has to be self-sustaining, but will not succeed without a residential occupancy within itself to somewhat sustain itself on those days when visitors are not there, whatever the reason.



Downtown is experiencing a rebirth, but if residential development is curbed, than it will not be any different than it ever was. Even with the new addition of residents recently, it is still relatively "empty" at night. We need all of the proposed residential projects to go through and many, many more to make downtown a true 24 hour place, and an entertainment district with watered down residential numbers will not help and eventually will fail after the newness wears off. This applies to the Ballpark Village and any other "planned" districts. The proposed residential at Union Station will not have an impact at all on the mall if it isn't concentrated and dense, for lack of a better term.



And with no offense to WKnDACity, I don't think that as a city we want anything resembling the Boulevard. But that is my personal opinion. I will not visit that place, simply because of its fake movie set appearance. Also, with the minimal token residential units as part of it, it will never be a 24 hour space. There just isn't enough residential close enough to the area.

You hit the nail on the head in my book Matt. If take out the residential aspect of the project you have the same thing that fails every time downtown. You can never have too much residential in something like this in my book if the demand is there. You can not sustain these things with tourists and the suburbanites alone. They come in on the weekends (if your lucky), and get in their cars and head back home. It's already in the plans to have plenty of other uses for the development to make it an attraction for tourists, and locals alike. I don't see how there is anyway possible to have too much residential, especially in the build based on demand model. It will be the same thing that makes the BPV thrive in my book, but they have the added benefit of having 81 games a year in a baseball crazy city. Take away the residential components and you have nothing more then the st louis centre, union station etc. all over again in my opinion, for what it's worth LOL.

SoulardD wrote:

WKnDACity wrote:As a resident of the Castle townhomes I would like to throw in my 2 cents, I agree with jambalaya that the current design just does not fit with the area, I would rather see something more along the lines of the Boulevard @Galleria. You can still have your go kart track, Cabo Wabo, Rawlings but in a much more inviting environment. This current design makes me think of Las Vegas, can't explain why but just to much glass and seclusion. As much as I want this project to succeed(increase in property values) I feel the current design won't go much further than the ground breaking, again just my 2 cents.

Yeah! After all, this is St. Louis. Anything "New" or "Different" doesn't belong here! We need "Brick" and "Old" and "Same as everything else"! This new development definitely doesn't fit in to the area. It should be more "barren", and have "obvious decay". It'd be best to leave it as a vacant-looking moving company building, but if we MUST build something it should be small and inconspicuous. Something that nobody will notice. I mean, come on! This design looks "cool" and "will draw attention". Tourists and natives alike will want to "shop" and "live" in this district. Definitely not what is occuring in that area now. If this thing belongs anywhere it's out west of the city... the farther the better. Down with change! Down with Progress!

soulardd,

I don't think anyone was requesting "old" or "brick" as a prerequisite to an appropriate planning solution. And the notion that the current bd design is "cool" is completely subjective and not a valid point when considering the eventual success or failure of this as an urban plan. If the residential high rise is proven to have market interest, I would rather see a true innovative design by Kohn, Pederson & Fox than the canned Libeskind design that was provided (there are some very innovative and creative architects nationally who would be very interested in this project).

The thousdands of skyscrapers (in one year!) being built in Shanghai are considered vertical sprawl similar to hoizontal sprawl in the United States. So, there is such a thing as too much residential but in a downtown American city there is always more residential that can be built. Manhattan, New York is the best example of a downtown in need of more moderate and lower cost housing despite the fact that two or more million people already live on the island or peninsula. I would prefer quality midrise developments transitioning downtown into other areas with new residential districts taking over the industrial waterfront without entirely removing all businesses.

jambalaya wrote:jfknet,

I am not sure why you and matth think it is impossible to build too much residential - of course you can build too much residential (you can over-build any single specific use group or building type). For urban residential to not just survive, but to thrive - they need services (retail and civic). The city needs to provide churches, schools, parks and an environment where grocery stores, dry cleaners, florists, etc... can be developed. If we have any desire to create an environment to provide generational residents these items need to be addressed. Without this attention to basic consumer needs, St. Louis will always have a majority of the previously mentioned 2 demographic groups for our city residents (empty-nesters and young professionals) - and there is definitely a limit to that residential market.

You're right about all those things, but you're leaving one thing out. You have to build a demand for those services first and a tax base to pay for them at least on the public side. Unfortunately those things don't get addressed, or fixed until you have the demand and money. What's the point of having retail, grocery stores etc, in a place that has no people to use them. It's already a dual purpose facility anyway, and the residential as stated is going to be built on a demand basis so I don't see it being a problem. I always thought the problem downtown was that it lacked vitality, and people on the streets after the work day ended to frequent the businesses to keep them alive and thriving. As Matt stated and whom with I agree without residential these projects don't work as seen in countless other failures. I would like it to be open ended to encourage more vehicle and pedestrian traffic. I feel you have to get people excited about downtown, and that's always going to start with the younger crowd, professionals, empty nesters, disposable income types, who make a nice tax base to start with. Just my opinion, and it's obvious we stand on different views so I will just leave my piece at that.

I'm just trying to make light of the fact that you all are being pretty pessimistic about this thing. If there has ever been something more exciting proposed in the city than this, I definitely wasn't around to see it. St. Louis will never be great again until people such as yourselves gain confidence in the possibilities for the future instead of focus on the next big failure.

jfknet wrote:You're right about all those things, but you're leaving one thing out. You have to build a demand for those services first and a tax base to pay for them at least on the public side. Unfortunately those things don't get addressed, or fixed until you have the demand and money. What's the point of having retail, grocery stores etc, in a place that has no people to use them. It's already a dual purpose facility anyway, and the residential as stated is going to be built on a demand basis so I don't see it being a problem. I always thought the problem downtown was that it lacked vitality, and people on the streets after the work day ended to frequent the businesses to keep them alive and thriving. As Matt stated and whom with I agree without residential these projects don't work as seen in countless other failures. I would like it to be open ended to encourage more vehicle and pedestrian traffic. I feel you have to get people excited about downtown, and that's always going to start with the younger crowd, professionals, empty nesters, disposable income types, who make a nice tax base to start with. Just my opinion, and it's obvious we stand on different views so I will just leave my piece at that.

jfknet,

I'm not sure yet to say that you and I are just going to agree to disagree, but I do think the best strategy is to create an environment for these different uses (right now we obviously do not possess that desired environment). I think if these 2 projects (loaded with potential) are properly planned and target market the appropriate tenant mix - the bpv and bd will be wildly successful (and at that point you have created a vast residential market). Create a market - fill the need.

Since I have had a day to think about my comment let me expand on it, first there are plenty of residents in this area to support, retail i.e grocery stores, clothing, blockbuster video, etc...As of this time I have to travel at minimum to CWE for a full service grocery, Schnucks. Clothing for the whole family, the Galleria, to have a Boulevard@Galleria down the street would be heaven. Why can't something like that survive down hear. You have at least 90% occupancy at Columbus Square(Courtyards@Cityside) all except one townhome here is occupied, and that is not counting the inhabitants of Wash Ave and surrounding areas. The current design is just to touristy(if that is a word) I feel you can have you tourist attraction but when fall and winter arrive and tourism is down during that time you need the locals to keep it going till summer is back. Believe me I want it to succeed and if it does in current form I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

I am weary of the BD argument and staying out of it.



However, I just want to tell WKnDACity that I love those Castle Townhouses & all those townhouses around St. Joseph. Very cool looking development. I would like to see them expand on that.