urbanSTL

swebb wrote:With all the development going on now and planned later in the Grove and FPSE, parking on the streets north of Manchester is going to be tight.... You better watch what you wish for.

Gateway City wrote:The Grove really needs a garage. It could even be below-ground.

If there's one reason people have been redeveloping homes and starting businesses in The Grove it's the convenient parking. It's the lifeblood of the entire neighborhood and what got it to where it is today. All the uninterrupted street walls, fun bars, exciting music venues, fresh delicious beer, new apartment developments, solid beautiful homes, and great proximity to Forest Park, Tower Grove Park, MoBot, and the CWE can't make up for convenient parking. Without it the area is doomed to fail.

Perhaps they could impose a simple development restriction, something like 2 spots for each apartment, or 3 spots for every 1,000 sq.ft of retail. This would encourage garage construction or repurposing empty lots into graded and paved parking lots. Both of which, we can all agree, The Grove needs more of.

I don't think there need to be any parking lots at all. However, since there is already a massive lot right next to Handlebar, they should make it into a garage to alleviate the stress of other upcoming developments having to somehow find parking in an area that's going to have a major parking problem in the near future. The Grove won't be getting its very own MetroLink station or streetcar any time soon. The lot next to Atomic Cowboy could be a decent candidate as well, but it would be a very tight fit. I give it 5 years at most before a garage is absolutely necessary for people to find parking in the Grove. Underground is of course ideal, but expensive. So if they do build one above ground, it better be cool looking. Knowing the nature of this neighborhood, I think they would probably be able to make it somewhat interesting, like the Centene garage. Maybe put a marquee screen around it or one of those big screens like at the Contemporary Art Museum. And like I said before, ground level retail.

Beware 29 buildings were razed to build the parking lots behind Cicero's and Fitz's. Now business owners won't let the U City owned lots be developed. Make sure it plays out differently in the Grove

They may have, but I didn't catch it. What I do know is that one of their employees told me earlier last week that it was looking to be around the end of February.

As a FPSE resident, I think the "parking problem" in the Grove is way overblown. You can find a parking spot within a couple of blocks of Manchester, which I think is reasonable. Residents, business owners, and patrons all complain about parking, but I am skeptical that it has actually hurt the Grove any so far, or will do so in the foreseeable future.

There is a plan to build two large surface lots south of Manchester off of Newstead (here's the proposal). One would be on what is currently a vacant lot and would have 49 parking spaces to be used by Restoration St. Louis employees during the day and Grove visitors at night. The other would be behind Restoration St. Louis' proposed 5-story building, would have 89 spaces, and would be for residents of that building. It would involve demolition of several buildings, a mix of single family and multifamily units, including one single family that is currently occupied. The plan will be discussed at the Park Central FPSE Development Committee meeting Tuesday at 5:30. A previous iteration of the plan was rejected by the committee, but Restoration St. Louis is now proposing redevelopment of some smaller vacant buildings nearby that they also own.

My opinion is that if a free surface lot is ever built, it is extremely hard to get it developed in the future. It's very hard to take away free parking once people have gotten used to it. The Loop, arguably St. Louis' most developed and successful commercial district, has seen strong pushback from a mix of business owners and residents to plans to take away some of its free parking (developing the lot behind Cicero's) and on-street parking (miniscule reductions for the streetcar). I view development in the Grove as a few decades behind the Loop, so I think developing a surface lot people have gotten used is even less likely in the Grove. A free surface lot also undercuts any potential garage proposal, because people tend to take free, mildly inconvenient parking over paid convenient parking. I think we see this dynamic in just about every commercial district in the city. A lot of business owners in the Grove try to present surface lots as a temporary solution until a garage can be built, but I don't think that would work out in reality. I think it will be hard to convince someone to build a garage when they are being undercut by free street parking and surface lot parking.

I see a lot of people saying "they" should be a garage, and while I agree that a garage would be a good solution, it's unclear to me who would build it. In St. Louis the Treasurer's Office has often being involved in municipal garages, but I don't think the current treasurer is interested in continuing down that route (for good reason). With all the free parking on the residential streets, I don't think a garage would be profitable for a long time, so I don't think there would be much interest from a private operator. The Grove CID might make sense, but I don't think the CID generates enough money to finance it. Does anyone have any other suggestions, or ideas about how to get a garage built? Besides the Treasurer's Office, who has funded other garages in the city?

Also, if anyone has some examples of places in St. Louis that have developed previously free surface lots that provided substantial parking for a commercial district, I think it would be an interesting and informative list. I can't think of very many, but I am sure there are some.

you make a solid point rbeedee. I have an earnest question though. Do you think paid surface parking lots have the same effect at inhibiting future development of a site as free surface lots? If not, do you think it would be legally or logistically possible for the city to require Restoration St. Louis to charge for parking in the evening hours?

roger wyoming II wrote:^ good to know. yeah, enforcement is key. I wonder how many places in town have resident-only street parking. Where else?

Pretty sure downtown/DT West has resident only and permit only.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm interested in your opinion on how well a Metrolink stop @ Boyle/Cortex can serve Grove establishments. I suppose its on the outer boundary of walkability for most, it probably would be a ten minute walk to Boyle & Manchester. Good streetscaping in between could also help attractiveness as an option.

I think it will be ok, not great. The distance isn't that far, and I think it could be an appealing walk if money was invested in landscaping, lighting, maybe some interesting public art. The biggest obstacle is the Boyle-I64 infrastructure, which I think is going to be unpleasant to cross on foot. I asked Alderman Roddy about that, and at the time he said MoDOT was too far along in their planning to change their design, so they were going to try to make it as pedestrian-friendly as possible within the confines of what was already designed. That doesn't bode well to me, but I guess we'll see soon enough.

DannyJ wrote:you make a solid point rbeedee. I have an earnest question though. Do you think paid surface parking lots have the same effect at inhibiting future development of a site as free surface lots? If not, do you think it would be legally or logistically possible for the city to require Restoration St. Louis to charge for parking in the evening hours?

That's an interesting question, I'm not sure about it. I think paid lots are probably slightly easier to redevelop than a free lot, especially if some part of it is being developed into a parking garage, at least then you are replacing paid parking with more/different kind of paid parking. Even if it does meet resistance, at least you are getting some money out of it. I don't know if it's possible to force Restoration St. Louis to charge for parking on the lot, but I think it's an idea worth pursuing.

On the permit parking topic, I'm not a huge fan of it unless it's for a block that doesn't have alley access and therefore cannot provide on-site parking via a garage or parking pad. My basic perspective is, the streets are publicly paid for, so they should be available to the public to use. People parking on residential streets is just the price you have to pay if you want to leave near a popular destination. If you want a guaranteed parking spot near your house, you can pay for it in the form of a garage/carport/parking pad. Public tax money shouldn't be used to reserve a spot for you in front of your house, unless you have a disability. In areas with permit parking, are the permits free? If not, how much do they cost?

I currently live at Newstead and Manchester with only on-street parking, and never have to park more than half a block away. Many of my neighbors don't own cars, walking to school/work at the BJC medical center or elsewhere in the neighborhood. We are also served by buses on Manchester, Kingshighway and Tower Grove Avenue, not to mention the CWE metrolink station (accessible from the neighborhood on foot, bicycle, or several of the aforementioned bus routes). Once Urban Chestnut and the new 5 story apartment building open parking will be much more scarce, but there are better options than demolishing the 4400 block of Swan. The Family Care Heath Center could open their parking to nightime bar patrons, and vacant land between surviving buildings on Swan and further south (there's plenty) could be used for surface parking until a garage can be constructed. The Gills need to think more creatively about parking for this project.

If possible, try to go to the Development Committee meeting today at 5:30 to give your opinion. It's at Park Central's Office, in the building across the street from Manchester Market.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ if anyone can report back that would be great along with any other news on development... e.g. what is going on at 4267 Manchester (the NE corner of Man & TG).

The Restoration St. Louis proposal was removed from the agenda prior to the meeting beginning, I don't have any information on why.

For the building on the corner of Manchester and Tower Grove, Restoration St. Louis recently bought it and boarded it up. In Geo St. Louis they are listed as the current owners, but a different group owned the property in 2012. The most recent sales data is not up so I don't know when in between 2012 and 2014 Restoration St. Louis bought it, but I would guess relatively recently. From what I have heard the building needs substantial rehab work. No plans for it have been made public that I know of, Restoration St. Louis tends to be pretty tight-lipped about plans for their many properties in the neighborhood.

^ thanks. so much mystery I guess.

They tweeted this morning that it's open today at noon

Noticed a recently installed Urban Chestnut sign @ the Newstead side of their building where the parking lot is. Other than this sign, the development of their building has stopped. Are they still planning to paint the giant mural on the side of facing Manchester? Are they still planning to expand their parking lot @ Newstead? Since the Gill's pulled out of their apartment project across the street, I would think this would be a better parking location for UCBC patrons.

^Maybe, but it also might be best to limit the number of refreshed individuals crossing Manchester.