urbanSTL

Speaking only for myself, I agree that the more parking the better because that's what this market will demand. Some people may not like it, but STL isn't any different than 90% of the major metro areas in the country that are heavily car dependent.  I just don't think they should label it infrastructure and get tax incentives to build it.

As for Streets of St. Charles, I can get disputing the word "urban" because it means a lot of different things, but the design style is absolutely based on fabricating a walkable work/live/play environment and dropping them in places that otherwise don't have the organic urban setting that it's modeled after.  St. Louis is far from the only market where developers plant these mixed-use projects all over and they often see the best response in otherwise suburban enclaves like St. Charles.

The idea that people shop there because they like the tenants and it has nothing to do with the physical development is a chicken/egg argument. Certain types of tenants lease space in these developments because they know customers are attracted to them.  I'd wager that probably 75% of the tenants at Streets of St. Charles had no interest in locating their store in a non-descript strip mall on First Capitol. 

Problem is that there are only so many of those tenants to go around in a stagnant market like St. Louis and how many of them are looking to take a 5,000sf restaurant space in the middle of an area that is already restaurant heavy? How many 20,000sf anchors are sniffing around Midtown, especially after Foundry plucked out the ones they wanted?

Maybe Iron Hill will capitalize on the hospital traffic coupled with Steelcote and a possible Top Golf and the area will turn into a vibrant, dense corridor that is churning out tax revenue. Although under the current proposal, it would take a while for the city to see any of it.

billikens_19 wrote: ↑

Feb 13, 2020

jbacott wrote: ↑

Feb 13, 2020

Just my opinion, but I don't see how a Streets of St. Charles lifestyle concept works in an area like this. It's a regional draw in St. Charles because there is nothing else that replicates the urban environment, but the polar opposite is true here. Within spitting distance you have the Grove, CWE, soon to be Foundry, Midtown, Lafayette Sq.etc.

This is just a sad reality that urbanists in St. Louis have to accept. We can't expect people to abandon their cars, hop on the train, get off at the Grand station, and walk to Iron Hill. St. Louis will continue to be car-centric because its current light-rail system is only two lines and a big chunk of it goes through farmland in Illinois. If we had a system like New York, Chicago, or DC, then the proposed parking for Iron Hill would be a fraction of what it is.

All in all, I look forward to seeing this thing get built, even if the NIMBYs in this forum disagree

Agree with your thoughts, but I honestly don't think people think that the development itself having parking is the issue.  Everyone gets that aspect as well as the fact that most of us understand the simple economics of any parking underground is far by more expensive to build and therefore a region like St. Louis it will be used sparingly because the development won't pencil out without a premium on its lease rates, heavy subsidies.

The issue I have & others I believe and what I think will be a missed opportunity is how the one big linear parking structure as it is currently planned/rendered relates to Gratiot, future Greenway and future neighbors to north that might or might not get built up but if area continues to develop it will  drive foot traffic from a third source and therefore giving brick and mortar retail, eating establishments a better chance to survive over the long run  (SLU hospital and auto being initial drivers of foot traffic).    I think Highland is good representative at end of day.   Solid development that succeeded but hasn't attracted much retail and has turnover in the restaurant space.   I think a big part of that is the missed opportunity to offer  a more grid like street/interaction to FP Community college to the East and to the neighborhood to the south.    

I would assume at the end of day that development of size and magnitude would rather design to drive development around it even if it is competing with such development.   Instead, it seems to have taking the auto centric approach to the point that it won't see much other foot traffic outside of the auto or from SLU Hospital.   Yes, it will work, you can't get away from parking and might work very well for Streets of St. Charles but the city should absolutely promote as much connectivity in as much ways as possible because at the end of the day your in a city. 

Can anyone think of an example of a large, self-contained and insulated lifestyle center like this built from the ground up inside the city limits of a major US city?  I'm sure there are examples in some newer cities like Nashville, Austin, Charlotte, etc. with which I am unfamiliar, but I'm a bit stumped to find anything comparable to this proposal. 

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Feb 14, 2020

Can anyone think of an example of a large, self-contained and insulated lifestyle center like this built from the ground up inside the city limits of a major US city?  I'm sure there are examples in some newer cities like Nashville, Austin, Charlotte, etc. with which I am unfamiliar, but I'm a bit stumped to find anything comparable to this proposal. 

Tampa is building one right now only a couple miles from Downtown Tampa. It's called Midtown Tampa. 



I'm also pretty confident that Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, and Dallas have already had some sort of similar developments within their city limits. Hell, Denver feels like one large lifestyle center. 

The "Roosevelt Collection" in Chicago is kind of an island. It's got a huge empty brownfield site next to it. 

University Village in Seattle is a big one just across Lake Union from downtown, although it's not as heavy on residential.  Denver has a few that could be considered lifestyle centers including in Cherry Creek but they've effectively integrated them into the larger street grid. Some of the more enclosed ones in Denver on in suburbs like Centennial and Aurora. The Grove in LA was one of the originals.

Dallas has like 20 of them, but most are in areas like Frisco, Plano, Arlington, etc as opposed to in the inner core of the city.

I think it's more challenging to find the right mix if you're putting one in an urban core area mainly because of the primary customer you're targeting.  Using STL as an example, people who live in the Grove are not going to be terribly attracted to the Firebirds Bar & Grill chain or a PF Chang's like they will in St. Charles. They'd likely prefer a local spot only there aren't many local restaurants that can take 5,000sf and pay the rent that Iron Hill is likely asking. The developments are almost always catered towards national tenants in part due to the high rents and large spaces.

One interesting example is in St. Louis Park's West End neighborhood in Minneapolis. It's a few miles east of downtown and has all the makings of a true work/live/play area with residential, hotels, office, retail and in the middle of it is a lifestyle center/outdoor mall development called the Shoppes at West End. The area really is bustling, but the Shoppes at West End is littered with vacancy. It's mostly internal facing retail with the artificial "main street" cutting through the middle and once a few vacants pop up, centers with that type of configuration tend to rapidly lose momentum. Several of the most prominent exterior-facing spaces are for large chain-style food/entertainment venues - Punch Bowl Social is an example of the tenant mix. At one point Toby Keith's American Grill folded up shop and the space has sat vacant for years because they can't find anyone else to lease it despite the area surrounding it growing rapidly.  Just one case where the concept and the area it's located in just haven't been a good match.

jbacott wrote:University Village in Seattle is a big one just across Lake Union from downtown, although it's not as heavy on residential.  Denver has a few that could be considered lifestyle centers including in Cherry Creek but they've effectively integrated them into the larger street grid. Some of the more enclosed ones in Denver on in suburbs like Centennial and Aurora. The Grove in LA was one of the originals.

Dallas has like 20 of them, but most are in areas like Frisco, Plano, Arlington, etc as opposed to in the inner core of the city.

I think it's more challenging to find the right mix if you're putting one in an urban core area mainly because of the primary customer you're targeting.  Using STL as an example, people who live in the Grove are not going to be terribly attracted to the Firebirds Bar & Grill chain or a PF Chang's like they will in St. Charles. They'd likely prefer a local spot only there aren't many local restaurants that can take 5,000sf and pay the rent that Iron Hill is likely asking. The developments are almost always catered towards national tenants in part due to the high rents and large spaces.

One interesting example is in St. Louis Park's West End neighborhood in Minneapolis. It's a few miles east of downtown and has all the makings of a true work/live/play area with residential, hotels, office, retail and in the middle of it is a lifestyle center/outdoor mall development called the Shoppes at West End. The area really is bustling, but the Shoppes at West End is littered with vacancy. It's mostly internal facing retail with the artificial "main street" cutting through the middle and once a few vacants pop up, centers with that type of configuration tend to rapidly lose momentum. Several of the most prominent exterior-facing spaces are for large chain-style food/entertainment venues - Punch Bowl Social is an example of the tenant mix. At one point Toby Keith's American Grill folded up shop and the space has sat vacant for years because they can't find anyone else to lease it despite the area surrounding it growing rapidly.  Just one case where the concept and the area it's located in just haven't been a good match.

I was racking my brain for a Seattle one. U Village definitely fits the bill. It’s a pretty big success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Feb 14, 2020

jbacott wrote:University Village in Seattle is a big one just across Lake Union from downtown, although it's not as heavy on residential.  Denver has a few that could be considered lifestyle centers including in Cherry Creek but they've effectively integrated them into the larger street grid. Some of the more enclosed ones in Denver on in suburbs like Centennial and Aurora. The Grove in LA was one of the originals.

I was racking my brain for a Seattle one. U Village definitely fits the bill. It’s a pretty big success.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

U Village is a very impressive collection of trendy, upscale retail, but that is not a lifestyle center.  It's 100% retail, with nothing else to generate pedestrian activity, or even a central plaza, and it's surrounded mostly by low-density strip malls, motels, and apartment complexes.  It is basically just an outdoor mall, albeit one of the better examples of one.

A lifestyle center is a group of multiple-use, mid-density buildings oriented with an attempt to create something like a European market or Main Street streetscape.  The concept has been around for a long time (see Country Club Plaza, Maryland Plaza), but developers revived it to try - and usually fail - to bring the feeling of a round-the-clock, active urban area to their otherwise bland, suburban, national-chain-store developments.  Thus, it's ironic to see someone propose to build one in an inner city area.

^I have generally seen the term "Lifestyle Center" used to refer to what are essentially retail developments. The new Bernadette Center in Columbia was described as one when it first opened and there is no office component to it to speak of. It's really just an updated strip mall. (Which, to be fair, is where malls originally came from. Just add roof.) I've seen that thing across from the Galleria described as such. The Boulevard is it? The idea of adding office or residential makes it sound more like "New Urbanism" than what I've usually seen called a "Lifestyle Center" in the general press. All of this stuff gets used fast and loose sometimes, but a "a very impressive collection of trendy, upscale retail" could easily make up a "lifestyle center" in laymen's terms, at least. I'd honestly just have said "lifestyle center" was twenty otts for "strip mall."

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Feb 17, 2020

^I have generally seen the term "Lifestyle Center" used to refer to what are essentially retail developments. The new Bernadette Center in Columbia was described as one when it first opened and there is no office component to it to speak of. It's really just an updated strip mall. (Which, to be fair, is where malls originally came from. Just add roof.) I've seen that thing across from the Galleria described as such. The Boulevard is it? The idea of adding office or residential makes it sound more like "New Urbanism" than what I've usually seen called a "Lifestyle Center" in the general press. All of this stuff gets used fast and loose sometimes, but a "a very impressive collection of trendy, upscale retail" could easily make up a "lifestyle center" in laymen's terms, at least. I'd honestly just have said "lifestyle center" was twenty otts for "strip mall."

It has evolved since the term was thrown around in the 90s, but the basic concept is to include some other draw beyond the retail outlets and active hours of the typical shopping mall, and to center that activity outside, around a common area.  And it "gets used fast and loose" because ultimately its a marketing term, like "crossover" (which apparently just means "small SUV"), and people think applying the term to anything may add some value.  Every faded strip mall owner out there will put down some stone pavers and plant a few trees in their parking lot and call it a lifestyle center, if they think it will attract the attention of national chains and financiers.  

The Boulevard is a classic lifestyle center, but remember that what you see there is only Phase 1.  The next two phases were supposed to add other uses and add progressively more density; all connected with one long street where they would hold festivals, concerts, farmers markets, etc.

Roosevelt Collection is definitely a good example. Like you mentioned, Roosevelt sees significantly more traffic than Chouteau or Grand and still has some notable vacancies. That area is also full of other major retailers and proposed significant residential towers as the South Loop is seeing some heavy investment. The major difference between that and something like Iron Hill is that the 1-mile population density is 70,000 with median income at $101,000.  That's why the big national players are attracted to the area.

Compare that to Iron Hill which has a 1-mile density of 15,000 and median income of $36,000.  People on this board may be more positive on the perceived momentum in St. Louis, particularly the central corridor, but most national retailers - the ones who can afford 5,000sf at $30psf rent - are much more conservative.

I think the Boulevard on Brentwood is also an interesting comparison - mainly because we're on year 4 since Phase 2 renderings came out and the "coming soon" tag was slapped on it. I think the original planned occupancy date was in 2019 and now it's been pushed to 2021 and ground hasn't been broken. I'd suspect a major part of that is the fact that there is still 75,000sf+ of retail and 175,000sf of office that is being advertised for lease.  

Long story short - I think Iron Hill is a bold project and I'm happy that Cullinan is ready to take the leap on it, but the city has to determine if it's a good investment in the form of millions in tax incentives. 

jbacott wrote: ↑

Feb 17, 2020

Long story short - I think Iron Hill is a bold project and I'm happy that Cullinan is ready to take the leap on it, but the city has to determine if it's a good investment in the form of millions in tax incentives. 

Agree with most re: Roosevelt Collection, but noting that few of those residential towers full of six-figure income earners were there 15 years ago when Roosevelt Collection was being planned.  Also, The Boulevard - Phase II was supposed to break ground shortly after Phase I opened in 2005-6.  They couldn't get retail anchor tenants signed.  The brick-and-mortar retail situation has not improved since then...

Re: Iron Hill, the city can't know whether or not another 150k+ of retail space is a good investment until City Foundry is open and most of that retail space is leased, but I doubt anyone is willing to wait that long. 

There were other qualified developers who answered the Request for Proposals for that 14 acre lot.  The main reason Cullinan was selected is called Streets of St. Charles.  And I wouldn't say they are exactly taking a leap with an up front $80 million tax assistance request...

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Feb 19, 2020

There were other qualified developers who answered the Request for Proposals for that 14 acre lot.  The main reason Cullinan was selected is called Streets of St. Charles.  And I wouldn't say they are exactly taking a leap with an up front $80 million tax assistance request...

They're asking for $80 million up front?

stlien wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2020

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Feb 19, 2020

There were other qualified developers who answered the Request for Proposals for that 14 acre lot.  The main reason Cullinan was selected is called Streets of St. Charles.  And I wouldn't say they are exactly taking a leap with an up front $80 million tax assistance request...

They're asking for $80 million up front?

$80 million total tax relief between TIF, TDD, CID and brownfield tax requests for all phases of the project.  They are requesting the entire amount be approved before proceeding with the project - according to the article.  Phase I would be completed some time in 2024, and the estimate was 5 to 8 years for the entire project.  But of course, we all know how reliable estimates of future phases are...

StlToday - St. Louis commission recommends $60 million in subsidies for $334 million Midtown project

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... e82b0.html

quincunx wrote: ↑

Apr 15, 2020

StlToday - St. Louis commission recommends $60 million in subsidies for $334 million Midtown project

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... e82b0.html

Good to see that this is moving forward, one thing that has come out of this is that the development is still moving ahead. However, I wonder if retail space will be reduced. This comment is why...

Lochner said Cullinan hopes to close on the land purchase and project financing by the end of the year. Though the company expects changes in consumer behavior due to the COVID-19 crisis, he said construction completion is some three years away and "the project is proceeding as scheduled.” 

It also makes me wonder if they'll build all at once since the Phase 1 of the plan, talked about a few page sago, isn't large enough to take 3 years to build. Maybe 2 years for Phase 1. I guess we will find out soon.

^ Realistically its tough to see anything other than residential and maybe medical arts building having financing secured and ground broken in my opinion..  First, considering COVID and its impacts on travel and retail component just in the near term could easily put a pause on things.   Second and more impactfully in the long run is that I think you could make the case, whether it happens or not, that Covid just accelerated the timeline for even more goods and purchases to be online & delivered to the doorstep (less commercial space).  The trend slowly but surely was marching upwards but still around 16-18% of goods.  I can see Covid push the curve to online even steeper and easily see online as percentage of goods and services a few points higher within months and stay there instead of years.

So I see it even tougher for Iron Hill to get ground broken on the retail/commercial & hotel component anytime in the near future.   Heck, crossing the fingers that Foundry find its footing after Covid.  Fortunately the Foundry has the Crawler under construction and Wash U neuroscience nearby to support more foot traffic in the future.     I can also see Foundry in a position to repurpose space as ghost kitchens that might support say 2 or 3 food vendors in one kitchen even though you might never know it when pulling up such and such taco place for delivery.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Apr 15, 2020

StlToday - St. Louis commission recommends $60 million in subsidies for $334 million Midtown project

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... e82b0.html

Their timing is horrendous.

Updated rendering of Iron Hill from the Cullinan website. Most noticeable difference is that the central apartment building was shrunk some and the "skybridge" portion was removed. Besides that, the project remains the same.

This project is full steam ahead as well after necessary incentives were supposedly approved. 

Is there any guarantee for them to develop past phase 1 with the incentive package? What if tenancy is slow?

Just worried about yet another half developed chunk of land that sits around and waits for 15 years to be rounded out, is all.