In the interests of continuing a good thread from another forum...



Why does Clayton as currently configured exist? Of course economics have driven the development of Clayton into a Central Business District, but why are the economics different in Saint Louis than in other cities. Every possible reason for Clayton's existence, e.g. transportation issues, racism, migration of large corporations to the suburbs, growth of a city away from the original center of gravity, etc., also occur in other metropolitan areas, yet very few similar concentrated suburban business districts exist. Most of these factors exist in LA to a much greater degree, and the market forces for such a development there should be much stronger, yet there are very few such concentrations of development. So, why is Saint Louis so much different than other cities?



Most of Chicago's largest corporations moved to the suburbs a long time ago. Sears, McDonald's, Motorola are just a few examples. Many others have been acquired. There are not many Fortune 500 companies left in the city of Chicago and although there is a tremendous amount of construction in and around downtown, very little (less than 5%) of that is office construction.



I believe that the main function of downtowns as central business districts is a thing of the past, at least in the United States. The initial necessity of a downtown as a place to buy and sell goods and services, raise capital and attract quality employees is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to Al Gore's information superhighway. There are a few industry exceptions where office location is still important. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are still somewhat necessary because that is where the providers of capital are, and they want the beneficiaries of their capital close by (where they can keep an eye on them). There is also an obvious benefit to having groupings of office/lab/research space near major universities, so professors and other researchers can go to and fro.



I have no love for Clayton, the architectural mish-mash and the mix of urban and suburban style buildings there is hard on the eyes. But it would not exist if it was not necessary for some reason. I predict that the entire central corridor between downtown and Clayton will become much more dense, and will eventually fill in with a mix of residential, office space, and entertainment/hospitality structures, especially near the Metrolink stations. I don't think anyone has a clue yet just how big of an impact the Metrolink line between Clayton and downtown will have on the development of the central corridor. So, I think Clayton will eventually become part of a greater whole, we will call it Central Corridor West, or something perhaps more catchy like, WOPA (West of Park). (Of course what would we call East of Park then, EOPA?) Well, I'll leave the name up to more creative types.



But the future of any downtown, especially St. Louis', is as an entertainment/cultural/residential centerpiece of a larger metropolitan area. Incidentally, there will always be demand for office space in such an area because entrepreneurs and startup companies will naturally gravitate to such an area. But the idea of MegaCorp locating downtown and building a 70 story HQ building is a thing of the past. If and when another large corporation decides to build a HQ office building in the St. Louis metro area, it will either be in Clayton (see Centene) or in a suburban office park setting (see Express Scripts). Downtown may someday soon have new office construction, but it will most likely be in the form of small single-tenant construction, or mixed-use, with condos on top and office space below. Don't expect any single-use, highrise office buildings downtown. That is a thing of the past. If and when there is new office construction in the city, it will be because of a surge in new residents and the relative prominence of the city vs. the suburbs, nothing else. That is why city planners must focus their efforts on residential, cultural and entertainment development in the city, and on developing specialized office markets such as CORTEX, and quit expending energy and resources on being jealous of Clayton and worrying about which companies might leave downtown for the suburbs.

Clayton is necessary for the people that want something like it: clean, safe, upscale, etc. Not everyone wants a gritty downtown lifestyle for their residence or company. Not everyone wants a suburb lifestlye, a Clayton lifestyle, or a CWE lifestyle. Not everyone wants the same thing.



IMO, the more options the better. For what it's worth, just about every large US city I have been to has a "second downtown". It's unrealistic to expect everything to be downtown. Heck, I'd rather have large companies make their home in Clayton instead of all the way out in O'Fallon or somewhere that is very disconnected from St. Louis.

^Exactly. Clayton grew to be a commercial hub because it is the county seat for St. Louis County. If the City and County hadn't split, Clayton would just be another suburb like U. City or Richmond Heights. The government offices created a critical mass of workers, who in turn demand services and amenities. Voila! We have a secondary downtown.

JivecitySTL wrote:^Exactly. Clayton grew to be a commercial hub because it is the county seat for St. Louis County. If the City and County hadn't split, Clayton would just be another suburb like U. City or Richmond Heights. The government offices created a critical mass of workers, who in turn demand services and amenities. Voila! We have a secondary downtown.

Yep. Clayton is no different that any other county seat in Missouri, other than St. Louis County being a lot bigger than other counties.

With all due respect, I think you asked the wrong question. It is easy to answer the question, why Clayton? Or Why Towson or Why Bethesda? A lot of things were going on in American cities during the middle of the last century as these cities were built up & prospered.



But I think the more important question is "What is the role of Downtown in American Cities in the future?"



Is it possible that American downtowns are losing their function as Central Business District and evolving into fashionable residential districts, centers of dining & nightlife, centers of culture, playgrounds for tourists and locals, and an attractive showplace? Some popular European cities are like that. Most people don't search out the Central Business Districts in Paris & Barcelona. But people are interested in the central cities with their beautiful buildings and exciting urban lifestyles. Could American cities be moving in this direction? Are the jobs moving uptown, but the people moving downtown?



In other words, has Uptown moved Downtown?



Food for thought...

jlblues wrote:I believe that the main function of downtowns as central business districts is a thing of the past, at least in the United States. The initial necessity of a downtown as a place to buy and sell goods and services, raise capital and attract quality employees is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to Al Gore's information superhighway. There are a few industry exceptions where office location is still important. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are still somewhat necessary because that is where the providers of capital are, and they want the beneficiaries of their capital close by (where they can keep an eye on them). There is also an obvious benefit to having groupings of office/lab/research space near major universities, so professors and other researchers can go to and fro.

I think you are correct here, obviously law firms like to cluster around courthouses, and banks around each other, so in that sense you will always have some kind of CBD in downtown. But for the most part I would expect to see general office uses continuing to leave downtown, and residents moving in, creating a better overall balance in the region.

jlblues wrote:But the future of any downtown, especially St. Louis', is as an entertainment/cultural/residential centerpiece of a larger metropolitan area. Incidentally, there will always be demand for office space in such an area because entrepreneurs and startup companies will naturally gravitate to such an area. But the idea of MegaCorp locating downtown and building a 70 story HQ building is a thing of the past. If and when another large corporation decides to build a HQ office building in the St. Louis metro area, it will either be in Clayton (see Centene) or in a suburban office park setting (see Express Scripts). Downtown may someday soon have new office construction, but it will most likely be in the form of small single-tenant construction, or mixed-use, with condos on top and office space below. Don't expect any single-use, highrise office buildings downtown. That is a thing of the past. If and when there is new office construction in the city, it will be because of a surge in new residents and the relative prominence of the city vs. the suburbs, nothing else. That is why city planners must focus their efforts on residential, cultural and entertainment development in the city, and on developing specialized office markets such as CORTEX, and quit expending energy and resources on being jealous of Clayton and worrying about which companies might leave downtown for the suburbs.

practically speaking, I agree there's little reason to go for the 50+ story trophy building in downtown areas, but I wouldn't rule it out because CEO's don't always think pragmatically about such things, sometimes they want the showpiece downtown. And I agree that the folks shouldn't wring their hands about big companies leaving downtown, it's natural for a city to spin off large corporations to their suburbs...as long as they're being replaced by new startups in the center. Many large corporations have certain needs (campus layouts with single points of entry) that are better met in the suburbs anyway.

Expat wrote:Is it possible that American downtowns are losing their function as Central Business District and evolving into fashionable residential districts, centers of dining & nightlife, centers of culture, playgrounds for tourists and locals, and an attractive showplace? Some popular European cities are like that. Most people don't search out the Central Business Districts in Paris & Barcelona. But people are interested in the central cities with their beautiful buildings and exciting urban lifestyles. Could American cities be moving in this direction? Are the jobs moving uptown, but the people moving downtown?



In other words, has Uptown moved Downtown?



Food for thought...

An interesting thing to think about is could St. Louis' CBD have been built somewhere other than in the historic center city. For the most part the growth of the modern CBD in this area was not an organic process but a conscious decision to wipe away the old and build the new. Could it have sprung up south or north of downtown? Or on the east riverfront? In most big European cities you see this very careful separation of the CBD from the old historic center, and IMO it works better.

Expat: "Are the jobs moving uptown, but the people moving downtown?"



This seems to be the case. A recent article in Urban Land (Urban Land Institute's Magazine) touched on this concept happening in San Fransico. The CBD is now the trendy place to live, especially in historic office buildings that no longer function well as office space (wash ave, marquette, etc.). People now communte to "uptown" or places like Clayton or other "office parks".

I think the hemorraging of businesses from downtown has slowed down tremendously. There are several reasons businesses stay downtown

1.) They like the overall feel of a real downtown, walkability, etc.

2.) A large percentage of employees live in Illinois (arguably the biggest factor)

3.) Necessity to be downtown, ie. Law Firms, Architecture, Advertising firms. This is especially true for the large law firms, but HOK and "creative" firms prefer the city feel. An ad firm in Chestefield Valley, ouch..

4.) The overall economics of downtown. You can get Class A office space downtown on large floor plates for $18-23 per square foot. An equivalent building anywhere else in the region would be more expensive. The reason for this is there is such a large amount of office space downtown. Millions of square feet.



I think the exodus west is tapering off. If anything, this is why I'm all about the sprawl into Illinois. Downtown- the center of the region, not 270 and 40.

I don't think that we're seeing the last of downtown as a CBD...because I think that these things will go in a bit of a cycle. During the auto-oriented times, downtowns became more desolate, and businesses spread out in larger 'office parks' instead of highrises. Now that gas prices are changing, and environments are changing, as well as technology, we'll see a larger move to taller buildings in the core of the area. I think we'll also see less of a premium on office space as workers will be able to telecommute.



So, Clayton sprung up, like many places around the US (around major cities), and an alternative to downtown. I'd like to see Clayton develop more of a financial district for business, and downtown and city get the rest. As long as they stay in the core, it's fine by me. I'd prefer it stay in the city, but you can't have everything.



It's too bad MasterCard left for O'Fallon. That's just a ridiculously stupid business decision that will really bite them in the a** in the coming years.

trent wrote:It's too bad MasterCard left for O'Fallon. That's just a ridiculously stupid business decision that will really bite them in the a** in the coming years.

I agree, moving out there was bad, but why do you think it will bite them later?

The changing economy, the changing environment. Auto dependency, IMO, it only going to decrease, making major suburban office parks more and more obsolete. And they just build that place a few years ago.

they built it a few years ago - but these changes you speak of will take a long time to implement. People could also MOVE to st. CHarles. its not like most of their employees live in downtown/south city/illinois. In 25 years when they want to move back to the city - STL will bend over backwards to get 7,000 new people and they will get massive incentives. I doubt they will be hurting too much.



PLUS people pay for gas with credit cards - so the more gas goes up - the more people charge... i doubt their CEO Bob Selander is worried in his Westchester County NY estate.

Everything once centralized, then dispersed into suburbs following population trends. Now people are moving back into the central city, but will this new trend become so popular that the majority of people will move back into the city? I doubt it, but it would make more sense. Suburban growth displaces and destroys wildlife, wastes space, adds enormously to polution, is architecturally boring, really there is no posative facet of suburban growth, IMO, yet it is still enormously popular.

Businesses naturally follow the growth, yet big time corporations have stayed in the CBD for the most part. And sure, there are exceptions. I still maintain that you can see this just by looking at the skyline of any prosperous city of any reasonable size. Seems to me St. Louis and Detroit are the only large cities that the big corporations have seem to abandoned so evidently.

I don't think this is a question of city vs. suburban growth. That has been discussed and argued to death. But, could the role of downtown be changing? Not just in St. Louis, but throughout the U.S. Even if environmental issues force us back into a centralized mode, couldn't the business of business end up somewhere besides 8th & Pine? For instance, biotech clusters in Midtown. Banking clusters in Clayton. Suppose something in Illinois law makes it advantageous for charities/non-profits to cluster around Illinois Metro stations. Back offices may take advantage of lower prices along a new Metro line into North St. Louis. I agree that Downtown St. Louis will always be our traditional CBD and it will never go away. But, I do see it changing into to something more interesting than a group of office buildings. Same is true all over the U.S.



Used to be that downtown was full of boring office buildings & shopping. At five, they rolled up the sidewalks. No one questioned it. After five, activity moved uptown or out into the neighborhoods. In many cities, cultural institutions, universities, better residential, etc. were located uptown. Downtown was just for doing business. But, now I see the fun stuff moving downtown, while the workaday world is moving elsewhere.



This is what I am trying to say. Perhaps the flatness of America's downtown office market is not a sign of failure, but just a normal evolution. Those of us who grew up in the 1900s (all of us) have a notion that business should be conducted downtown in skyscrapers, anything less is a failure or making do. But, if in 30 years Downtown St. Louis has 100,000 residents instead of 100,000 jobs, but most of the jobs have clustered around Metro lines throughout the city & suburbs, that wouldn't mean our Downtown is a failure. In fact, we might like it much better.



I am only speculating on the details, but it does seem that things are changing.

I think the main reason why you will see fewer and fewer single-use downtown office buildings built in the United States is because they are generally not fiscally responsible projects; they are almost always ego-driven. And CEOs of publicly traded companies that do things that aren't fiscally responsible don't tend to keep their jobs long.



I doubt you could find any large corporate HQ building in a downtown anywhere outside of Manhattan that made economic sense. Think of how much office space Sears could have built out in the suburbs for what it cost them to build the Sears Tower (For that matter, they could have built four 30-story buildings on the same site for much less than the cost of the Sears Tower) Of course, eventually corporate leadership changed and Sears ended up selling the tower and moving out to the Chicago exurbs (Hoffman Estates), where they were later acquired by a bankrupt company.



You could argue that by building a high profile HQ building, corporate leadership creates value by increasing awareness of the company and thus increases brand equity. I suppose Sears might have benefited somewhat from their high-profile HQ. But these days, especially after Enron, Tyco and Worldcom, shareholders demand fiscally responsible, and conservative, corporate leadership.

My point about MasterCard wasn't about O'Fallon vs. new highrise buildling in downtown. It was O'Fallon vs. Central location. Eventually, we will have to slash our energy dependency, and public transportation (which doesn't go to O'Fallon, and probably never will) will become a much more viable mode of transport for many people in this country.



It's slow to catch on, but I think it's going to happen. Once people realize that they can cut down on stress, get work done, and enjoy a ride to work, they'll start to do it. They'll keep their car, but the car will be used for errands and weekend trips instead of a daily commute.



Anyway, I think that MasterCard made a huge mistake in putting an office park halfway to Columbia. They might have saved money in the short term. But the workforce is slowly moving back towards the city with population growth within the city, and a growing population in the MetroEast. More and more workers are going to be in this area, and realistically, MasterCard is cutting themselves off from those people by being so far west.

ah location, location, bad location



St. Charles has quickly blossomed into the new bedroom communities of the central regional core which is Creve Coeur to Chesterfield



Both places are experiencing the office building booms that Clayton underwent in the 1980s and 1990s. However, they are having to stand up against a returning and albeit bohemoth City of St. Louis!



This thread has moved away from the original topic "Why Clayton"

transformed into "role of downtowns in America" and now strayed back to Mastercard and O'Fallon.



For all urban sociology buffs I recommend the intelligent works of Louis Worth who stated that cities tend to centralize, decentralize, and centralize again. Of course, we are not in the 1920s optimist spirit and are moving towards an urban regional formation based on fear and angst according to the LA school of sociology (read Ecology of Fear by Mike Davis). According to this theory CBD are homeless containment zones. I move this thread from questioning Why Clayton which is brought about by the older process of the Chicago school with decentralize and centralize, from role of CBD's when LA is experiencing the havouc of fear based cities to a different mind.



Can American cities continuely transform in the twentieth first century to stable places while being pressured by changes in culture, lifestyle, and other human forces?



If a depression were to occur, will CBD's become the refuge while housing the posh?

If riots broke out between social classes, will CBD's be meeting points or fortresses?

If prosperity reached glorious lengths, will CBD's just become massive monuments to mankind and devoid of humanism or submission to a superior being. Think tower of Babel

If we all converged in a great crowd upon the CBD to unite as one region, one people, one civilization, one nation, and one democracy, will all voices be heard or will it be choas?



It is best that our CBD's are not the single and solitary place of all life & civilization, lest man and woman be devoured by themselves and their spirits into an uncomprehensible being uncognizant of our democratic ideals of welfare which is health, safety, and morals.



In other words we are arguing a topic into malthusa and ignoring the complexities of human interaction/life and the urban and rural togetherness that coalesce into our democratic republic. Jeffersonian democracy needs to be taken hand-in-hand with our Federalist and urban minded democracy or else we cease to exist as a functioning whole.



Does this make sense or did I go off the deep end

We have to remember that Clayton is a county seat first and foremost.



I think the eastern side including the east side of downtown, is simply an extension of St. Louis City.



Maybe for downtown Clayton to thrive in the immediate future (5-20 years), it will need a major update. It's got to find some authenticity...the pseudo-New England hamlet thing just doesn't jive anymore.