The brick harvesters are hard at work. 2 of the 3 buildings are down and they're starting on the last one.user28 wrote:I really wish theyd keep those three houses. Theyv got character that id hate to lose
- 8,155
^ Those three small parcels on their own just don't seem to offer a lot of redevelopment opportunity... very curious what they are thinking and possibly if they intend to combine it with the adjacent Federal Mogul property. Having something like Metro Lofts with a variation of the Bread Co on the first floor and apartments up top would be something I'd like to see looked at. Trader Joe's on bottom and either apts. or hotel up top would work for me.
In today's St. Louis Business Journal:
Pace raises $1.3 million for project next to Ikea
Link to article: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1445028465
If this gets built as shown, I might have to give up all hope of St. Louis ever getting a clue. The rendering is absolutely atrocious and straight outta St. Peters. It's time for St. Louis to grow some balls and demand minimum urban design standards for new developments such as this. Any self-respecting city would flat out reject this design. How desperate are we???
Pace raises $1.3 million for project next to Ikea
Link to article: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1445028465
If this gets built as shown, I might have to give up all hope of St. Louis ever getting a clue. The rendering is absolutely atrocious and straight outta St. Peters. It's time for St. Louis to grow some balls and demand minimum urban design standards for new developments such as this. Any self-respecting city would flat out reject this design. How desperate are we???
I don't know how many times I can say NO to this proposal. What a piece of sh*t. Go away Pace.stlgasm wrote:In today's St. Louis Business Journal:
Pace raises $1.3 million for project next to Ikea
Link to article: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1445028465
If this gets built as shown, I might have to give up all hope of St. Louis ever getting a clue. The rendering is absolutely atrocious and straight outta St. Peters. It's time for St. Louis to grow some balls and demand minimum urban design standards for new developments such as this. Any self-respecting city would flat out reject this design. How desperate are we???
- 1,299
Or cause for celebration?
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt
I say let's celebrate!
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt
I say let's celebrate!
Go for it! But there's no reason for an urbanist to celebrate that site plan.
- 3,762
yeah, why wouldn't we celebrate more of the type of development that's turned St. Louis into a pedestrian-less wasteland? 
i sure hope it includes a QT!
i sure hope it includes a QT!
Already extensively covered in another thread.
http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=285
http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=285
- 1,299
(Sorry about starting the other thread on the Pace project. I didn't even know about the plan until seeing the story this week. Remove the redundant thread or combine it here if that's the right thing to do. )
But my suspicion is true: apparently urbanists hate the plan. Not me.
The same tired narrative comes from "urbanists" (and I'm beginning to wonder what that term - "urbanists" - really means...): "When will the city get a clue"; "I might as well live in St. Charles"; "The city needs to demand better". Blah, blah, blah.
Well, you know what? The city does have a clue; this is nothing like St. Charles; and this is a faaaar sight better than the eyesore that has occupied the site for the past 20 years.
The new development will serve residents in the CWE and FPSE neighborhoods and beyond. Those neighborhoods are as urban as any in the city and will remain so. You'll never see a CWE or FPSE in St. Charles, so enough of the hyperbole that STL might as well be St. Charles.
Providing desired services within the city is a win. People have been clamoring for a City Target for a long time. Now it might happen.
I predict this development will support continued population growth in the CWE and FPSE neighborhoods. And that population growth means more historic buildings saved and more new construction.
But my suspicion is true: apparently urbanists hate the plan. Not me.
The same tired narrative comes from "urbanists" (and I'm beginning to wonder what that term - "urbanists" - really means...): "When will the city get a clue"; "I might as well live in St. Charles"; "The city needs to demand better". Blah, blah, blah.
Well, you know what? The city does have a clue; this is nothing like St. Charles; and this is a faaaar sight better than the eyesore that has occupied the site for the past 20 years.
The new development will serve residents in the CWE and FPSE neighborhoods and beyond. Those neighborhoods are as urban as any in the city and will remain so. You'll never see a CWE or FPSE in St. Charles, so enough of the hyperbole that STL might as well be St. Charles.
Providing desired services within the city is a win. People have been clamoring for a City Target for a long time. Now it might happen.
I predict this development will support continued population growth in the CWE and FPSE neighborhoods. And that population growth means more historic buildings saved and more new construction.
I agree Northside Neighbor. People can and will battle over any design and it can stagnate progress (see Buffalo NY where they've been arguing over a bridge design since 1990). There seems to be a fight over who's more "urban" than others by condemning any proposal - the same is true with music lovers, car gurus etc. While it may not be a perfect plan there could certainly be worse options, such as doing NOTHING. If you believe you could do a better job I'd recommend getting on an advisory committee or employed with PACE as an architect/designer.
Looks like one of the buildings on the site would front the street.
It look like it would have its back fronting the street - with no entrance facing Vandeventer.
- 8,155
NN,
Yes, being able to provide more services is good for the City but this isn't an area where you might have to give in on insisting on strong design. This may have been something I reluctantly would have supported before the area had begun to realize its potential like it has the past few years. But this isn't 2010 when we're still in recession and you'd be laughed at if someone told you that within 5 years there'd be over a thousand new apartments built in the area, Cortex is a real thing bringing hundreds of jobs, and IKEA would be open and running across the street. This is a key site in a high-demand area and it's important to make sure that any development provides significant long-term value for the City... I think that is highly questionable here.
Here is the most recent image, btw, it's a more detailed site plan than the one last posted:
![]()
We'll have to see what tenants Pace may have in mind, but it appears the two smaller ones are restaurants with drive-thru, which leaves only the 12,000 sq. ft. building as something that may add real value to neighborhood. (I believe that size is too small for Target's smaller stores, which are no longer called City or Express, but may be suitable for something like a Trader Joe's.)
I'll also add that aesthetically I'm not sure how much value this would add over the non-descript warehouse building there now.
Yes, being able to provide more services is good for the City but this isn't an area where you might have to give in on insisting on strong design. This may have been something I reluctantly would have supported before the area had begun to realize its potential like it has the past few years. But this isn't 2010 when we're still in recession and you'd be laughed at if someone told you that within 5 years there'd be over a thousand new apartments built in the area, Cortex is a real thing bringing hundreds of jobs, and IKEA would be open and running across the street. This is a key site in a high-demand area and it's important to make sure that any development provides significant long-term value for the City... I think that is highly questionable here.
Here is the most recent image, btw, it's a more detailed site plan than the one last posted:
We'll have to see what tenants Pace may have in mind, but it appears the two smaller ones are restaurants with drive-thru, which leaves only the 12,000 sq. ft. building as something that may add real value to neighborhood. (I believe that size is too small for Target's smaller stores, which are no longer called City or Express, but may be suitable for something like a Trader Joe's.)
I'll also add that aesthetically I'm not sure how much value this would add over the non-descript warehouse building there now.
It look like it would have its back fronting the street - with no entrance facing Vandeventer.
- 1,299
I'm sorry but these sorts of comments just feel like tilting at so many windmills.I'll also add that aesthetically I'm not sure how much value this would add over the non-descript warehouse building there now.
The fact of the matter is had the growth now happening in the Central Corridor not happened, then this project would never be done.
I guess one possible definition of an urbanist might be "one who continually moves back the goal posts of urban design and loves to set unattainable demands on would be developers today."
Look at it another way...
With the IKEA across the street, and the thousands of visitors it draws every day, what do you think the chances are that some of those shoppers will venture across the street and patronize the businesses in Pace's center? I'd say pretty high, and I'm betting more than half of those shoppers are new city shoppers.
I'll take it.
Auto-oriented development patterns are unaffordable- they're bankrupting us. This isn't a matter of preference. The land has to be more productive in order to afford the services and infrastructure needed to serve it.
- 8,155
^^ Your comment completely flew over my head there.... you said the warehouse was an eyesore and that the development would be a "faaaar better sight." I disagree that the warehouse, which I think is mostly unremarkable and unnoticed, would be much worse than a ho-hum development from an aesthetic standpoint. That's a matter of personal preference, of course. The rest of your comment seems to be irrelevant to that... I just don't understand.
- 1,320
This is what the back of a 7 Eleven looks like. Nothing says "Welcome to St. Louis" like the back of a 7-Eleven.
- 1,299
Irrelevant? Which part:The rest of your comment seems to be irrelevant to that... I just don't understand.
I'm sorry but these sorts of comments just feel like tilting at so many windmills.
The fact of the matter is had the growth now happening in the Central Corridor not happened, then this project would never be done.
I guess one possible definition of an urbanist might be "one who continually moves back the goal posts of urban design and loves to set unattainable demands on would be developers today."
Look at it another way...
With the IKEA across the street, and the thousands of visitors it draws every day, what do you think the chances are that some of those shoppers will venture across the street and patronize the businesses in Pace's center? I'd say pretty high, and I'm betting more than half of those shoppers are new city shoppers.
I'll take it.
- 1,792
I don't think anyone has moved the goal post back. Several people were against IKEA because of it vast parking lot. Many hated the initial proposal for midtown station because of the same reason. That proposal included something along the lines of a target. This proposal is nothing to get excited about. Two more fast food joints are hardly anything to tout as transformational.I guess one possible definition of an urbanist might be "one who continually moves back the goal posts of urban design and loves to set unattainable demands on would be developers today."
To your second point on whether they support attainable development. You may have a point in some instances. People against the NGA headquarters for instance, or those who demanded more from the IKEA layout. But the thousands of visitors everyday that you sited are exactly why Midtown Station can be SO MUCH MORE than what is being proposed.
I don't know if the city can easily block this plan, but I think they should if they can. They need to demand better. (In this case ESPECIALLY)
- 8,155
^^ NN, all of it is irrelevant, imo. Maybe I'm just dense --- I usually am! -- but I don't see what any of your response has to do with whether the proposed site plan is a significant aesthetic improvement over existing conditions.
I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
- 1,299
No, I think I must be the dense one since I believe a new shopping center across from another new shopping center in the vicinity of thousands of new housing units is better than a dark, empty warehouse.I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
- 3,235
I agree with this.quincunx wrote:Auto-oriented development patterns are unaffordable- they're bankrupting us. This isn't a matter of preference. The land has to be more productive in order to afford the services and infrastructure needed to serve it.
- 8,155
Perhaps it will be better... that determination will involve a number of factors. But that doesn't mean the proposed project would be a huge visual improvement. That's all I was saying with respects to aesthetics.Northside Neighbor wrote:No, I think I must be the dense one since I believe a new shopping center across from another new shopping center in the vicinity of thousands of new housing units is better than a dark, empty warehouse.I never would have brought up the issue of visual appearance had you not made such a bold assertion that the proposal would be a huge improvement... I think from an aesthetic viewpoint, it appears it would go from blah to blah.
I'm kinda surprised that Pace so far has only been able to muster $1.3 million in capital as per the biz journal. This seems low even for a site that should be or at least what I considered a premium location next to a major draw. Any with similar thoughts? Heck, I'm pretty sure you could not even build and fit out a McDonalds at $1.3 million.
The other thought that I can't get rid of, why haven't they actively pursued a hotel on this site or at least throw out some site renderings? maybe they have or maybe not. It seem like you can keep or expand the building footprint for the building along Vande, go vertical with the rooms/conference space and put structured parking behind it. You literally got a site that is in the middle of a large Hospital/Campus & growing job center in CORTEX, Ikea across the street and a university on the other side with Freeway visibility & access.
The other thought that I can't get rid of, why haven't they actively pursued a hotel on this site or at least throw out some site renderings? maybe they have or maybe not. It seem like you can keep or expand the building footprint for the building along Vande, go vertical with the rooms/conference space and put structured parking behind it. You literally got a site that is in the middle of a large Hospital/Campus & growing job center in CORTEX, Ikea across the street and a university on the other side with Freeway visibility & access.