urbanSTL

If retail is a game of demographics, then the goals of St. Louis Centre and the goals of MX will both be stymied if the demographics aren't there. In that regard, they share that common ground--their location in a downtown with little residential and their plans to put national (upscale) retailers in downtown.



The distinction you make is that St. Louis Centre was an island whereas MX will be spread out across the streetscape. While this is certainly better, how does it stray from the problems that plagued St. Louis Centre?



There will still be parking issues. There will still be, as you acknowledge, the threat of failure as demographics as well as population and income density are simply not present. But what is especially akin to St. Louis Centre is the thought that this is a transformative downtown project when, in a similar demographic environment, these stores all fled before.



How is that "retarded"? I would also ask that you refrain from inflammatory language. This isn't Crossfire.

Matt Drops The H wrote:

Grover wrote:This all makes we wonder how Circle Center in Indianapolis has been so successful for the past decade . . . maybe it's something in the worter.

Indy has a much different metropolitan makeup. By all indications, downtown Indy is THE place to hang out. Indianapolis is merged with its county and is much more the geographic and population center of its "region"--of which it is a HUGE part in comparison to St. Louis.

Yes, but there's not more wealth in Indy, no more people living or working downtown and the metro area's not nearly as large. Plus, they don't have 81 MLB games a year to prop up some sports bars (the minor league stadium is much smaller). I'm just pointing this out to say that I don't believe there's any inherent reason retail will fail in downtown St. Louis. The eastside is growing in numbers and wealth and more people are moving downtown . . . I guess we'll just wait and see.

Let's be honest--Metro size has nothing to do with the health of MX. The 2.8 million people in St. Louis MSA live so far from downtown that probably 1.8 million of that rarely goes downtown.



I would register that most of Indy's MSA population has easy access to downtown. It's marketed and functions as a place to be. Just look at the comments about downtown from STL Today users. St. Louis is barely a blip on the radar to the vast majority of the Metro. Now, the city and the central corridor have access to it, but even in these areas, there are so many more convenient entertainment destinations, including Westport, Ameristar and Harrahs, St. Charles Main Street/Frenchtown, Clayton, Central West End, etc. All of these places offer better access by car, which is the ultimate maker or breaker in a town as autocentric as St. Louis.



Now, if downtown had something that suburbs didn't, we might see people willing to make that extra trip and sacrifice a bit.

^ I see what you're saying, but the most affluent part of the Indy metro area doesn't go downtown either. And the North and Northest parts of Indy do not have good access to downtown. IMO - downtown STL has excellent access by car from the entire metro area. You're right about the stigma of downtown here in STL however. I don't think it's ever been that negative in Indy. One more example: there's major retail downtown Cincinnati as well. That region's not particularly centered well and downtown is less accessible (IMO) than ours . . . I guess there's a reason we don't have a Circle Center or Fountain Square - I just don't know what it is.

Matt Drops The H wrote:The distinction you make is that St. Louis Centre was an island whereas MX will be spread out across the streetscape. While this is certainly better, how does it stray from the problems that plagued St. Louis Centre?



There will still be parking issues. There will still be, as you acknowledge, the threat of failure as demographics as well as population and income density are simply not present. But what is especially akin to St. Louis Centre is the thought that this is a transformative downtown project when, in a similar demographic environment, these stores all fled before.

The design that so haunted the SLC is not a factor for MX. In fact, MX will make the streetscape more lively and inviting with added pedestrians.



Does parking prevent people from visiting downtown restaurants, bars/clubs, sporting events, etc? Perhaps to some extent, but plenty come regardless. Parking is available and there is always metro access.



Its location is also great. Since it's less dense than SLC, it covers a larger surface area which makes it fall within better reach of various downtown nodes such as the new casino, arch, Busch & EJ Dome, convention center, CBD, loft district, etc. I believe Lumiere's underground people mover can be used to better link the arch/casino/landing with downtown proper and MX by extension.



Besides, MX will unfold in a phased approach over a 5 year period starting with the Laurel. Within 5 years time, residential will be that much stronger and downtown will be much more of a destination than it is now.

Matt Drops The H wrote:From an article entitled "Walking Tall: Plans Outlined for Malls Downtown" in the St. Louis PD on September 9, 1990:

Ruesing says downtown has plenty of people who could use the malls and pathways on a daily basis. Among them: About 110,000 office workers. Roughly 5,000 permanent residents. [/b]

Where did these roughly 5,000 permanent residents live...in the vacant buildings that are now fashionable lofts? I can't believe there were that many residents downtown because I don't believe there was that much housing available for that many people in 1990. I would believe there were 3,000 people living downtown in 1990, which is about how many were living here in 2000 prior to the surge in new downtown residents due to loft developments.

Besides, MX will unfold in a phased approach over a 5 year period starting with the Laurel. Within 5 years time, residential will be that much stronger and downtown will be much more of a destination than it is now.

VERY good point.

Matt Drops The H wrote:

Grover wrote:This all makes we wonder how Circle Center in Indianapolis has been so successful for the past decade . . . maybe it's something in the worter.

Indy has a much different metropolitan makeup. By all indications, downtown Indy is THE place to hang out. Indianapolis is merged with its county and is much more the geographic and population center of its "region"--of which it is a HUGE part in comparison to St. Louis.

Indianapolis doesn't have as many neighborhoods serving as destinations that compete with downtown either. Broad Ripple is probably the largest, best known, and most significant neighborhood outside of downtown, but it cannot hold a candle to the CWE, The Loop, or Soulard IMHO.



One reason it's been hard to get a critical mass of retail and dining options downtown, aside from the relatively nascent state of residential growth and the negative stigma downtown has had for decades here, is that we have strong neighborhoods that are powerful draws in their own right. In Indianapolis, nearly everything is centered downtown. Even most of the cultural attractions are in or near (within one or two miles) of downtown.



As for Circle Centre, another reason for its success is its design. While it's similar to St. Louis Centre in many ways, one thing Simon learned between development of the two centers is the value of keeping the streetscape intact and making the stores part of it. Simon wisely preserved the front elevations of buildings cleared to make way for CC, and storefronts were utilized to create more pedestrian activity along the street instead of the limited access St. Louis Centre had (What was it? Four main entrances?). By contrast, most if not all of St. Louis Centre focused inward and sucked life from the streets.



I'm inclined to agree with Innov8ion's take on this. I'm sure Pyramid has looked at this area and how it's changed over the last 25 years. Aside from a decrease in downtown jobs that's paralleled a significant increase in residents, I'm sure they're able to look back at what was between Famous-Barr and Stix Baer & Fuller before St. Louis Centre, what it was like when FB and then Dillard's were joined by St. Louis Centre, and the rise and fall of the mall (and Dillard's) condition.



My primary concern is parking- they've got to make it convenient and inexpensive to convince suburbanites to give it a shot instead of the Galleria or West County Center. Other than that, I think the time is right for a development that brings retail to the area in phases for all the reasons Innov8ion has mentioned in previous posts. I think there's strength in numbers, i.e., retailers will be more interested if a critical mass of other businesses is established, and consequently more shoppers will be interested in coming to downtown with a wider variety of stores. There are some similarities to St. Louis Centre, but with all due respect, I think some of us might be overthinking this a bit. But I suppose it wouldn't be a St. Louis forum without a little skepticism.

Well, 314, I'm from Missouri, and you've got to show me.



Anyway, the fact that it will be phased is good. And I hope they can bring a mix of unique, major tenants (such as an Apple Store) and unique, local (like Velocity Cafe) together.



Thanks for reminding me of that, innov8ion.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Well, 314, I'm from Missouri, and you've got to show me.

That's funny. I thought about referring to our state slogan when I wrote my previous post. We've got plenty of cheerleaders here, so there's nothing wrong with a little healthy and well-articulated skepticism, MDTH.



(Too bad we didn't have more healthy and well-articulated skepticism in the early 1980s, when Union Station and St. Louis Centre were supposed to save our downtown.)

Thanks. And for the record, I am not anti-MX. I am just asking the necessary questions and raising the proper concerns, IMO.

Where did these roughly 5,000 permanent residents live...in the vacant buildings that are now fashionable lofts?

Hobo Park - duh! (plus those unfortunate to live in Plaza Square or Mansion House at that time)



I don't know too much about MX, but I really hope the majority of the retail space is at ground level and accessible - i.e. lots and lots and lots of doors for people to go in and out of. Singular entry points are not the solution to bridging the retial gap between the kiener garages and washington. Macys is proof of that.

ThreeOneFour wrote:(Too bad we didn't have more healthy and well-articulated skepticism in the early 1980s, when Union Station and St. Louis Centre were supposed to save our downtown.)

Yeah, why do I get the feeling that if we could take all the cheerleaders back in time to 1982 (before many of them were born) they would be going ga-ga over the plans for St. Louis Centre?

The makeup of Indianapolis is vastly different from St. Louis. Indy has got neighborhoods that surround the downtown area that don't have CBDs like STL. Plus, the incorporation of the surrounding country makes downtown more regional. And it also helps that it doesn't have 40,000 municipalities fighting for retail sales tax money.



St. Louis Centre would be in a much better place now if the Galleria wasn't in place.



Indianapolis never had to mess with that kind of threat. That region seems to work together, where our municipalities just fight each other.

My primary concern is parking- they've got to make it convenient and inexpensive to convince suburbanites to give it a shot instead of the Galleria or West County Center.

Parking downtown is not difficult except during events. The inconvenience is only slight compared to parking in the big galleria parking lot. Walking distances are only slightly longer. Alot of suburbanites just have the

correct perception that there is little useful retail downtown. So good marketing will probably also be a big part of this project's sucess.



Maybe the city could add official standing zones around downtown streets for cars to parking legally for 10-20 minutes without paying?

Free parking on saturdays is already very handy. If there was a good selection of open stores along the streets, I would definately hit downtown over the mall.

I currently Live downtown and do all my shopping (food, cloths, *stuff*) at the Galleria and Wholefoods.



It is easy to get their via the 40 and has everything I need (So i think) It will be very hard for MX to compete against Galleria. However, I think they could attract all the Illionios Residents as I know a lot of them travel to the Galleria.



Downtown needs

-A full service grocery store

-A movie theater (Currently we travel all the way to Creve cour to Olive 16 to see a movie. Galleria, Chase Park, and other near by are all so small and outdated)

-And of course something "IT" that will attractive people to come downtown. I truely think that "IT" is integrating the Arch and Downtown. When you see the Arch, it is actually a CHORE to try and cross that busy highway. So sad And of course that integration would lead straight to MX

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:As far as clothes go, I don't shop much. I buy in bulk every couple of years.

I hadn't thought about it, but I would have imagined that. Where do you get bulk discounted muu-muus anyway?







Hey, you left yourself wide open for that one...

Jeff707 wrote:They are opening a Schnuck's downtown.



I didn't realize people actually preferred giant megaplexes for movies. 97% of all movies I see are at The Chase or Frotenac. Another 2% at The Tivoli.

If I am paying 9 bucks for a movie, I want to have the "experiance" of being at the movies. Plus paying 9 dollars to sit in NON-Theater seats to have some 5'4 girl block view.... unacceptable.



So we gladly drive the 20 plus minute drive to see a movie.

Wow. I love the Chase, the Moolah, Tivoli, and Frontenac. I go almost no where else. The suburban megaplex is like vacationing to Mars for me--I feel like I've entered a different country with a different culture.