That makes a lot of sense. I think it could work. Its a lot of land to fill though. It could take decades.quincunx wrote: ↑Feb 13, 2020A radio report this morning said they want to turn it into a mixed-use urban downtown.
I work in a building next to the mall, the place is just sad.
There's a lot of money out there. Boomers in 3000+sq ft houses and 1 acre lots that don't need all that any more.
20 years ago I was at a lunch and the main speaker was high up in one of the big broker firms here in town (now retired)framer wrote: ↑Feb 17, 2020Sachs Properties, the original developer of Chesterfield village, has been proposing various forms of "Downtown Chesterfield" since at least the 1970s. Early on they had envisioned something like another Clayton, with numerous high-rise buildings. Here are a couple of more modest proposals from 2007:
Hmmm... 100 million wont buy a whole lot of "downtown"quincunx wrote: ↑Feb 18, 2020Stltoday - Chesterfield Mall sold; new owner plans a development called Downtown Chesterfield
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 43fd9.html
This. The pettiness on my news feed yesterday really underscored some of what's wrong with this region. We should celebrate density and urbanism wherever it sprouts, and hold developers & municipalities accountable for fulfilling their promises. A vibrant Chesterfield is good for the city just as a vibrant city is good for Chesterfield.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Feb 18, 2020I am happy to see a renewed ambition to create an urban center and provide a sense of place in Chesterfield. It feels hypocritical to mock Chesterfield for a lack of urbanity, then mock it for trying to create an urban core. This is exactly what we have all been saying they are missing and they should be doing. Kudos.
That said, this will take years and probably a few decades, and in that time i can't imagine much of anything over 10 stories being built. I think Clayton and Downtown are safely going to be the market leaders in their category for a while.
I do applaud density however this will do absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of car dependency and wasteful building and living. This is another example of every part of the region wanting their own piece of the pie. Exactly as quincunx was saying, in order to have truly great spaces and amenities in this region, we have to concentrate customers (for lack of a better word) in just a couple areas. The only reason The Plaza in KC is able to support some of the stores it does is because it's a regional destination. Unfortunately some of those stores have closed in the past ten years as places like Legends have grown. The exact same story goes for every mid-sized European city. Athens, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, etc. can support crazy nice shopping streets because they're the only "malls" in the entire region. And I'm not just talking about malls, this applies to restaurants, museums, concert venues, zoos, etc.FirSTLove11 wrote: ↑Feb 18, 2020This. The pettiness on my news feed yesterday really underscored some of what's wrong with this region. We should celebrate density and urbanism wherever it sprouts, and hold developers & municipalities accountable for fulfilling their promises. A vibrant Chesterfield is good for the city just as a vibrant city is good for Chesterfield.
Don't get me wrong, I think DT Chesterfield is a good idea, and actually good for the metro.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Feb 18, 2020I am happy to see a renewed ambition to create an urban center and provide a sense of place in Chesterfield. It feels hypocritical to mock Chesterfield for a lack of urbanity, then mock it for trying to create an urban core. This is exactly what we have all been saying they are missing and they should be doing. Kudos.
That said, this will take years and probably a few decades, and in that time i can't imagine much of anything over 10 stories being built. I think Clayton and Downtown are safely going to be the market leaders in their category for a while.
