I thinks it's got a very good chance, at least in some form. Most of the property owners seem willing to sell (most, but not all). The developer has indicated that they could work around some of the hold-outs, and they already control about half of the land. U City government very much wants this to happen. They've been desperately trying to grow the tax base beyond the Loop (U City doesn't even have a hotel within it's borders). The Olive Street corridor has been a priority for a while now, and I don't think they'll let this one slip through their fingers.
Price seems like it would be the only issue, since the owner is from California. Do you think the U-City would come up with the extra cash to buy them out or are they set on the eminent domain route? It seems like if the issue is over price, it could end up backfiring on the developer.
http://revenue.stlouisco.com/ias/MapsPr ... =16K110915
http://revenue.stlouisco.com/ias/MapsPr ... =16K110915
I am in the same boat as you. I was hoping for something better since I live fairly close to it. I am not the type of person that usually goes to public hearings but I would have gone to this one. Unfortunately, I won't be in town for it. I am not really sure what I was expecting (something like Streets of St Charles or The Boulevard would have excited me more) but a bunch of parking lots was not it. As others mentioned the south side of it is better but I would like to see some of those buildings moved closer to Olive with parking behind.framer wrote: ↑Apr 06, 2018As a U City resident, I had been eagerly looking forward to this project. Now that I see what's proposed, I'm really disappointed. I was hoping for more of an infill type of development, not a clear-cut. There are lots of unique businesses along there that are going to be needlessly forced out. Olive does need help, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
Let's hope the plan gets some major tweaking.
In the presentation to the U City TIF Commission, the Novus rep said the owner of the storage facility told them they are in the business of renting storage for profit not selling land at a profit.
I think U CIty is very tempted by this. Our fragmented system encourages munis to chase sales taxes. We've seen many sell their soul in its pursuit. The PD article said the annual sales are estimated to be $162M.
What is the estimated net new sales for the region? Not much I suspect.
What is the estimated net new sales for the region? Not much I suspect.
From the RFP "Lack of overall vibrancy and life to the site"
Seas of parking, 1844 spaces, will bring vibrancy and life?
Seas of parking, 1844 spaces, will bring vibrancy and life?
- 6,123
You know, with the way things are going elsewhere in the region I would be surprised if this stretch of Olive isn't much more desirable in twenty years. It's holding its own right now, and I expect it can hold on a little longer. Looks like the sea of parking answers a U. City requirement, that could be waved and should be scrapped. (And enough resident noise might help with that.) Yes, pushing the retail space to the street and the parking to the back would help. If the eighty some odd homeowners are willing to sell then my only objection would be that I should like to see some protection for the commercial renters. (And protections for renters is something we could use generally in Missouri. Renters of all kinds.) If they build in phases I suppose it's not impossible at least some of the current tenants could find space int he new buildings, assuming they could afford the move and the shinier rents. (Some clearly cater to locals, so that would be really nice.) But man, it would be really really nice indeed to see this broken up into a half dozen separate projects with separate owners to foster competition and variation.
The Post Dispatch article from last weekend, said that some of the areas larger landlords weren't interested in selling at the price Novus was offering.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2018You know, with the way things are going elsewhere in the region I would be surprised if this stretch of Olive isn't much more desirable in twenty years.
The Post Dispatch article from last weekend, said that some of the areas larger landlords weren't interested in selling at the price Novus was offering.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2018You know, with the way things are going elsewhere in the region I would be surprised if this stretch of Olive isn't much more desirable in twenty years.
This is stupid. So freaking stupid. The area isn't 20 years off, the area is thriving right now. Just because it doesn't have the glitz and glam of South Grand or Cortex or a millenial incubator doesn't take away from the fact that this is one of the most productive and efficient areas in the Metro region. Immigrants of all backgrounds have made this strip bustle with activity because it's cheap and offers many small/medium sized buildings. This plan whitewashes away all this success/opportunity.
How much is Ucity spending on this garbage? Maybe instead they could put that money toward lowering tax rates and bring some businesses back into the Loop.
How much is Ucity spending on this garbage? Maybe instead they could put that money toward lowering tax rates and bring some businesses back into the Loop.
- 6,123
Sorry if I implied that. I meant only to say that property values twenty years from now will probably be quite a lot different even without fancy RFPs. That the place will become glamorous all on its own, without further islandization. (Quicker, even.) And in this case I really believe the tax revenue will go up quicker if you don't abate the crap out of them, and the place will be healthier if U. City just leaves its hands mostly off.
Oh jeez, thst site plan must be a joke, right? It’s as if U. City officials got together and said, “Let’s figure out how we can cheapen our brand, become a less desirable place to live and work, turn our backs on the diverse businesses and streetscapes that set us apart from typical suburbia, and become indistinguishable from any other highway exit west of 270.” It’s truly embarrassing- absolutely no standards. I am astonished that University City officials would even entertain this type of crap in place of functioning businesses. Wouldn’t you expect more from U. City of all places?
- 710
oh my GOD, this is embarrasing for u-city.
even though it's autocentric right now, there is a bit of a fine grain to the area...i actually spend a decent amount of money in here at bobs seafood, beyers, tai ke, dao tien, nobu's, etc etc etc...
it should be redeveloped on a MUCH smaller scale, incrementally, and with a finer grain with an eye towards at least being a semi-walkable destination...this site plan is straight from the garbage heap of 1995. who the hell are these people running my city? this is the kind of proposal/site plan that GETS demolished/redeveloped in 2018!
even though it's autocentric right now, there is a bit of a fine grain to the area...i actually spend a decent amount of money in here at bobs seafood, beyers, tai ke, dao tien, nobu's, etc etc etc...
it should be redeveloped on a MUCH smaller scale, incrementally, and with a finer grain with an eye towards at least being a semi-walkable destination...this site plan is straight from the garbage heap of 1995. who the hell are these people running my city? this is the kind of proposal/site plan that GETS demolished/redeveloped in 2018!
"A public hearing on the proposal has been set for 7 p.m. May 23 at the Mandarin House, 8004 Olive Boulevard."
I think those of us in U-City need to raise some hell about this.
I think those of us in U-City need to raise some hell about this.
Even if you don't live in U. City, I think the public should show up and oppose this awful plan. A bigger outcry is warranted for something of this scale. Our metropolitan area belongs to all of us. Maybe the best thing to do is get out in front of this and call out U. City on social media-- knock some sense into them before this progresses any further.warwickland wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2018"A public hearing on the proposal has been set for 7 p.m. May 23 at the Mandarin House, 8004 Olive Boulevard."
I think those of us in U-City need to raise some hell about this.
- 1,642
This strip of Olive exists because there were virtually no remaining, viable commercial corridors left in the city that could organically support these kinds of businesses (and still feel safe). This is a terrible plan. Cronyism and bureaucracy self-sustaining themselves. Parasites! Government is not the solution. Government IS the problem.
I couldn't help myself- I had to call out U. City on Twitter. Here's my tweet:
Come on, @UniversityCity- this site plan for Olive-170 redev is embarrassing for a city that prides itself on progressivism & diversity. Trading functioning businesses for generic exurban big-box schlock- it literally could not be worse than whats proposed. @UCityChamber @NEXTSTL
Can someone explain what a "good" proposal would look like on olive? I'm honestly very new to this so I ask from a very naive perspective.
I'm a UCity resident and I love all the stuff I'm seeing with the foundry, the grove, that cool development at Lafayette square... but all those are in more urban, dense areas. This is olive, a 5 lane road that is very car-oriented. I mean yeah it would be nice to have some mixed-use dense development, but I don't have the faith that all these small shops in worn out dated strips are going to rise up like everyone in this thread is predicting.
To me if the idea is either a brentwood-area type development or the current, I could be convinced to keep the current. The current shops aren't pretty but have a chance at improving organically. But I do think the safer bet, for having something I'd use, increased home values, and helping the image of UCity, would be to have some sort of new development to entice people to come to UCity.
Now that I see the layout, I admit the parking seems ridiculous.
Please tear me to shreds, I want to learn
.
I'm a UCity resident and I love all the stuff I'm seeing with the foundry, the grove, that cool development at Lafayette square... but all those are in more urban, dense areas. This is olive, a 5 lane road that is very car-oriented. I mean yeah it would be nice to have some mixed-use dense development, but I don't have the faith that all these small shops in worn out dated strips are going to rise up like everyone in this thread is predicting.
To me if the idea is either a brentwood-area type development or the current, I could be convinced to keep the current. The current shops aren't pretty but have a chance at improving organically. But I do think the safer bet, for having something I'd use, increased home values, and helping the image of UCity, would be to have some sort of new development to entice people to come to UCity.
Now that I see the layout, I admit the parking seems ridiculous.
Please tear me to shreds, I want to learn
.- 488
I think what everyone is saying is - why do you even need a proposal? It doesnt look new and shiny?
Lets say you get the Big Box store thing. How does that improve the image of U City? Honestly - I couldn't tell you why i would ever go to U City for another big box store. I can go to Brentwood. Id only go to U city to go to those restaurants you're talking about throwing out. That strip of Olive makes U City unique.
Maybe olive doesnt need to be 5 lanes and you could clean up the sidewalks around there? Perhaps that's a better proposal.
Lets say you get the Big Box store thing. How does that improve the image of U City? Honestly - I couldn't tell you why i would ever go to U City for another big box store. I can go to Brentwood. Id only go to U city to go to those restaurants you're talking about throwing out. That strip of Olive makes U City unique.
Maybe olive doesnt need to be 5 lanes and you could clean up the sidewalks around there? Perhaps that's a better proposal.
^Agreed. How does the proposed big-box development, lost in a sea of parking, enhance U. City's charm and unique character? It doesn't, and that's why it's a bad mistake. As an aging inner-ring suburb, U. City is already grappling with many issues facing the City of St. Louis- stagnant population, a less-than-stellar public school district, areas with high crime, and racial and economic segregation. Despite its challenges, it also has a reputation as an inclusive, progressive, diverse and historic community, and in general is regarded a jewel of St. Louis County. University City would be wise to recognize the qualities that distinguish it from other suburbs, and guide new development in a way that preserves those appealing traits, not erases them. Why would U. City want to take a giant step closer to looking and feeling like any other suburb? Because there are lots of other St. Louis County suburbs that are much better at being typical big-box suburbs, with better school districts and lower crime to boot. My point is, if U. City short-sightedly trades its diversity and smaller-scale commercial districts for anonymous big-box shopping centers, it will sabotage its greatest competitive advantage. I'm not saying that the 1950s-strip centers lining Olive Blvd. are beautiful or even charming, but they are functional and amazingly diverse by St. Louis standards. Think how this scrappy stretch of Olive could be transformed with investments in landscaping, lighting, signage and paint. And not a single existing business has to be sacrificed. Austin, Texas is chock-full of 1960s and 1970s-era strip centers, not unlike many of the little shopping strips found along Olive Blvd. But you know what? They sex 'em up with neon signs and a cool paint job, and these otherwise forgettable strip malls are filled with thriving small, independent businesses. There is a huge opportunity to reinvigorate this section of Olive, but the current proposal is not the answer. University City needs to uphold some minimum standards-- this site plan has none.
It's as if they've never driven down Page...stlgasm wrote: ↑Apr 10, 2018^Agreed. How does the proposed big-box development, lost in a sea of parking, enhance U. City's charm and unique character? It doesn't, and that's why it's a bad mistake. As an aging inner-ring suburb, U. City is already grappling with many issues facing the City of St. Louis- stagnant population, a less-than-stellar public school district, areas with high crime, and racial and economic segregation. Despite its challenges, it also has a reputation as an inclusive, progressive, diverse and historic community, and in general is regarded a jewel of St. Louis County. University City would be wise to recognize the qualities that distinguish it from other suburbs, and guide new development in a way that preserves those appealing traits, not erases them. Why would U. City want to take a giant step closer to looking and feeling like any other suburb? Because there are lots of other St. Louis County suburbs that are much better at being typical big-box suburbs, with better school districts and lower crime to boot. My point is, if U. City short-sightedly trades its diversity and smaller-scale commercial districts for anonymous big-box shopping centers, it will sabotage its greatest competitive advantage. I'm not saying that the 1950s-strip centers lining Olive Blvd. are beautiful or even charming, but they are functional and amazingly diverse by St. Louis standards. Think how this scrappy stretch of Olive could be transformed with investments in landscaping, lighting, signage and paint. And not a single existing business has to be sacrificed. Austin, Texas is chock-full of 1960s and 1970s-era strip centers, not unlike many of the little shopping strips found along Olive Blvd. But you know what? They sex 'em up with neon signs and a cool paint job, and these otherwise forgettable strip malls are filled with thriving small, independent businesses. There is a huge opportunity to reinvigorate this section of Olive, but the current proposal is not the answer. University City needs to uphold some minimum standards-- this site plan has none.
I can see both sides honestly. Arguments could be made for strategy that pushes incremental improvements with the hope that the area sees some organic upgrades - some of the ideas listed in this thread are legit options. The area has some diversity that is unique and worth efforts to preserve. It isn't designed to become a walking/pedestrian "main street" type of environment, but steps could be taken to move in that general direction and build on the character in place.
On the flip side, while I get the heartburn over suburban development, this is a suburban area. One that has treaded water for a long time, has definitely showed it age and hasn't seen much new investment. If they land Costco (and that is certainly who is represented in the rendering) that is a very big fish for U-City. I have no clue what the tax concessions will be and I'm sure there will be some, but Costco is a regional draw wherever it lands and that's not unique to St. Louis. This site is 10 miles outside of downtown next door to a highly trafficked highway. In almost every major market in the country - including some we would love to emulate like Denver, Seattle, Austin, Chicago - this type of development is being put in place.
We can get sentimental over niche restaurants and small grocers potentially displaced, etc. but it's also a bit ironic that some are lamenting the loss of two 1970's vintage suburban strip malls, a lumber yard and storage facility, all of which would be very low on the list of preferred development. If eminent domain is abused to grab houses, that's an issue, but it appears that there isn't much resistance from home-owners who will get a nice premium.
My personal opinion is that the overall development being proposed is a bit too parking-heavy and the supplemental retail on the south side of Olive could be configured to create a more attractive streetwall w/ requirements for updated sidewalks, lighting, etc. I'm not a fan of the parcel immediately east of Costco as that doesn't add much and the size of the suites shown mean it will inevitably be chain-driven. That said, I'd wager that existing businesses to the east (those untouched by the proposal obviously) are not upset at the idea of dropping a regional anchor on their doorstep.
And I can tell you with 100% certainty that those successful businesses being displaced are going to be pursued by other property owners along Olive.
On the flip side, while I get the heartburn over suburban development, this is a suburban area. One that has treaded water for a long time, has definitely showed it age and hasn't seen much new investment. If they land Costco (and that is certainly who is represented in the rendering) that is a very big fish for U-City. I have no clue what the tax concessions will be and I'm sure there will be some, but Costco is a regional draw wherever it lands and that's not unique to St. Louis. This site is 10 miles outside of downtown next door to a highly trafficked highway. In almost every major market in the country - including some we would love to emulate like Denver, Seattle, Austin, Chicago - this type of development is being put in place.
We can get sentimental over niche restaurants and small grocers potentially displaced, etc. but it's also a bit ironic that some are lamenting the loss of two 1970's vintage suburban strip malls, a lumber yard and storage facility, all of which would be very low on the list of preferred development. If eminent domain is abused to grab houses, that's an issue, but it appears that there isn't much resistance from home-owners who will get a nice premium.
My personal opinion is that the overall development being proposed is a bit too parking-heavy and the supplemental retail on the south side of Olive could be configured to create a more attractive streetwall w/ requirements for updated sidewalks, lighting, etc. I'm not a fan of the parcel immediately east of Costco as that doesn't add much and the size of the suites shown mean it will inevitably be chain-driven. That said, I'd wager that existing businesses to the east (those untouched by the proposal obviously) are not upset at the idea of dropping a regional anchor on their doorstep.
And I can tell you with 100% certainty that those successful businesses being displaced are going to be pursued by other property owners along Olive.
There are currently quite a few vacancies just east of the development area. I'm hoping U City makes some kind of effort to relocate the existing businesses into these spaces. Then, with some changes to the site plan, the new development could indeed draw traffic and serve as an anchor for the whole Olive strip.
One way or another, this project is going to happen. U City is desperate for new tax revenue. Response from existing property owners has been generally favorable. Most residents of U City seem to want this to move forward. The main thing at this point is to convince the City Council to force some reasonable changes to the development plan, and ensure protections for existing home owners and businesses in the affected area. Making our voices heard will be key.
- 289
StL City should be actively recruiting some of the displaced businesses to move to Delmar east of
Skinker.
Skinker.