That's a good question. Interco does back up against the old Star-Times building so it's possible there is some under there. But I don't know for sure.debaliviere wrote: Would it be possible to build a garage on Interco Plaza, or was the area under it filled in with foam as well?
The old Interco Plaza was also filled, with the sidewalks on the surface placed to resemble the old openings in the plaza. Not that a garage couldn't be built there, but there are some larger lots on the west side of Tucker that would probably make more sense for a centralized parking structure.
Stltoday - Post-Dispatch building developer seeks tax credits, subsidies to cover half of $70 million project
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 1a443.html
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 1a443.html
Construction has started. Fencing is up and a trash chute is on the backside of the building (no picture). Some windows have been removed
That's actually a pretty cool building. I never really stepped back and looked at it before.
^ I'm also a big fan. I'm not sure if this is the right spot for this but I found this cool video about the history of the Globe Building down the street. I had no idea the PD building was part of a significant plan for a large passenger/freight train terminal in this part of downtown. The Globe Building's history as a terminal for the Illinois Central (and it's corresponding Tucker tunnel) is well known, but I hadn't known the building was originally supposed to be; one, 20 stories tall with a superb Art Deco treatment and two, just a freight terminal. The original plan called for an even bigger building to the south that would have served passengers only that was never built. Very cool stuff. Lots of great shots of streetcars running in the tunnel, across the McKinley Bridge and others.
TIF Commission approved an $11.85 million TIF for this project.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... e=facebook
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... e=facebook
Any updated word on this project or on the idea of an innovation district nearby?
Just checked the Square jobs board. Seems like the only tech jobs are all in customer success and a handful of software engineering jobs. Having the entire customer success department is not terrible....can be pretty high paying jobs.
Fascinating info....another huge what-if in the history of Saint Louis....what if that executive didn't steal the millions and Saint Louis received that in rail infrastructure? How much closer would Saint Louis rail connectivity be to Chicago ?sc4mayor wrote: ↑Oct 15, 2019^ I'm also a big fan. I'm not sure if this is the right spot for this but I found this cool video about the history of the Globe Building down the street. I had no idea the PD building was part of a significant plan for a large passenger/freight train terminal in this part of downtown. The Globe Building's history as a terminal for the Illinois Central (and it's corresponding Tucker tunnel) is well known, but I hadn't known the building was originally supposed to be; one, 20 stories tall with a superb Art Deco treatment and two, just a freight terminal. The original plan called for an even bigger building to the south that would have served passengers only that was never built. Very cool stuff. Lots of great shots of streetcars running in the tunnel, across the McKinley Bridge and others.
It looks like they’ve been doing some work to the old Post Dispatch building. A trash chute is on the eastern side, some windows have been taken off and the building is fenced off.jay23 wrote:Any updated word on this project or on the idea of an innovation district nearby?
- 6,118
I don't think it would have made a very big difference. By the twenties the writing was already very much on the wall: Chicago had long since surpassed St. Louis in both rail traffic and population. Even for the IT it might not have made much difference. They were quirky and interesting railroad that was part commuter interurban and part industrial switching railroad, but in the grand scheme of things they were always a rather small and quite local player. The amount stolen was really only about the cost of another building and not a patch on the rail infrastructure we already had. The Eads Bridge alone had cost about twice as much fifty years earlier. It wouldn't have made IT even the fourth largest railroad in town. Honestly, not even the fifth. Had the interstate highways never become reality they probably would have survived even without the extra three bills. Twice as much money still wouldn't have been enough to keep them afloat any longer than they were. The only real difference it likely made was the extra stories on the building. Three million sounds like a lot, but . . . it really wasn't. Not even then. Not on an industrial scale. It's not chump change, but it's just a building budget. One more railroad station in a city that was already swimming in them.RuskiSTL wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2019Fascinating info....another huge what-if in the history of Saint Louis....what if that executive didn't steal the millions and Saint Louis received that in rail infrastructure? How much closer would Saint Louis rail connectivity be to Chicago ?
- 1,868
I think the geographic location of Chicago made its rail hub status pretty inevitable. It had local access to the goods (particularly grain and cattle) demanded by Eastern cities.RuskiSTL wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2019Fascinating info....another huge what-if in the history of Saint Louis....what if that executive didn't steal the millions and Saint Louis received that in rail infrastructure? How much closer would Saint Louis rail connectivity be to Chicago ?
- 2,928
^Also key to Chicago is their geographic location at the furthest inland access point from the Great Lakes, with direct access to large freighters from the Atlantic. Freighter-based shipping being cheaper than rail-based shipping, it made sense for many ships to bypass harbors along the eastern seaboard to instead have their cargo transited across the Great Lakes to harbor in Chicago, where their cargo can then be sent via rail at lower gross costs. Chicago's rail network was originally fed by this cargo and furthered its development into the primary rail hub in the US. If there wasn't any access to Lake Michigan from the Atlantic over a hundred years ago, then Toledo would be the size of Chicago, with a giant rail hub, and Chicago would be the size of Toledo today.
Recognizing that we are off-topic, I'll stop talking about legacy rail hubs. Thanks
Recognizing that we are off-topic, I'll stop talking about legacy rail hubs. Thanks
Maybe there's a more relevant topic to talk (mods feel free to move) about this but....
I think St. Louis was/is the best geographic location for a rail hub....then especially more than now. If you consolidate Philly as one metro area and NYC with Brooklyn, your top 15 metros in 1850:
NYC, Philly, Baltimore, Boston, New Orleans, Cincy, St. Louis, Albany, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Charleston, Buffalo, Providence, D.C, Newark. (southern cities in bold)
Chicago was number 18, not far ahead of Richmond.
St. Louis being the major hub makes a lot more sense. As mentioned, water going freight is/was much more cost efficient than rail. St. Louis has a true N/S line on the river, sending goods down to New Orleans and out to sea seems a lot faster/cheaper than going all the way around the lakes. New Orleans was crazy rich back then for a reason, and Charleston too! And if you look at linking East/West... STL to Cincy/Louisiville and onward to Pittsburgh/DC is a lot more efficient than heading all the way North to Chicago before heading east. Most of the traffic was coming from/heading to Texas and SF.
So why Chicago? Politics.
1. St. Louis' own backward politics that pushed the first rail crossing of the Mississippi up to Rock Bridge by the middle of the 1850s. Which then setup a little lawyer named Abe Lincoln getting involved with Rock Island Railroad in a landmark case, helping push him to prominence.
2. It was there he became close with Thomas Durant, who would be influential in pushing the Transcontinental Railroad through Omaha and Council Bluffs, Iowa rather than the more sensible Kansas City (2/3 options were for Missouri and the original federal surveys were from St. Louis). I think I read somewhere that Lincoln even had some land speculation of his own based around the railroads and made some nice coin. And this was all helped by Lincoln's push to avoid federal dollars being spent on Southern slave states.
If Saint Louis' steamboat interests don't block a bridge, the rail goes through Saint Louis and Saint Louis becomes the much more sensible Spoke and Wheel intermodal connector for the entire country.
Northeast:( STL-CHI-(MIL/DET)
East north: STL-CIN-(CLE/PIT-PHL-NYC),
East south: STL-LOU-RICH-(DC/BAL)
Southeast: STL-CHAT-ATL-CHAR
Southwest: STL-LIT/SGF-(HOU/SF)
West: STL-KC-Den-(SLC/SAC)
Does Chicago still play a role? Yes. The Northeast would need to be connected. But it's interesting to imagine how differently things play out if a couple key moments went differently. Damn you backward southern politicians!
I think St. Louis was/is the best geographic location for a rail hub....then especially more than now. If you consolidate Philly as one metro area and NYC with Brooklyn, your top 15 metros in 1850:
NYC, Philly, Baltimore, Boston, New Orleans, Cincy, St. Louis, Albany, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Charleston, Buffalo, Providence, D.C, Newark. (southern cities in bold)
Chicago was number 18, not far ahead of Richmond.
St. Louis being the major hub makes a lot more sense. As mentioned, water going freight is/was much more cost efficient than rail. St. Louis has a true N/S line on the river, sending goods down to New Orleans and out to sea seems a lot faster/cheaper than going all the way around the lakes. New Orleans was crazy rich back then for a reason, and Charleston too! And if you look at linking East/West... STL to Cincy/Louisiville and onward to Pittsburgh/DC is a lot more efficient than heading all the way North to Chicago before heading east. Most of the traffic was coming from/heading to Texas and SF.
So why Chicago? Politics.
1. St. Louis' own backward politics that pushed the first rail crossing of the Mississippi up to Rock Bridge by the middle of the 1850s. Which then setup a little lawyer named Abe Lincoln getting involved with Rock Island Railroad in a landmark case, helping push him to prominence.
2. It was there he became close with Thomas Durant, who would be influential in pushing the Transcontinental Railroad through Omaha and Council Bluffs, Iowa rather than the more sensible Kansas City (2/3 options were for Missouri and the original federal surveys were from St. Louis). I think I read somewhere that Lincoln even had some land speculation of his own based around the railroads and made some nice coin. And this was all helped by Lincoln's push to avoid federal dollars being spent on Southern slave states.
If Saint Louis' steamboat interests don't block a bridge, the rail goes through Saint Louis and Saint Louis becomes the much more sensible Spoke and Wheel intermodal connector for the entire country.
Northeast:( STL-CHI-(MIL/DET)
East north: STL-CIN-(CLE/PIT-PHL-NYC),
East south: STL-LOU-RICH-(DC/BAL)
Southeast: STL-CHAT-ATL-CHAR
Southwest: STL-LIT/SGF-(HOU/SF)
West: STL-KC-Den-(SLC/SAC)
Does Chicago still play a role? Yes. The Northeast would need to be connected. But it's interesting to imagine how differently things play out if a couple key moments went differently. Damn you backward southern politicians!
- 1,794
Not only was Chicago's location close to the livestock and grain, it was far enough North that they could harvest enough ice for year round meat packing and thus supplanting Cincinnati as the America's meat packing center.MarkHaversham wrote: ↑Dec 16, 2019I think the geographic location of Chicago made its rail hub status pretty inevitable. It had local access to the goods (particularly grain and cattle) demanded by Eastern cities.RuskiSTL wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2019Fascinating info....another huge what-if in the history of Saint Louis....what if that executive didn't steal the millions and Saint Louis received that in rail infrastructure? How much closer would Saint Louis rail connectivity be to Chicago ?
I think the thread has derailed if you don't my bad attempt at a pun.
Winnerdredger wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019I think the thread has derailed if you don't my bad attempt at a pun.
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ne ... s#stream/0
"The idea to set up a district downtown stemmed from a common problem that exists in most cities.
"Really, we had a parking problem," Berglund said. "The expansion of the convention center, which is a very necessary thing but unfortunately is taking out a thousand cars."
A parking study is underway, but those talks have examined ways to make the area stronger and that led to the innovation district."
WUT?
"The idea to set up a district downtown stemmed from a common problem that exists in most cities.
"Really, we had a parking problem," Berglund said. "The expansion of the convention center, which is a very necessary thing but unfortunately is taking out a thousand cars."
A parking study is underway, but those talks have examined ways to make the area stronger and that led to the innovation district."
WUT?
They won't say it directly, but I think they are talking about their need for secure, structured parking for the 1,200 Square employees and the other potential innovation district tenants, P-D employees, etc., and how to pay for that. Plus, the large garage at 9th / Cole will be demolished for the convention center expansion. I'd guess that, unlike Cortex, surface parking in this area is going to be a non-starter for most potential tenants, at least for the foreseeable future. Creating the innovation district may help them find the financing to fund construction of a large, dedicated garage upfront.ImprovSTL wrote: ↑Jan 02, 2020https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ne ... s#stream/0
"The idea to set up a district downtown stemmed from a common problem that exists in most cities.
"Really, we had a parking problem," Berglund said. "The expansion of the convention center, which is a very necessary thing but unfortunately is taking out a thousand cars."
A parking study is underway, but those talks have examined ways to make the area stronger and that led to the innovation district."
WUT?
^ Can back that up...
I’ve had two coworkers lose locked vehicles from the lot at Tucker and Convention Plaza.
I’m not easy to fear away, but I discourage everyone I know to avoid the surface parking lots north of Washington.
I’ve had two coworkers lose locked vehicles from the lot at Tucker and Convention Plaza.
I’m not easy to fear away, but I discourage everyone I know to avoid the surface parking lots north of Washington.
- 9,539
This is ridiculous- the city better not spend a penny in incentives for a garage. There is no parking problem downtown. Grow a pair and walk 2-3 blocks. More people walking the safer it is and it’s already safe
Not disagreeing, but do you feel the same about the new Cortex garage?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 03, 2020This is ridiculous- the city better not spend a penny in incentives for a garage. There is no parking problem downtown. Grow a pair and walk 2-3 blocks. More people walking the safer it is and it’s already safe