Senior Housing and S. Grand McDonalds

suburban lou · PostFeb 01, 2006#12006-02-01T14:49+00:00

New McDonalds, senior housing coming to Grand Boulevard

Jim Merkel

Of the Suburban Journals

South Side Journal

02/01/2006

A McDonalds restaurant at the northwest corner of Grand Boulevard and Chippewa Street will move across Grand and be replaced by senior citizen housing.

A hearing on a conditional use permit for a McDonalds to operate a drive-through at the southeast corner of Grand and Winnebago Street will held in the near future. As of Monday, it hadn't been scheduled. The corner is the site of the old Sears store.

That restaurant will replace the McDonalds at the northwest corner of Grand and Chippewa, said Alderman Jennifer Florida, D-15th Ward.

In place of the old McDonalds, Pyramid Properties plans to put up 87 units of senior citizen housing. Commercial would be at the first floor of that senior citizen housing building.

The Missouri Housing and Development Corp. has granted state tax credits for the senior citizen housing project, Florida said.

"I wanted something big at the corner of Grand and Chippewa before we considered moving McDonalds in a land swap," Florida said.

Florida said she has sent a letter in favor of the new McDonalds. The one provision she added is that the property owners must maintain their trash pickup.

Pyramid would do the McDonalds project.

Read More

debaliviere · PostFeb 01, 2006#22006-02-01T15:10+00:00

I'm looking forward to seeing renderings. It will be nice to have something a little more substantial at that prominent intersection, and that Mickey D's is an absolute dump, so it could be a win-win situation.

threeonefour · PostFeb 02, 2006#32006-02-02T06:22+00:00

I read the article in today's South Side Journal, but no renderings were pictured. I'm anxious to see this building, and I hope it adds to an area that's sorely lacking in life. If only the former Sears store and Saint Anthony's Hospital were still standing and rehabbed for housing...I can dream, can't I?

At any rate, it'll be nice to have a better and higher use on the NW corner of GrandChip, as that McDonald's is easily one of the area's worst.

framer · PostFeb 03, 2006#42006-02-03T04:37+00:00

This is great news! Can't wait for the renderings.

doug · PostFeb 06, 2006#52006-02-06T18:21+00:00

Sweet, we need more housing and less cholesterol/trans fats.

buckethead · PostFeb 06, 2006#62006-02-06T20:03+00:00

stlpcsolutions wrote:Sweet, we need more housing and less cholesterol/trans fats.

Mconalds isn't going away, just moving across the street.

trent · PostFeb 06, 2006#72006-02-06T20:24+00:00

I <3 McDonalds.

threeonefour · PostFeb 08, 2006#82006-02-08T06:44+00:00

buckethead wrote:
stlpcsolutions wrote:Sweet, we need more housing and less cholesterol/trans fats.

Mconalds isn't going away, just moving across the street.

I agree with Steve from Urban Review STL, as I would've prefered a plan that placed a new McDonald's on the SE GrandChip corner (on the parking lot of the old National supermarket- directly across from Nettie's). I think the old National is used as a call center, but the parking lot is rarely full, if ever.

Perhaps a mixed-use structure could've been built at the Grand/Winnebago intersection then, not unlike the senior housing proposed for the current McDonald's site. IMHO, this section of Grand Boulevard could be much more urban given its surroundings and history. The current plan is still an improvement, don't get me wrong, but I cannot help but wish for a plan that took the bigger picture into account.

framer · PostFeb 08, 2006#92006-02-08T07:42+00:00

^I don't see how placing a fast food restaraunt on a major corner (Grand/Chippewa) could be considered "urban".

threeonefour · PostFeb 08, 2006#102006-02-08T14:38+00:00

Framer wrote:^I don't see how placing a fast food restaraunt on a major corner (Grand/Chippewa) could be considered "urban".

Uh, me either. Let me clarify. I think McDonald's should've been built on the SE corner of Grand and Chippewa by National, leaving the Grand/Winnebago intersection (and the stretch of Grand between Chippewa and Gravois) for a more urban use. Preferably, a mixed-use structure built to a scale similar to the Sears store that stood there before. It could at least be the beginning of an effort to make Grand more urban between Chippewa and Gravois.

If I had it my way, I couldn't care less if McDonald's stayed in that area or not. It isn't like there aren't other McDonald's nearby, including the one at Interstate 55 and Broadway, and the one by the DMV on South Kingshighway. Still, since the former National will probably never yield to a more urban development, and since their parking lot is woefully underutilized, I think it would've been preferable to see McDonalds go there if it must go somewhere in that immediate area.

That said, my dream of a more urbanized Grand is just that, a dream. There are several other parcels along the way that keep the thoroughfare from realizing its potential. I'd like to see a big picture approach to redeveloping that stretch, but once that McDonald's is built at Winnebago, it's probably there to stay for another 30 years or so.

Of course, my preference would be to level the National and put another mixed-use building there, and McDonald's could go on the ground floor and occupy the corner. As I said before, though, I don't foresee National going anywhere, anytime soon. And I'm sure McDonald's wouldn't want anything that sacrifices their precious drive-through, just like Walgreens.

Sorry for any confusion about where I stand on this matter!

debaliviere · PostFeb 08, 2006#112006-02-08T15:17+00:00

If there's one positive about not having the McDonald's on the old National lot, it's that the site will be much easier to redevelop when the time comes. While there may be no plans to replace the National with something more urban right now, at the rate that things are improving along grand (S. Side National Bank, the new senior development, etc.) it may be only a matter of time before some developer turns his/her eye towards that underused former grocery store.

threeonefour · PostFeb 08, 2006#122006-02-08T16:25+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:If there's one positive about not having the McDonald's on the old National lot, it's that the site will be much easier to redevelop when the time comes. While there may be no plans to replace the National with something more urban right now, at the rate that things are improving along grand (S. Side National Bank, the new senior development, etc.) it may be only a matter of time before some developer turns his/her eye towards that underused former grocery store.

Excellent point, DeBaliviere. I sure wish this structure was still there!

For those unfamiliar with the site- it's the old Saint Anthony's Hospital, the postcard is dated 1916. This hospital was demolished in 1975(?), when the current facility at Tesson Ferry and Kennerly roads in South County opened. The old hospital was quickly replaced by a National supermarket, which closed in the mid-1990s when the chain was purchased by competitor Schnucks. It's now a call center (I think US Bank operates it???).

Granted, the odds of mothballing the place for 30 years, or finding a suitable use for it after all this time, would've been slim. I don't think the area's quite ready for a Georgian-like condo development, but with the SSNB redo just a few blocks north, who knows what could've been?

trent · PostFeb 08, 2006#132006-02-08T19:42+00:00

St. Anthony's was were my dad was born.

loulou · PostFeb 08, 2006#142006-02-08T21:10+00:00

Thanks, 314. I've never seen that picture. Depressing to think about all the buildings that have been lost.

threeonefour · PostFeb 09, 2006#152006-02-09T00:55+00:00

LouLou wrote:Thanks, 314. I've never seen that picture. Depressing to think about all the buildings that have been lost.

You're welcome. I found the picture through a post on Steve Patterson's blog, Urban Review St. Louis. Strangely, even though I've browsed through thousands of pictures of the city, and I have a small Saint Louis history section in my home "library", I've never seen a picture or rendering of the building before.

I could only imagine what things could be like if this building, and the old Sears, were still around. Sears actually kept that store open until the early 1990s, when the company's fortunes were worse and many other stores were closed. I couldn't find pictures of the South Grand Sears, but its twin can be found on North Kingshighway south of Dr. MLK Drive (it's now home to the Roberts Bros. offices and their UPN station).

It'd be nice to hold out for the "best and highest use" of the Grand/Winnebago intersection where McDonalds intends to build. Still, I think DeBaliviere made a good point about the future of the former National/Saint Anthony's Hospital site. Eventually, I think demand for new construction and rehab will make its way south along Grand from its intersection at Gravois, and the SE corner of Grand and Chippewa could be a large clean slate if the old National is demolished.

framer · PostFeb 09, 2006#162006-02-09T04:47+00:00

Thanks for posting that St. Anthony's shot, 314 (and for clarifying your thoughts on the corner). What a great old building that was!

I remember my dad taking us to watch them tear down a big old brick building along Gravois in the 60s or 70s. Its where the old K-Mart Plaza was built, at Gustine. At the time, I thought it was great fun watching the headache ball smash apart the huge structure. Now, I'd probably cry.

doug · PostFeb 09, 2006#172006-02-09T14:49+00:00

Wow great picture!

If McDonals is to be built, why can't they be in more urban style buildings, like maybe the bottom of a two story old building? I have seen Wal-Mart stores changing their plans to accomodate city building codes, so why can't south city place building style codes on chain restaraunts? Maybe it would keep many of them away, and promote local business?

topeka_bobby · PostFeb 09, 2006#182006-02-09T16:00+00:00

I had no idea that was ever there. What a fantastic building! The Old Sears held on for dear life but the area declined to the point where it just couldnt stay open. I remember a friends grandmother who lived off of Arsenal cried and cried the day the shut that place down...depressing I know.

Just think what could have been...oh well. We know how bad abandon buildings are for the city of STL...

That area is coming back to life. I look forward to the new construction. And all that fatty food and Mickey D's.

doug · PostFeb 17, 2006#192006-02-17T20:07+00:00

Ward factionalism has always been a problem in St. Louis' machine political system. With this system, Alderpersons generally support initiatives in their own ward, while ignoring the needs of other wards. If you look at the history of St. Louis development, you will find this being the case, in part due to the Mayors lack of central power. The Mayor votes on a board including the President of the Aldermen and the Comptroller, therefore, there must be a majority to pass bills. In this way, ward factionalism is able to continue, since the Mayor lacks the power to unite the wards for the city's greater good.

As reported by Antonio D. French and Steve Patterson this ward factionalism is continuing with the potential McDonalds devlopment on 3708 S. Grand. Apparently, the Alderwoman Florida wants this thing built, since it is "Urban". It should be noted the real reason is because she is a McDonalds franchise owner. Neighboring Alderman Schmid, our friend, totally freaked out against this development, by writing a letter, and opposing this development at a meeting.

Even though Schmid is not Alderman of the McDonalds location, his jurisdiction is right next door. Obviously he does not want a McDonalds on his front yard, and I do not blame him. Chain restaurants are built by corporate a**holes, and in suburban styles that do not fit the urban landscape. This particular development is going to have a huge parking lot, which is why Schmid is pissed off. Who wants a bunch of cars, late at night, making noise (laugh!).

Personally, we have to thank Schmid for not being a p****. Although he is indirectly acting in a factionalism-like way, since he is protesting the McDonalds for the citizens of his ward, he is directly confronting an irresponsible Alderwoman, Jennifer Florida, who obviously has a conflict of interest. I guess she does not realize that McDonalds will only harm her citizen's health, and destroy the aesthetics of her neighborhoods?

French is dead right:

"The City of St. Louis is not a collection of 28 autonomous territories. Tradition and limits on the power of the mayor in the city's charter allow aldermen to act as if actions or inaction in their wards don't affect the rest of us, but they're wrong"

St. Louis Aldermen must act for the city as a whole. We all have the same dollars, and we all have the same urban landscape. Do not shoot yourself in the foot, because the entire body will become infected. We will all be sick.

urban review st. louis · PostFeb 18, 2006#202006-02-18T05:02+00:00

I agree the old National site would be easier to redevelop without a new McDonald's on the corner. But I also question the potential of the national site getting rebuilt if we allow the suburban McDonald's to be built a block away.

The McDonald's will offset the gains made by other projects. This reduces the odds that the remainde of the block between Winnebego and Chippewa will become more urban. Same with the national site. Once the standards are lowered we'll have to live with the consequences for a good 20 years at a minimum.

On-topic of the senior housing. That is not a done deal. Don't be surprised if it goes away after the new McDonald's is built. Think about it --- nobody has seen this supposed project. Don't be fooled!

scity63116 · PostMar 01, 2006#212006-03-01T17:24+00:00

I fail to see how the relocation of a dirty, poorly managed McDonald's is going to benefit anyone but the owners. I believe that taxpayers paid to held buy and clear the Sears lot and the property has tax abatement. Do you really want to help subsidize a McDonald's?

If they want to build senior housing, let them build a 3-4 story building fronting Grand from the corner of Winnebago to the Pulaski Bank. Put commercial space in the front and let the residents live above.

We have enough underused housing at the moment in my opinion.

Constructing low-end commercial like drive-thru restaurants will only hold back the area from any greater purpose.

If McDonald's wants to stay, let them rebuild at their present location. They are not good neighbors or good for the area. I sincerely doubt that Alderwoman Florida has ever been sighted there!

threeonefour · PostMar 02, 2006#222006-03-02T08:24+00:00

Scity63116 wrote:Constructing low-end commercial like drive-thru restaurants will only hold back the area from any greater purpose.

That's it in a nutshell for me! With the forthcoming renovation of the Melba and former South Side National Bank- now is the time to begin planning comprehensive improvements for the stretch of Grand between Gravois and Chippewa.

I'm encouraged by the progress I see throughout this city. However, I'm equally dismayed to see many of our leaders rubberstamp ANY proposed development, often without any proper scrutiny of the project's aesthetics, its impact on neighboring properties, or its appropriateness for a given area.

The city has come a long way from 10-15 years ago, when we had no choice but to take all comers simply to get new development within our boundaries. Things are looking up now, yet we're still too eager to accept uninspired and aesthetically challenged developments like Southtown Center. This McDonald's is no exception to that trend, unfortunately.

When will we demand more of developers- and ultimately- our leaders?

trent · PostMar 18, 2006#232006-03-18T01:11+00:00

I'm bumping this.

http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000558.php

Steve Patterson found a site plan for the new McDonalds. It's horrendous. I'm the one who posted the letter from Alderwoman Florida. Here's our full correspondance:

Me:

As a resident in your ward, I am deeply concerned about your

efforts for the relocation of the South Grand McDonalds. I have no

problems with McDonalds, and frankly, probably eat there more than I

should...but the point is that we are at a place where we can start to

dictate to these corporations that they will have to build urban

friendly stores in our urban neighborhoods if they want them to get

built.

The current location is a ripe place for development, and with the

Southside National Bank Condos going in, the area could experience a

much needed revival. Do we really want another cookie cutter McDonalds

that you can find in Chesterfield Valley? Why not push McDonalds to

create a store that is more aligned with the urban context of the

neighborhood?

I feel its time that we start to demand the kind of construction that

will make our city better, not just another footprint for McDonalds to

make money.

I tried to be friendly at first. Here was her reply:

Dear Sam:

The relocation of McDonald's is only part of a comprehensive

redevelopment plan that includes :

redevelopment of South Side National Bank

redevelopment of the Melba

Relocation of McDonald's,urban style pedestrian friendly

Affordable residential between McDonald's and market rate residential

completion of market rate residential on Sears site

3 story arcitecturally significant new construction on current McDonald'

site w/ commercial store front

Funding's in place, Zoning correct. We are not always going to agree on

development. There are more than 14,000 opinions in one neighborhood.

Jennifer

My thoughts after reading this?

1. At least she took the time to respond, that was good.

2. Maybe we jumped the gun, and the plan for the new McDonalds was urban.

3. I was still skeptical, but will wait for more info

Then I saw Pattersons Blog. I was very upset. So I responded:

Ms. Florida,

Thank you for your response, I honestly appreciate it. It's nice to have a direct dialogue with our officials.

However, I've seen the design. It's located at Steve Pattersons Urban Review Blog. And frankly, there is zero chance of that plan to be considered urban. The reasons are that it's surrounded by parking. That's not urban. Access from the sidewalk goes only THROUGH the parking lot, where cars drive...that isn't pedestrian friendly. This design, if presented to the 14,000 residents you represent, would be met with a lot of opposition.

The only way that I can be convinced that you aren't just allowing whatever design that McDonalds wants is if you present the exact plan to the public in the near future, and let the public decide. If the design posted on Patterson's blog isn't the current design, then I will wait until I see an updated site plan. Until then, I will do whatever it takes to see that this project does not go forward.

Thanks for your correspondance,

Sam Snelling

At this point, I am committed to seeing that this project does not go through. I figure this would be a good project for STLUP. If anyone is interested, I will bring some prepared material to the next meeting. I'd like to move forward on this as soon as possible.

urban review st. louis · PostMar 18, 2006#242006-03-18T03:32+00:00

Yes, the site plan is horrible. As I indicated on my site this was obtained via the Sunshine Law from the Zoning Dept. I posted it so folks, like youselves, could see just how bad it really is. Jennifer Florida keeps calling this McDonald's "urban" and "pedestrian friendly" but it is most certainly not.

I would love to see members of this forum rise up and assist the Gravois Park residents that are opposed to this project. We need some protests and petitions. Whenever the hearing on the drive-thru appeal is set we need a large turn out of people.

It would also be nice to see citizens get together and begin discussing what Grand should look like. What do we want --- not just what we don't want. From about Utah south to nearly Meramec the street has been hit hard by suburban sprawl development. Still, enough remains such as SSNB to make it worth fighting for. Picture some new mixed-use projects on the corner where the Taco Bell, KFC, White Castle and Walgreen's now sit. Or the Schnuck's site getting redone so that urban buildings face onto Grand, Gravois & Cherokee. This could include a new urban grocery store, underground and/or structured parking and residential above.

BTW, I've added a new catagory to my site just for the McDonald's issue so this link will get you all the posts related to the subject: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/ ... _grand.php

trent · PostMar 18, 2006#252006-03-18T03:55+00:00

Steve,

Thanks for your efforts in uncovering the real site plan. You can believe that I'm going to be one of the many voices directly involved in opposition of this project. As I stated above in my letter to Ms. Florida, I don't oppose the move of McDonalds, just the attrocious non-urban lot they plan on building.