You know i just thought of this, here are craploads of sports stars, entertainers, musicians, and other famous people from St. Louis. (Nellie, cedric the Entertainer, ALBERT PUJOLS) Maybe one day they might come back during their retirment and start up a couple of restaurants or buissnesses like Mike Shannon.
Ozzie Smith's, Bernie Federko's, J. Buck's, Dierdorf & Hart's, Al Hrabosky's...
Nelly is involved in a coming restaurant in north county, the rumored Albert Pujol's restaurant in Cupple's Station...
- 6,775
Xing wrote:I hope it includes food from the Dominican Republic.
Oddly enough, I think it's going to be Brazilian.
Everyone in this entire forum is totally positive about almost ANYTHING going on downtown. Why is this ONE project so bashed? Lets get down to some honest answers. Is it too far north? to close to the "ghetto"? too far from the grid of downtown itself? Is it the low income housing nearby? Why wouldn't businesses consider a new office tower RIGHT on highway 70, which totally avoids the whole 40 fiasco, etc.? Is the mix of "cheesy/touristy" retail with high end condos and office space the problem? Let's hear some answers
I like it, personally. I really think this could be another district of downtown that could really thrive. I like the idea of an office tower that far north.
Now there are things that concern me, but they've opened up the grid which they hadn't planned before. And I think it's important to be smart about the retail, but with more residents going in directly in the district, just to the north, west, and even east in the landing...this place could be a huge hit.
Now there are things that concern me, but they've opened up the grid which they hadn't planned before. And I think it's important to be smart about the retail, but with more residents going in directly in the district, just to the north, west, and even east in the landing...this place could be a huge hit.
JCity wrote:Why is this ONE project so bashed?
Let me start off by saying that one of the reasons I am so critical of this project is that I believe it has a lot of potential, and it could do wonders for the city. I don't want such an opportunity ruined by poor planning.
In my opinion, the biggest issues are:
-The renderings make the project appear as a superblock. To survive, it must be better integrated into downtown and future neighborhood projects that will border it.
-The retail component needs to be more varied. So far it's all bar/restaurant/entertainment (mostly from one corporation) with no word on any other retail.
-Local residents will go to theme-park like bars and restaurants every once in a while, but not often enough to support 10 of them.
-Only 8 football games a year.
-The few St. Louis tourists/suburbanites downtown will be split between this, BPV, union Station, and other downtown neighborhoods. They will not be able to support it 365 days a year.
-I fear having another St. Louis Centre. It would be a massive scar on our city if it's only successful for a couple of years and then goes down. Could you imagine this place with 90% vacancy?
I'm absolutely pumped about our city's revival, but let's make sure the new projects are high quality and sustainable.
I think Jeff pretty accuratly sums up most of my problems with it.
I mean, while the Ballpark Village info is not set in stone, the publicly released info all points to residential and then a combo of bars, restruants, and shops to meet the needs of folks at the game and some retail and stuff like a grocery store.
You seem to hear nothing with the Bottle District that makes it sound like they are trying to mix in both tourist and neighborhood retail. That makes you wonder about the long term future of the site for adding population and people to the area. That is my biggest problem. I worry that the developers are trying to do everything to be a great entertainment district and then throwing in the residential as an after thought, which should worry anyone thinking about the long term future of the project. I mean, between the casino and landing, there is a healthy supply of "entertainment" in the area. Should the BD add some, absoultly! Should that be all it is? No. If people want to see the best possible outcome, the area needs more than Cabo Wabo, Go karts, and 7-10 bars and resturants run by the same folks. You need a market, or some clothing stores, or any other stuff you think you would want as part of your neighborhood within walking distance.
I mean, while the Ballpark Village info is not set in stone, the publicly released info all points to residential and then a combo of bars, restruants, and shops to meet the needs of folks at the game and some retail and stuff like a grocery store.
You seem to hear nothing with the Bottle District that makes it sound like they are trying to mix in both tourist and neighborhood retail. That makes you wonder about the long term future of the site for adding population and people to the area. That is my biggest problem. I worry that the developers are trying to do everything to be a great entertainment district and then throwing in the residential as an after thought, which should worry anyone thinking about the long term future of the project. I mean, between the casino and landing, there is a healthy supply of "entertainment" in the area. Should the BD add some, absoultly! Should that be all it is? No. If people want to see the best possible outcome, the area needs more than Cabo Wabo, Go karts, and 7-10 bars and resturants run by the same folks. You need a market, or some clothing stores, or any other stuff you think you would want as part of your neighborhood within walking distance.
- 8,912
Let me remind you of one of the main ideas behind the turn around... if you build residential, the people will move in and drive the market... If you get folks in those residential towers, they will drive the market to build grocery stores, dry cleaners, pubs, etc... even if tbd does become too much of an entertainment venue... if there is a base of residential, it should drive what will go into the vacated spaces...
bpe235 wrote:Let me remind you of one of the main ideas behind the turn around... if you build residential, the people will move in and drive the market... If you get folks in those residential towers, they will drive the market to build grocery stores, dry cleaners, pubs, etc... even if tbd does become too much of an entertainment venue... if there is a base of residential, it should drive what will go into the vacated spaces...
I think you are mistaken. Typically in successful urban areas the services need to be in place to support the residential component (churches, schools, parks, grocery stores, dry cleaners, florists etc...). There is a base level of service-based retail that is necessary for these proposed residential units. The majority of residents that will be attracted to TBD development would be either empty-nesters or young professionals. The problem with this limited demographic group is you fail to create generational residential occupants for the city - you will always be replacing this transient initial group. Without the proper services the residential market will not draw the necessary diverse demographics to maintain long term viability. Base level service-based retail needs to be substantially diversafied from what is currently spoken of for TBD. The problem I have with this project is the classic bait-and-switch mindset of this development team. I would still be surprised if anything came out of the ground this summer. I hope some great planning is happening because a well-planned Bottle District would be a great amenity for the city.
Chicken or egg? I get so caught up reading everyone's contributions on the forum (you are all so much more in the know than I), that I fail to come up with my own opinion sometimes. That said, what brought people downtown in the first place? I dont think it was the solid core of services for last I checked all of downtown is about to get its second grocery store, and we are a few years into the process. What brought the drive for a second grocer...the expanding population. A big deal is made everytime a new piece of retail goes in anywhere in the city. I thought that the turnaround came from those who went out on a limb and saw some residential potential in the old buildings that were apparently being wasted. It happened to catch on and now the list of services and new residential components continues to grow. Now a group (with a potential to be a 'superblock' I know) wants to go out on that same limb and build brand new residential and we are going to argue it?
I realize that this is a "neighborhood" type situation and not just the renovation of a single building, but looking at BD as a micrcosm of the situation downtown, the principle could work because it has a better staring point. Downtown STL is not in the position (yet) to say any one area needs to be completely self sufficient. In 1990s downtown offered little and it sprung a residential boom. Now downtown offers significantly more (not in the BD per se but close....Dome, Wash Ave services, Pinnacle project, Landing development...), and BD is proposing retail of its own. The character of downtown is also much more positive. Establishing more of a population base, whether old, young, professional, or whatever, is always a good thing. I think just being downtown still tops people's list for reasons to move, not the ease or variety of its services.
I realize that this is a "neighborhood" type situation and not just the renovation of a single building, but looking at BD as a micrcosm of the situation downtown, the principle could work because it has a better staring point. Downtown STL is not in the position (yet) to say any one area needs to be completely self sufficient. In 1990s downtown offered little and it sprung a residential boom. Now downtown offers significantly more (not in the BD per se but close....Dome, Wash Ave services, Pinnacle project, Landing development...), and BD is proposing retail of its own. The character of downtown is also much more positive. Establishing more of a population base, whether old, young, professional, or whatever, is always a good thing. I think just being downtown still tops people's list for reasons to move, not the ease or variety of its services.
I do not think we are necessarily arguing the point of a developer wanting to provide a residential development in downtown St. Louis - I think we are merely wanting to make sure it is well thought through. I do not share the Field of Dreams mindset when it comes to developments (if you build it, they will come), and I think all you have to do is look a little south to St. Louis Centre and see the results of a poorly conceived and planned downtown project that is a white elephant and an eyesore (but we were all excited in the 80's about anybody wanting to build anything in downtown St. Louis we let this piece of junk get built). You are correct that the service-based retail typically will dovetail into and be led by the residential development, but follows very closely behind or is on a parallel development track. I am just very interested in seeing a final plan with some level of detail so we can continue these discussions - right now it feels very much like beating a tent peg in the ground. Let's see some inspired plans and building designs soon.
"If you build it, they will come"...the one word not present in this phrase that people don't realize is "right"...for those who don't realize it, it would read "If you build it RIGHT, they will come"...so, if you build it and they come, you've built it right. If you built it and they don't come, then you haven't built it right.
We're on the third rehash of this project and I'm beginning to wonder what caused the developers to go from a smallish project to a grand project to a maybe it'll be grand if enought people show interest. If it's built RIGHT, people will come. So, now the question is, what IS 'right'?
On the second incarnation of plans when Liebskind got involved, there was a great response to it. After those plans were made public, we were told that there were over 100 inquiries the first day (was that true, a promotional thing or a lie?) So much was being said both positive and negative. Xing even went to great lengths to do several fantastic computer images to show the mark this would make on the St. Louis skyline. There were lots of WOWs, and of course there was some negativism. That's what happens when a grand project is propossed. The Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, The Arch, the Sears Tower, they all garnered lots of cristicism as well.
With this third incarnation of plans, we're not seeing near the posts and the posts seem to be more negative, and at best rather a "oh, I hope" attitude than the "WOW" we saw in the second offerings. Something happened to take the grandness out of this project...it seems to have shrivled, and at best an "oh, we'll make it grand if people show interest" instead of making it grand from the start, and IMO that is a sad/bad sign because if you don't make it grand (right) from the beginning, no one will come.
Oh, and St. Louis Center? It is unfair to compare this fiasco to anything urban. It was a suburban mall built in the middle of and urban center. That is why it failed.
We're on the third rehash of this project and I'm beginning to wonder what caused the developers to go from a smallish project to a grand project to a maybe it'll be grand if enought people show interest. If it's built RIGHT, people will come. So, now the question is, what IS 'right'?
On the second incarnation of plans when Liebskind got involved, there was a great response to it. After those plans were made public, we were told that there were over 100 inquiries the first day (was that true, a promotional thing or a lie?) So much was being said both positive and negative. Xing even went to great lengths to do several fantastic computer images to show the mark this would make on the St. Louis skyline. There were lots of WOWs, and of course there was some negativism. That's what happens when a grand project is propossed. The Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, The Arch, the Sears Tower, they all garnered lots of cristicism as well.
With this third incarnation of plans, we're not seeing near the posts and the posts seem to be more negative, and at best rather a "oh, I hope" attitude than the "WOW" we saw in the second offerings. Something happened to take the grandness out of this project...it seems to have shrivled, and at best an "oh, we'll make it grand if people show interest" instead of making it grand from the start, and IMO that is a sad/bad sign because if you don't make it grand (right) from the beginning, no one will come.
Oh, and St. Louis Center? It is unfair to compare this fiasco to anything urban. It was a suburban mall built in the middle of and urban center. That is why it failed.
^
The project has, since the beginning, described itself as a small start with the intent to go larger as the market demands. There has NEVER been a point where the first phase included multiple or extremely large highrises. All phases have described a modest beginning. Even the Liebeskind plans noted that the tallest portions would depend on the market.
In this respect, not much has really changed.
The project has, since the beginning, described itself as a small start with the intent to go larger as the market demands. There has NEVER been a point where the first phase included multiple or extremely large highrises. All phases have described a modest beginning. Even the Liebeskind plans noted that the tallest portions would depend on the market.
In this respect, not much has really changed.
That last article posted said that the office tower will be designed by Liebskind. Hopefully we will get the third renderings as the residential and a glass shard office tower jutting out from the rest. This would diversify the architecture so it would not have the same feel as Renaissance Place in Detroit.
- 62
Perhaps the reality of what the urban developers plan is in conflict
with the Elitist viewpoint, or possibly some lost sight of the fact that
decisions about development are not actually MADE on this forum.
Personal preferences are merely that. I per sonally would like to see
more green space . It breathes life into a crowded urban environment, and HUMANIZES the city. God forbid we should follow the
dense skyscraper style of New York or Chicago....Paris or London
would suit me though...But St. Louis does have a strong European
architectural history as we all know.
with the Elitist viewpoint, or possibly some lost sight of the fact that
decisions about development are not actually MADE on this forum.
Personal preferences are merely that. I per sonally would like to see
more green space . It breathes life into a crowded urban environment, and HUMANIZES the city. God forbid we should follow the
dense skyscraper style of New York or Chicago....Paris or London
would suit me though...But St. Louis does have a strong European
architectural history as we all know.
^
Well, you must be happy with St. louis the way it is. There is plenty of greenspace downtown.
The only place I think I would support more open space would be along the riverfront.
Well, you must be happy with St. louis the way it is. There is plenty of greenspace downtown.
The only place I think I would support more open space would be along the riverfront.
- 1,493
St. Louis isn't crowded. Not even close.don koester wrote: I per sonally would like to see
more green space . It breathes life into a crowded urban environment
Do people really still call for more greenspace DT? There is so much if it down there already that is totally unused. We need only look to our recent past to realize more greenspace is not needed. We should be working on developing much of the unused greenspace that exists DT presently, as has been discussed many times in other threads.
Urban Elitist wrote:St. Louis isn't crowded. Not even close.don koester wrote: I per sonally would like to see
more green space . It breathes life into a crowded urban environment
Do people really still call for more greenspace DT? There is so much if it down there already that is totally unused. We need only look to our recent past to realize more greenspace is not needed. We should be working on developing much of the unused greenspace that exists DT presently, as has been discussed many times in other threads.
^^Agreed... combing two earlier posts in this string "if its done right? they will come" this goes with green space as with anything. THERE IS SO MUCH NOW THAT GOES UNUSED.... having it there isn't the answer by itself - having it where it is needed is the answer.
City density and the urban park question are also discussed in the thread about the gateway mall?
Should there be some green the BD, yes? - but a ?park? I think would be a little much unless there are feeder projects that continue to extend the high-rise and dense development north of the Dome?. Then another park might be justified ? but that?s all in the future?
Bastiat wrote:That last article posted said that the office tower will be designed by Liebskind. Hopefully we will get the third renderings as the residential and a glass shard office tower jutting out from the rest. This would diversify the architecture so it would not have the same feel as Renaissance Place in Detroit.
I would be surprised if Libeskind is still even working on this project - nothing that has been shown lately has his thumbprint on it. My guess is the developer used Libeskind merely for publicity. Let's see if anything printed in the future is actually from Libeskind. Once again, time will tell.
tbspqr wrote:Urban Elitist wrote:St. Louis isn't crowded. Not even close.don koester wrote: I per sonally would like to see
more green space . It breathes life into a crowded urban environment
Do people really still call for more greenspace DT? There is so much if it down there already that is totally unused. We need only look to our recent past to realize more greenspace is not needed. We should be working on developing much of the unused greenspace that exists DT presently, as has been discussed many times in other threads.
^^Agreed... combing two earlier posts in this string "if its done right? they will come" this goes with green space as with anything. THERE IS SO MUCH NOW THAT GOES UNUSED.... having it there isn't the answer by itself - having it where it is needed is the answer.
City density and the urban park question are also discussed in the thread about the gateway mall?
Should there be some green the BD, yes? - but a ?park? I think would be a little much unless there are feeder projects that continue to extend the high-rise and dense development north of the Dome?. Then another park might be justified ? but that?s all in the future?
I agree - if it is done correctly it will be successful (the planning process is critical). I'm not sure about the park/greenspace question for TBD. The park/greenspace should probably be reserved for the residential development to the west of TBD. There are some great opportunities for public urban spaces in TBD, but probably not greenspace.
Any more green space downtown and they're going to lease the land out to cattle farmers LOL.
- 62
I was referring more to the European model of certain cities I enjoy:
London, Paris, and particularly Berlin which has approximately one
fourth of its city lined with great parks (like Forest Park) and lakes
scattered throughout...If you ever watch Rick Steves on Channel 9
I was referring more to European cities which I enjoyed: London,
Paris,Copenhagen, Stockholm and especially Berlin which has the
most GREENSPACE of any major city in the world,around one fourth
of its citycore....Anyway, simply expressing a pro-greenspace on this
forum seems to inflame certain people....Travel around the world and
maybe them you will GET IT!
London, Paris, and particularly Berlin which has approximately one
fourth of its city lined with great parks (like Forest Park) and lakes
scattered throughout...If you ever watch Rick Steves on Channel 9
I was referring more to European cities which I enjoyed: London,
Paris,Copenhagen, Stockholm and especially Berlin which has the
most GREENSPACE of any major city in the world,around one fourth
of its citycore....Anyway, simply expressing a pro-greenspace on this
forum seems to inflame certain people....Travel around the world and
maybe them you will GET IT!