I have been considering the effects of redeveloping the archgrounds on the landing and I was wondering if anybody believes there is a good chance that new buildings will be built on the vacant land or parking lots in the landing as a result of having a nice park next door that is not blocked off by a massive parking garage. Also, if there is new development on the landing, how large will it be?

I was much more confident that something was going to happen on the Landing when Pinnacle put their model of Phase II for display at the East Terminal a few years back. They own a big chunk of property on the landing and looked prime to put some serious dough into infill, well beyond the terms of their deal with the city. Their development planned with its heavy dose of residential looked pretty good in my opinion.

Personally, I think removing I-70 from downtown and returning a seemless street grid between downtown and the river is much more important to the Landing's future. Then the landing becomes much more connected and property becomes a premium. Removing the Arch Grounds north garage and encouraging parking within the Landing will help. But it won't be a driving force to get money for new construction. A much more expensive endeavor then rehabbing a sound structure built for warehousing.

Ideally, I would like to see Stan K take it to the endzone for the city in terms of the Rams future by embracing downtown, the options and development possiblities of removing I-70. It would be nice to see a homegrown billionaire embrace and take a bet on downtown instead of another Walmart who knows where.

My main fear is that, with the Archgrounds garage removed and Lenor K. closed, they decide to plop a big, ugly parking structure directly in Laclede's Landing proper -- say, the Switzer lot -- that doesn't respect the history of the Landing or add any street level activity and further detracts from whatever views there are of the Landing and from it. And you're right, dredger -- a reconnection to the city through the removal of I-70 is much more important to the Landing's future success than joining the Archgrounds.

I wonder if the removal of parking/development on the Landing, the Arch and various streets closing, makes it that much harder to park during Rams games. I could see that leading to fans complaining about the traffic nightmares and lack of parking options, leading to ownership moving out of Downtown.

I'm warming to the proposal to eliminate Wash Ave east of Memorial/I-70 after Looking at the presentation and specifically how Wash Ave is reconfigured and the new on/off ramp to I-70 specifically and how it impacts Landing Development. Coming to that conclusion because the biggest divide in my mind between Arch Grounds and the Landing was the north parking garage.

Instead, the new Wash Ave interchange provide a much organized and logical way to get in and out of the Landing if you are driving - the point of having streets. Or another way to look at it, Arch visitors heading on I-70 westbound simply exit at the new Wash Ave exit, drive straight, and follow the right bend right into the Landing - You have to like it any way you look at it when promoting the landing. That has to be better then exiting onto Memorial, drive past the arch, make an awkward right without going on the Eads bridge to go a nondescript parking garage with nothing around it.

As far as pedesterians on Arch Grounds they simply walk into the Landing without the barrier of a garage and street that convinces them to turn around even before hitting Eads Bridge

I'd like to see Laclede's Landing extended into the Arch Grounds. I suppose the development dollars aren't there right now, especially when considering how Ballpark Village has progressed. But I'd love to see the north end of the grounds developed, between Wash Ave. and where Locust would be. This would make for 6 square blocks of developable area if St. Charles were also returned to that part of the grid.

What better way is there to bring the City to the River than nearly doubling the size of Laclede's Landing?

doug wrote: I do not think the arch grounds will have much of an impact unless the highway is removed. That is the main barrier keeping people from walking to Lacledes Landing and why it has so much parking. This is why Lacledes Landing business owners wanted the highway removed.

I agree entirely with this. The hardest thing for Laclede's Landing businesses to do is to get a regular workday crowd to tackle the I-70 barrier and head down. The people who visit the Arch - primarily tourists - know about the Landing from researching things to do, or find it naturally while exploring the riverfront (it also doesn't hurt that, when asked a good, close place to eat, the Arch staff can just point north).

What I'm saying is that the Landing is connected well enough to the Archgrounds (even with the uninviting parking garage. With new access to Broadway/Memorial Drive via I-70 removal -- and hopefully new businesses/developments north and south, accessibility to the Landing and the river is further accentuated.

Great River Greenways has finally made some comments on the north riverfront trail and their land acquisition to date. Didn't think a new thread was needed but curious if their is something to it going forward. So far it seems like quite a bit to have a cool million into it and not really anything concrete, the cost of property and now a pending study

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 173af.html

I think a rock climbing park situated in the right spot would be great. My son and his buddies occasionally go to an area known as rock city in Diablo Mountain state park, California to climb rocks. Not sure about the kayak thought but wish they would do a take off of the Paris urban beach that someone highlighted on other threads.

^ I hope things come together as there is so much potential for the area.... as far as a kayak and canoe park, I think that could result in a big draw but likely would be cost prohibitive. I think the key will be to create something more modest that can add not just more visitors but also create demand for residential to make it a true mixed-use neighborhood.

What ever happen to the Landing tower and a building that was going to be converted in to residential ?

I think the possible tower you are referring too is a spec building at most i would think. I like the thought of a rock climbing place however the kayak part is likely pie in the sky but it sounds very fun though i would love to see the entire north riverfront come to life with this bissingers possible new stadium The landing and the new arch grounds. I would to see Chouteau's landing get incorporated into all this riverfront development.

I would love to see The old warehouses on North Broadway rehabbed on to residential district if that happen I would sell my house in Kirkwood in a heartbeat.

Sundeckers has closed. Bummer.

7 of the 14 bars/restaurants on the Landing have closed in the last 18 months. That's crazy.


http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-a ... touch=true

The landing is hard to get to, even before the construction. It's one of those places where you have to WANT to go there and make a conscious effort. That's not good for business.

I think that's why the landing is trying to transition to more of a mixed-use, riverfront residential neighborhood. That is a way more sustainable model.

Wonder when will see news of a building conversion to residential. Did next stl have an article last summer talking about a building converted to residential?

Maybe the construction pains in the long run would actually be good for the landing , moving it away from the tired old "entertainment district" into a real neighborhood. Who would say no to living right next to the arch grounds? What is happening in the landing had a precedent in Boston's North end when the Big Dig closed off in the area for years, causing most businesses to close but after word in a few years after the project the area was much better then before. And I think similar things will happen here.