Good example. Thank you. But I bet the land cost is triple that site on Hampton Ave
Hampton is always going to be car-centric so it's a net benefit to upgrade some of the rundown buildings with new investment. Just because Hampton caters towards cars doesn't mean the area has gone full suburban. Within a mile you have Dogtown, Highlands, The Grove, The Hill and stretch that out a bit and you have Maplewood and CWE within shouting distance.
That immediate area is and will continue to be a hub for walkable neighborhoods in the city. Sometimes people that live in those neighborhoods want to walk to a neighborhood spot for a burger. Other times they want to get a chicken sandwich in a drive thru or need to get gas at a QT. It's ok for an area to accommodate both of those things.
That immediate area is and will continue to be a hub for walkable neighborhoods in the city. Sometimes people that live in those neighborhoods want to walk to a neighborhood spot for a burger. Other times they want to get a chicken sandwich in a drive thru or need to get gas at a QT. It's ok for an area to accommodate both of those things.
- 3,762
^ i don't understand the "road X is always going to be car-centric" mentality. we're not talking about the laws of physics, here. it can be whatever it's made to be. and SF homes adjacent to heavy traffic eventually lose their value because—big surprise—nobody wants to live next to heavy traffic. that blight slowly creeps farther and farther into the neighborhoods. it's the same thing that happened when the highways came through. no offense intended, but i have to LOL at the idea that a six-lane highway (bc that's basically what Hampton between 44 and 64 has become) is somehow a "hub for walkable neighborhoods." Hampton is a huge f*cking scar and the adjacent neighborhoods suffer because of it.
It's not if they don't have enough tax base to cover the cost of infrastructure and services they take. Perhaps a CID or TDD sales tax could help pay to maintain Hampton and cover the cost of first responders to tend to car wrecks so the rest of us don't have to subsidize them.
Not law of physics, more laws of supply/demand. Saying that Hampton is always going to be car-centric is just living in reality instead of pretending that every street in the city proper that isn't redeveloped into an urban utopia is an abject failure.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Dec 22, 2020^ i don't understand the "road X is always going to be car-centric" mentality. we're not talking about the laws of physics, here. it can be whatever it's made to be. and SF homes adjacent to heavy traffic eventually lose their value because—big surprise—nobody wants to live next to heavy traffic. that blight slowly creeps farther and farther into the neighborhoods. it's the same thing that happened when the highways came through. no offense intended, but i have to LOL at the idea that a six-lane highway (bc that's basically what Hampton between 44 and 64 has become) is somehow a "hub for walkable neighborhoods." Hampton is a huge f*cking scar and the adjacent neighborhoods suffer because of it.
It has and will continue to be the primary means of accessing south city from 40/44 and as much as you may not like it, that access is actually a key factor in those single family homes continuing to gain value. For no one wanting to live near heavy traffic streets like Hampton, south city sure has stayed relatively dense over the years.
- 3,762
^ relatively dense as it lost ~50% of its population. ok. p.s. demand is fabricated. e.g. there was no demand for large-scale suburbia before the government subsidized its construction and access. there was no demand for 6-lane stroads before the auto industry dismantled public transit and convinced everyone that they need at least three cars each. NONE of this is inevitable. it's all fabricated.
Every N/S arterial in the City and County is a complete driving and pedestrian nightmare. So yeah, I think we could reimagine a future where not every single western mile or so was basically a 4-5 lane highway.
We can argue all day about how we want Hampton to become an urban oasis which I'm sure would be lovely. I get that some people don't want a Starbucks or any other fast food drive thru. My point is that roads like Hampton are a necessary evil in basically every major city in the country. Travel five miles outside of the CBD in all but a few unicorn cities and you're going to find their versions of Hampton, home to fast food, gas stations, car washes, etc and likely carrying much heavier loads than 25,000 vehicles per day. Especially if that road happens to cross over two major highways within a mile.
Generally, yeah. A couple exceptions to that rule are Grand through Midtown and South Grand (Arsenal to Utah). Both of which have seen successful traffic calming infrastructure investment in recent years.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Dec 23, 2020Every N/S arterial in the City and County is a complete driving and pedestrian nightmare. So yeah, I think we could reimagine a future where not every single western mile or so was basically a 4-5 lane highway.
South Grand in particular kind of tells you an obvious recipe: make it 1 lane on each direction. Really hoping they do this on Jefferson around the intersection with Gravois. There is strong retail potential there but I am really skeptical anything will last for long until they make Jefferson not look like a highway.wabash wrote: ↑Dec 23, 2020Generally, yeah. A couple exceptions to that rule are Grand through Midtown and South Grand (Arsenal to Utah). Both of which have seen successful traffic calming infrastructure investment in recent years.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Dec 23, 2020Every N/S arterial in the City and County is a complete driving and pedestrian nightmare. So yeah, I think we could reimagine a future where not every single western mile or so was basically a 4-5 lane highway.
- 9,526
Only part of Hampton that could be made into S Grand (Utah to arsenal) is from Loughborough to Eichelberger
On a big lot. I'm guessing none of it conflicts with the building that was there on the corner?
Nope. Only part that does is where the trash bins will be.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2021On a big lot. I'm guessing none of it conflicts with the building that was there on the corner?
All this crap going up on Hampton, and I hear Steak n Shake has closed. Cruel world!
I think we're ok. $100k building permit
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS REMOD DINING ROOM & FRNT COUNTER PER PL
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS REMOD DINING ROOM & FRNT COUNTER PER PL
As a quick reference, Steak n Shake is rebranding it’s business old model away from sit down table service and moving towards a Shake Shack style Quick Serve Restaurant model. It will be interesting to see if they can compete with all the other QSR burger places.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2021I think we're ok. $100k building permit
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS REMOD DINING ROOM & FRNT COUNTER PER PL
https://www.qsrmagazine.com/fast-food/s ... e-old-gone
Is this some new post pandemic model where it's drive thru and pickup only: with little or no inside seating?chriss752 wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2021Building framed up. Such a small building
EDIT: What's odd is the almost complete Starbucks on Jefferson by Wells Fargo seems normal sized.
Not a workaurant! I love classic Steak 'n Shake.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2021So a workaurant?
There used to be a workaurant "Steak 'n Shake" in NYC that was terrible.
RFT - The Mike Talayna’s Jukebox Building on Hampton Is For Sale [PHOTOS]
https://photos.riverfronttimes.com/the- ... le-photos/
https://photos.riverfronttimes.com/the- ... le-photos/