urbanSTL

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Nov 15, 2019

With no retail in the office building or the garage, you've got the makings of an extremely uninviting, unwalkable environment along Chouteau, where a future Metrolink station will be. 

Fixed. 

You're probably right. I just saw that Donald Trump is eliminating a lot of federal transit funding for roads. 

That may have killed any hopes for Metrolink expansion in St. Louis, or streetcar expansion in Kansas City.

It really depends on who is sitting in the oval office come 2021. I could see any "Green New Deal" throwing some crazy money towards shovel ready transit projects around the country. 

Also that garage makes me die inside

Wonder if they are dragging the Metrolink out in hopes of that.

The surface lot really is senseless.  If you're going to build a garage, just put it where the surface lot is.  I do not get it.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Nov 15, 2019

^^ it's not even a "back" parking lot. it's a prominent street-fronting lot. what's the point of a parking structure if you're just going to plop a surface lot right next to it? god, what a terrible, hopeless intersection. the pedestrians in that rendering are hilarious. a f***ing stroller!

To be fair, I have seen a few people pushing strollers along Chouteau.  I doubt there were babies in them, at least I hope not, but they were definitely strollers...  

I do think it would be a better development even if it takes longer if they could add another structure along Chouteau and incorporate a longer, skinnner parking structure on the backside.   Can see the surface lot being built on one day but doesn't like the outcome would be as good

As far ground floor retail.   Online is only going to increase and brick & mortor only going to shrink.   I don't think ground floor retail is a big need for this development and if not mistaken, aren't you a realitive short walk to retail that exists in or around Lafayette Square already?  Rather see an existing area get added boost of additional housing and office nearby instead of flooding the area with significant amount of ground floor space coming up for lease. 

shadrach wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

I understand everyone’s complaint over the surface lot but for as long as I’ve been in St. Louis (since 1972) that entire block was always a surface lot for the Mack truck dealer.

OK, so by that metric, we shouldn't even try to increase land productivity.  Especially along a future (hopefully) transit line.
It's a simple solution.  Phase the build out and put the garage behind the office building.  Why so difficult? Why must every heartening plan be approached with a hacksaw direction to just fill in empty land with pointless drivel construction to give an illusion of density?

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

shadrach wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

I understand everyone’s complaint over the surface lot but for as long as I’ve been in St. Louis (since 1972) that entire block was always a surface lot for the Mack truck dealer.

OK, so by that metric, we shouldn't even try to increase land productivity.  Especially along a future (hopefully) transit line.
It's a simple solution.  Phase the build out and put the garage behind the office building.  Why so difficult? Why must every heartening plan be approached with a hacksaw direction to just fill in empty land with pointless drivel construction to give an illusion of density?

Maybe they are just following the same urban development dictum as Iron Hill, City Foundry, and Cortex?  And that is this:  If you are going to develop a large mixed-use project in the city of St. Louis, you must erect as many physical and psychological barriers as possible around the perimeter, to buffer your sensitive residents and patrons from all of that nasty urbanness.

Landscaped retaining walls, surface lots with fencing, parking garages, and well-secured, inaccessible backs of buildings all make great buffers.

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

As far ground floor retail.   Online is only going to increase and brick & mortor only going to shrink.   I don't think ground floor retail is a big need for this development and if not mistaken, aren't you a realitive short walk to retail that exists in or around Lafayette Square already?  Rather see an existing area get added boost of additional housing and office nearby instead of flooding the area with significant amount of ground floor space coming up for lease. 

It would be a 10-15 minute wall to the lone retail shop in Lafayette square, which is just a little gift shop type place. The rest is restaurants, dry cleaners, yoga, and small offices.

Isn’t there a QT across the street? What other retail could you ask for?

Also of note, the elevated bike lane on the eastbound lanes. Usually I’d write that off as rendering nonsense, but Ive spoken with the designers involved who say they’ve worked with MoDOT in development and have also included larger conversations about “near-term” improvements along a lot of Chouteau.

This will directly connect to Jefferson/20th Street elevated/protected bike lanes. Meaning, by 2023, you’ll be able to bike from this development to MLS/Gateway Mall to NGA fully separated from traffic.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

shadrach wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

I understand everyone’s complaint over the surface lot but for as long as I’ve been in St. Louis (since 1972) that entire block was always a surface lot for the Mack truck dealer.

OK, so by that metric, we shouldn't even try to increase land productivity.  Especially along a future (hopefully) transit line.
It's a simple solution.  Phase the build out and put the garage behind the office building.  Why so difficult? Why must every heartening plan be approached with a hacksaw direction to just fill in empty land with pointless drivel construction to give an illusion of density?

No, by that metric, this would directly increase land productivity. It has always been a surface parking lot, now it would be a 150K sq ft office building and a smaller surface lot.
I agree that a surface lot fronting Jefferson is very sub-optimal, though.

^ i think the point is more that it's pulling teeth to get developers in St. Louis to maximize land productivity–or even just consider that anyone might be commuting outside of a car. it's always this slow, agonizing, sub-optimal process of shifting pavement around, and maybe every so often there's a net loss of one or two parking space across the city. yes, granted, most people in St. Louis still drive everywhere because the transit is sub-par and most of the city is hostile to pedestrians and cyclists. so parking is necessary and the prophecy fulfills itself and on and on. but a street-fronting garage right around the corner from a street-fronting surface lot? it's like they don't even give a sh*t. or maybe there are plans for another building on the surface lot 20 years down the road. in the mean time it will still suck for everyone not speeding through the intersection at 50 MPH.

newstl2020 wrote: ↑

Nov 17, 2019

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

shadrach wrote: ↑

Nov 16, 2019

I understand everyone’s complaint over the surface lot but for as long as I’ve been in St. Louis (since 1972) that entire block was always a surface lot for the Mack truck dealer.

OK, so by that metric, we shouldn't even try to increase land productivity.  Especially along a future (hopefully) transit line.
It's a simple solution.  Phase the build out and put the garage behind the office building.  Why so difficult? Why must every heartening plan be approached with a hacksaw direction to just fill in empty land with pointless drivel construction to give an illusion of density?

No, by that metric, this would directly increase land productivity. It has always been a surface parking lot, now it would be a 150K sq ft office building and a smaller surface lot.
I agree that a surface lot fronting Jefferson is very sub-optimal, though.

It won't be a 150k sf office building either, so it will likely just be a newer, shinier parking lot.  

What is the rationale for proposing that much office space here?  At least at Iron Hill there is potential demand by outpatient services and ancillary medical offices serving the hospital expansion across the street, and maybe some highway visibility.  But what does this location offer other than decent views of downtown and midtown/CWE over the acres of warehouse roof to the north and the QuikTrip canopy to the west?

^There are 150K office buildings littering the metro area, many of which overlook acres of warehouses and QuickTrip canopys. What is your rationale for not having one here? Because it's the city and no company would want to locate here as opposed to an outbuilding behind a shopping plaza in Sunset Hills?

If the only thing you have to "add" to a discussion is that you don't think it will happen, why not just sit the convo out?

EDIT: (Also, to answer your question on location (which you answered yourself in your own post) tremendous views and access, being extremely close to both highway 40 and 44. A major corporate headquarters three blocks to the East (Ameren). Many bars and restaurants extremely close by. A very high livability factor for potential employees, with a large number of housing options and neighborhoods within 10 minutes. Extremely quick uber rides to all sporting events/hotels. Potential to be on a future N/S metro line. Etc. etc. etc.)

Let the value engineering begin, as they say.

It's really hard to blame developers when the city doesn't really have a plan of how it would like to develop. We don't even have form based code in downtown, while just recently got it in the CWE and Grove. 

newstl2020 wrote: ↑

Nov 18, 2019

^There are 150K office buildings littering the metro area, many of which overlook acres of warehouses and QuickTrip canopys. What is your rationale for not having one here? Because it's the city and no company would want to locate here as opposed to an outbuilding behind a shopping plaza in Sunset Hills?

If the only thing you have to "add" to a discussion is that you don't think it will happen, why not just sit the convo out?

EDIT: (Also, to answer your question on location (which you answered yourself in your own post) tremendous views and access, being extremely close to both highway 40 and 44. A major corporate headquarters three blocks to the East (Ameren). Many bars and restaurants extremely close by. A very high livability factor for potential employees, with a large number of housing options and neighborhoods within 10 minutes. Extremely quick uber rides to all sporting events/hotels. Potential to be on a future N/S metro line. Etc. etc. etc.)

Why should I "sit the convo out"?  I made an observation, and asked follow-up questions.  Maybe if you thought about, and made an honest attempt to answer, the questions I posed, instead of erecting and burning down strawmen, you might comprehend the reasoning behind my observation.

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Nov 19, 2019

goat314 wrote: ↑

Nov 18, 2019

It's really hard to blame developers when the city doesn't really have a plan of how it would like to develop. We don't even have form based code in downtown, while just recently got it in the CWE and Grove. 

True.  But it isn't just a matter of lack of direction, the city is actively encouraging these kitchen sink, self-contained-island proposals.

Agreed.