urbanSTL

I'm wondering if the development wouldn't be better off if you could put the signature hotel or at least what is rendered in the southeast corner (Grand & Chouteau).   As rendered, it appears they want t go above and beyond the standard cookie cutter freeway hotel so why not put it in the more attractive, more visual corner? Especially a full service hotel that will be able to maintain a restaurant/bar over/outdoor deck space over time.  Plus, I think visual appearance and perception of safety in seeing your hotel to and from the Grand Ave metrolink is a plus but is hard to quantify but meaningful for those visiting.  Or is the current hotel location more of an vehicle access issue ?   

I just picture an underwhelming medical arts building in the corner at the end of the day and maybe an up chain/full service hotel not as visible and therefore not as viable.  So I think the development would be better off swapping locations of the two on the site plan - hotel and office building.  Understand that you would have to rethink parking for hotel guests and their cards.  But anyone with similar thoughts?  

^The primary objective of the hotel proposal is to serve the medical center and med school campus across the street, and visitors thereof.  They want a hotel with a conference center / event space with a dedicated parking garage for that purpose.  That would require easy in-and-out shuttle bus and car access.  Since Spring Avenue will provide the only signalized access to the Iron Hill property, the hotel has to (from their perspective)  be on that SW corner.  They could not care less about the Grand Metro station.

Frankly, if they want a conference center hotel with easy vehicle access to serve the medical center, then SLU / SSM should just build one on their dozens of empty acres south of Chouteau.  They could put it right next to their swathe of green space and patrons could actually walk to and from the medical center.  Ha, did I just coin a new nickname?  Empty Acres...

But if I were planning a hotel here, I would split the Iron Hill garage and push it south about 80'.  Then put an L-shaped hotel on the NE corner of Iron Hill, and give it a 2 to 3--story dual-entrance lobby, with a vehicle turnaround, garage access, and porte cochere on the west side of the hotel, with access from Gratiot.  And then, the pedestrian entrance from Iron Hill, and the hotel restaurant, bar and common space would be at roughly the same grade as the Grand viaduct (20' to 25' above Gratiot), with windows overlooking south into Iron Hill and east to Grand.  Widen the Grand Ave. sidewalk, give the building a 30' setback, then put outdoor seating along the east side of the building along Grand.  The conference center / event space could go on top of the garage.  And ya, I know, nobody asked me...

^ I still see an island to itself.  Yes, they have the one slide showing connectivity with neighborhood/arrows & dotted lines pointing in every direction but go through the site plans and you get one big linear garage structure along Gratiot Ave with driveways leading into parking garage from the main boulevards   This will create a wall with the one street that might be become a very walkable and part of a very dense interesting area whether it be greenway/pedestrian crossings to Armory/Foundry to north and or Steelcote/maybe topgolf via under the viaduct to the East. 

The geography fits this design with a flat parcel with a small hill falling off to Gratiot but at end of day I see the developers thinking one thing and only one thing, get cars to pull into the garage and people stay put.   Its Highlands on steroids and the one that is evident about Highlands is they built in separation from Forest Park Community College campus by not having any access with the one street that had the development on one side and FPCC on the other side.  So I think it matters what is on the site plans, what is actually being built instead of a map pointing to all this stuff that is around them.  Brochures are easy

In defense of developers, their priority is their development not next door.   So I'm wondering if their will be any true pushback from SLU and or City or simply accept whatever gets proposed.

^That RFP is almost 6 months old, but anyway...you should look closely at the site and earthwork plans on there.  The details of those plans contradict every aspect of the idea that "the developers are set on these interconnections coming into being".  They aren't just developing an island, they are creating an elevated fortress on that island, with limited access and retaining walls all around, along Gratiot, Grand, and part of Spring, which curiously looks just like Streets of St. Charles...

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Dec 09, 2019

^I get it, but I also give them some deference when it comes to the topography of the site. It's a hill boxed in by elevation, two major streets, and the rail yards. Reconnecting itself to a traditional urban grid would be damn tough, as it would be cut off from the other sites anyways. This gives me some hope that there could be reasonable non-vehicle approach options and walkability to other proximate sites, and moreso the viability of proximate developments succeeding with all the pieces forming a whole area, even if each one seeks to be self-sustaining and not dependent on the others (whatever they may be). 

As for that parking garage, I do like that it's vertical and addresses their elevation issues. But, we still haven't seen what this development will look like looking south, say from the Armory or 64/40. I don't want to just see 3-4 stories of vertical parking sticking out; here's hoping they make it look pretty and integrated. 

Looking south, you'll see a nearly 700' long x 54' tall precast concrete parking garage, sitting on top of a 14' tall retaining wall at the end closest to Grand Ave.  There won't be much else to see, except for the back of the big box retail building next to, and in the face of, southbound Grand Ave. drivers. 

The back of that big box (likely a blank wall w/ signage) will be at least 20' tall, sitting on top of a 36' tall retaining wall, which is on top of a very steep 10' landscaped berm sloping down to Gratiot St.  The finished floor of that big box store will be 25' above the surface of southbound Grand, with only a 40' setback.

gone corporate wrote: ↑
1:23 PM - 1 day ago
^Perhaps we're seeing different things. I don't really see the building at the NE corner of the site being a full-on big box retailer site, but it being retail on the bottom floor of the residential building. See page 10 in the RFP; that looks like multiple retail bays are available for that specific building. Noting that the building is designed for a "retail anchor" (as stated on page 6), I don't see the building being just a big box retailer, but a retail site on the ground floor of 10+ stories of residential. 

Renderings aren't accurate, and that rendering on pg. 10 shows several things directly contradicted by the prelim. site plan on pg. 15.  All of the important site info is contained in pages 6,15-17 (and you can zoom in on those site plans to read the small print).  The rest is marketing and political fluff. 

The Use Site Plans have always shown that NE corner as dedicated for a "Retail Anchor", and have shown it to be one space, around 28k sf.  The rest of the development has many smaller retail bays and restaurant spaces, but that is the only one over 13k sf.  I don't know what they envision there, but a big box anchor for a lifestyle center has to be a big name, maybe a unique-to-the-region draw, like Crate & Barrel is for The Boulevard, or at least something that pulls people to Iron Hill from all of the city and inner burbs.

It would be inefficient and unnecessarily expensive to build a 9-story L-shaped residential building on top of a large open space like that, and most potential retail anchors would really hate all of the columns, bracing and/or shear walls interrupting their pricey retail space.  Also, that 7-story residential "bridge" over the parking garage access lanes is pure fantasy.

So unless they dramatically alter the site plan, any Phase I residential building will be similar to what you see in the center of the Aerial View, in front of the garage, with small ground floor retail bays.  And even if there were a residential building built over the NE corner retail space, it isn't going to improve the look of the huge parking garage, massive retaining walls and berms towering over Grand and Gratiot.

Does anyone have any more information on a start date? I’m not very optimistic about this and other “mega-developments” along Chouteau.

The Armory leasing flyer shows a majority of office space unclaimed and the Foundry is still missing major retail tenants.

I’m just not convinced there’s enough demand for Sarah/Cortex by KDG, Foundry II, Armory II, Steelcoat Lofts additions, North Lafayette Square, and Chouteau Landing developments.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well this project has put up “now leasing” signs at the site already so I guess it’s still on

I think this projects can get done. One thing I would like for St. Louis to do is focus more on comprehensive planning. A lot of the projects we see are so isolated from each other. What I see in other cities is that new projects are often clustered together in a more urban form. Maybe it's just the fragmented nature of our city/region, but we need to do a much better job with finding a focus area and building that out before spreading out. What happens in St. Louis is that we ended up with 20 moderately vibrant urban districts instead of 5 truly bustling and vibrant districts. I personally would love if all central corridor development was focused on Downtown, Grand Center, CWE, Delmar Loop, Grove. I understand that our infrastructure is way too big for our current population, but man we got to find a better way. Also, St. Louis is building a lot of entertainment districts with trendy shops, restaurants, and retail, but I still think that we have to do a better job chasing residents (even more hotels would be a win), because that is what drives retail that doesn't need to be subsidize. Overall, we have a pretty solid entertainment presence for a region of 3 million. Although I do think St. Louis does a crap job as far as aesthetic presentation and tourism. CVC is clueless in my opinion. 

^ I think you see some of that centralized urban areas growing within downtown/west downtown making slow and steady progress back from brink of the 80's (think Square/NoW, CVC expansion, BPV, MLS stadium, hotels progressing) and within CWE/CORTEX (think One Hundred, hotels being built, the Sandcrawler breaking ground, Wash U).   It will be interesting if enough demand will be there on a strong but slower growth economy to get boundary developments such Foundry Phase II and or KDG near CWE?CORTEX or if you Chouteau/Lafayette Square, Lacledes/Chouteau Landings gain momentum.

Specific to Iron Hill I think you will see it morph to more what it can land tenant wise whether hotel or med offices and so forth.  To me what will be more exciting is if Steelcote can pull off some infill, tie it into the industrial area & future greenway while bringing something different like Top Golf.      

If the Steelcote building is a success, I will never doubt the visionary capacity of its developer - because from where I sit, it looks like the weirdest damn location to try to establish a residential urban "district." It's so isolated...it's basically in a trainyard under a bridge.

This doesn't REALLY matter, but there are some interesting placemarkers for some of our more notable sites in the RFP (see Union Station, Busch Stadium, and CityGarden)

^Mapping fail much? I can understand making a map somewhat abstract. I can understand making it more of a diagram and less of a picture. But putting things way on the wrong side of massive landmarks? People will turn the wrong direction and actually fail to fund stuff.

Hopefully no one actually uses this for directions.

JacksonPolyp wrote: ↑

Feb 04, 2020

If the Steelcote building is a success, I will never doubt the visionary capacity of its developer - because from where I sit, it looks like the weirdest damn location to try to establish a residential urban "district." It's so isolated...it's basically in a trainyard under a bridge.

He's got a long-term plan for that area which includes more ground up development including residential, commercial, and possibly a hotel.

CityScene's article has some more information than the Post-Dispatch. I don't really like the approach they are taking regarding phases. The entire Chouteau and Spring frontage won't be developed right away. At least with Grand, you are getting it partially developed. Chris also mentions that there is no indication that the buildings were redesigned, which is disappointing since the current designs are uninspiring and ugly. Overall, it seems that this will go from being relatively quiet to being in the news more often. First, the Planning Commission meeting, now the TIF Commission, then whatever tenants they'll announce (if any), and then a groundbreaking. 

This will be exciting to watch.

https://www.cityscene-stl.com/post/iron ... ng-forward

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Feb 05, 2020

^Mapping fail much? I can understand making a map somewhat abstract. I can understand making it more of a diagram and less of a picture. But putting things way on the wrong side of massive landmarks? People will turn the wrong direction and actually fail to fund stuff.

Hopefully no one actually uses this for directions.

And it manages to use an erroneous name for both of the two universities it includes.