Can't get it to load on computer. I don't see a hotel working in this market, especially post-pandemic between Clayton having so many rooms and business travel being dead for the foreseeable future. There's also apartments coming online down Olive and down Delmar, but I guess someone has to spend their Costco money.framer wrote: ↑Dec 21, 2020Looks like Novus will be presenting their final (?) site plan for the overall development at the December 23rd meeting of the U City Plan Commission. Besides the Costco, plans currently call for an additional 190,000 sq. ft. of retail space, a 222 room hotel, and a 184 unit residential building. The tallest building will be 5 stories.
Renderings look the same as posted earlier in this thread.
http://apps.ucitymo.org/PublicPortal/0/ ... Packet.pdf
Not even The Boulevard, but I guess UC doesn't care as long as they get their Costco money.goat314 wrote: ↑Dec 22, 2020Looking at Downtown Chesterfield renderings makes this development that more disgusting in my opinion. University City needs to get it's act together.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Novis builds the Costco, then finds an excuse to walk away from the rest of the project. Time will tell, I guess.
- 6,123
^A lot of that is funny. All Star Tattoo has been a solid citizen so far as I can tell. (I may or may not know a SLU grad student or three that decided they would get tattoos there. It is the unofficial Chinese tattoo joint, I gather.) What the heck even is a "small box discount store"? Dollar tree? What in the world is wrong with that? Some people are just a pain in the butt.
Here's the newsletter that expresses their concerns.
https://mailchi.mp/eff5ca46f8b5/third-w ... 9041b35de1
https://mailchi.mp/eff5ca46f8b5/third-w ... 9041b35de1
- 6,123
I'm certainly aware of people's concerns, but they don't seem to have been born out in U. City, and this is a darn poorly considered regulation. So far as I'm aware there's no good legal definition of a "small box discount store", nor can I conceive of how there could be. It's not really so well defined as "tattoo" or even "adult." The quasi-legal terms "arbitrary and capricious" seem to apply here in spades. This is both. What prevents the city from designating any smaller grocer a "small box discount store?" And what insures that someone well connected doesn't get the written approval while someone less political can't? Honestly, the dollar stores are no more of a problem than convenience stores. They catch a lot of flack, but I can't see how they could move in if there wasn't a market. Should they pay more? Absolutely. But then precisely the same could be said of every anti-union retailer in existence. (Particularly Amazon and Wal-Mart, both of whom have done a lot more to drive down wages in the grocery and every other sector than Dollar Tree could ever dream of. And oh wait . . . what are we trying to get to move in? Oh yeah, Wal-Mart by another name. With giant tax subsidies. Jeezus Christy pass the buck!)
And in this case there isn't even really a problem. I know of few streets in the area with more grocers in such a short area. There are two Asian supermarkets, a Schnucks, and three or four other small grocers in a four mile stretch. The dollar stores haven't run them off and I doubt very much that they could. Second, I think the idea that running off the dollar stores will somehow magically bring in more grocers is at best misguided. I'm altogether in favor of not providing incentives to them. They really don't need them. But banning them sets a really darn dangerous precedent. If you ban them, what's next? Seven Eleven? A Korean convenience store isn't so different from a Seven Eleven apart from the flavors on offer. (Fun Fact: Seven Eleven is enormous in Asia and the parent company for the entire brand globally is a Japanese company called Seven & i Holdings. Seven Eleven IS an Asian grocery once removed. And I don't want to see smaller grocers banned, even if that means I have to tolerate Slurpies and bad hot dogs. Does nobody think about the implications of this stuff?)
The whole project just feels off. Does U. City's third ward need better regional support? Yes. Are there people there that need better services? Absolutely. I'm not sure this is the right answer. And the little zoning sneaker just feels dirty. Especially since there's a tattoo parlor and maybe an Asian grocer that looks a bit like it could be defined as a "small box discount store" paying taxes in the first mall slated from the wrecking ball. This whole thing is poorly conceived at best. (Even if it does get the CityLab seal of approval.)
Yeesh.
And in this case there isn't even really a problem. I know of few streets in the area with more grocers in such a short area. There are two Asian supermarkets, a Schnucks, and three or four other small grocers in a four mile stretch. The dollar stores haven't run them off and I doubt very much that they could. Second, I think the idea that running off the dollar stores will somehow magically bring in more grocers is at best misguided. I'm altogether in favor of not providing incentives to them. They really don't need them. But banning them sets a really darn dangerous precedent. If you ban them, what's next? Seven Eleven? A Korean convenience store isn't so different from a Seven Eleven apart from the flavors on offer. (Fun Fact: Seven Eleven is enormous in Asia and the parent company for the entire brand globally is a Japanese company called Seven & i Holdings. Seven Eleven IS an Asian grocery once removed. And I don't want to see smaller grocers banned, even if that means I have to tolerate Slurpies and bad hot dogs. Does nobody think about the implications of this stuff?)
The whole project just feels off. Does U. City's third ward need better regional support? Yes. Are there people there that need better services? Absolutely. I'm not sure this is the right answer. And the little zoning sneaker just feels dirty. Especially since there's a tattoo parlor and maybe an Asian grocer that looks a bit like it could be defined as a "small box discount store" paying taxes in the first mall slated from the wrecking ball. This whole thing is poorly conceived at best. (Even if it does get the CityLab seal of approval.)
Yeesh.
The lack of leadership in the St. Louis area is infuriating. We have 91 elephants in the room, and nobody can see them.
In what sense would it get the CityLab approval? It exemplifies all that is wrong. Other than not being in a floidplain.
I think that would be the least likely scenario because they are overpaying for the Costco site, it's self-storage so it's worth a ridiculous amount, and using the Costco sales tax to fund the TIF to subsidize the rest of the development. Costco will only pay so much for the site, so if Novus wants the TIF they have to pay the rest.framer wrote: ↑Dec 23, 2020Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Novis builds the Costco, then finds an excuse to walk away from the rest of the project. Time will tell, I guess.
It's basically UC making a land grab for Costco's sales tax. The 3rd ward isn't a food desert, but if you go further north there is. There's probably going to be a grocery store in the development across the street that they've actually broken ground on.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Dec 23, 2020And in this case there isn't even really a problem. I know of few streets in the area with more grocers in such a short area. There are two Asian supermarkets, a Schnucks, and three or four other small grocers in a four mile stretch. The dollar stores haven't run them off and I doubt very much that they could. Second, I think the idea that running off the dollar stores will somehow magically bring in more grocers is at best misguided. I'm altogether in favor of not providing incentives to them. They really don't need them. But banning them sets a really darn dangerous precedent. If you ban them, what's next? Seven Eleven? A Korean convenience store isn't so different from a Seven Eleven apart from the flavors on offer. (Fun Fact: Seven Eleven is enormous in Asia and the parent company for the entire brand globally is a Japanese company called Seven & i Holdings. Seven Eleven IS an Asian grocery once removed. And I don't want to see smaller grocers banned, even if that means I have to tolerate Slurpies and bad hot dogs. Does nobody think about the implications of this stuff?)
The whole project just feels off. Does U. City's third ward need better regional support? Yes. Are there people there that need better services? Absolutely. I'm not sure this is the right answer. And the little zoning sneaker just feels dirty. Especially since there's a tattoo parlor and maybe an Asian grocer that looks a bit like it could be defined as a "small box discount store" paying taxes in the first mall slated from the wrecking ball. This whole thing is poorly conceived at best. (Even if it does get the CityLab seal of approval.)
Yeesh.
It's pretty bigoted of them to ignore the Asian markets and Schnucks is on the border of it on Olive.
^I'm not sure any part of U. City is a food desert. Between the Schnucks in U. City, Overland and Ladue they're pretty covered, with Sav-A-Lot, Pete's and Aldi providing some lower price points.
- 6,123
I don't mean the development would, I mean banning "small box discount stores." I think both the development and the ban are pretty awful.quincunx wrote: ↑Dec 23, 2020In what sense would it get the CityLab approval? It exemplifies all that is wrong. Other than not being in a floidplain.
And Costco itself sells a lot of fresh food. I wonder if this is implying that the councilmen think this won't be serving be serving the 3rd ward residents.wabash wrote: ↑Dec 24, 2020^I'm not sure any part of U. City is a food desert. Between the Schnucks in U. City, Overland and Ladue they're pretty covered, with Sav-A-Lot, Pete's and Aldi providing some lower price points.
Serving 3rd ward residents is incidental. It's primary purpose is luring non-resident shoppers via the highway.
Costco's definitely on it being a regional draw, which isn't a bad thing. The problem is that UC is planning on treating it like an ATM.
From U City's 2nd Ward Councilmember Aleta Klein:
" The deadline for Novus to acquire all of the properties and funding needed to move forward with the first phase of the Olive/170 Development, Costco, is March 1st of this year. The developer has invested a lot of time and money in making this happen and it is in his best interest and ours that he completes these requirements. We are all hopeful that the he is successful and the work begins soon."
" The deadline for Novus to acquire all of the properties and funding needed to move forward with the first phase of the Olive/170 Development, Costco, is March 1st of this year. The developer has invested a lot of time and money in making this happen and it is in his best interest and ours that he completes these requirements. We are all hopeful that the he is successful and the work begins soon."
And from City Manager Gregory Rose:
"The condemnation process for three commercial properties required for the Costco development phase of the University Place development is underway. The deadline to decide on the acquisition of the properties is February 28, 2021.”
"The condemnation process for three commercial properties required for the Costco development phase of the University Place development is underway. The deadline to decide on the acquisition of the properties is February 28, 2021.”
Sounds like they're not going to give him any more rope.framer wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2021From U City's 2nd Ward Councilmember Aleta Klein:
" The deadline for Novus to acquire all of the properties and funding needed to move forward with the first phase of the Olive/170 Development, Costco, is March 1st of this year. The developer has invested a lot of time and money in making this happen and it is in his best interest and ours that he completes these requirements. We are all hopeful that the he is successful and the work begins soon."
This was posted on Nextdoor today. Given what Novus has pulled before, this really means nothing. It seems like they still don't have the money.“The condemnation process for three commercial properties required for the Costco development phase of the University Place development is underway. The deadline to decide on the acquisition of the properties is February 28, 2021.” Gregory Rose City Manager
Why not just develop these 25 acres (!!!). Seems like a complete win-win: U. City gets its sales taxes, the developer gets its big cash cow tenant in (but with fewer out buildings), no one is kicked out of their home and only a handful of small businesses have to relocate.framer wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2020That's just a portion of the overall development, remember. Here's the entire site plan (with lots more parking):
All anyone cares about is getting that Costco built (and the tax dollars.) Unfortunately, a big box store like Costco needs a traffic light and so they need to take all the land from the highway to Woodson.wabash wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021Why not just develop these 25 acres (!!!). Seems like a complete win-win: U. City gets its sales taxes, the developer gets its big cash cow tenant in (but with fewer out buildings), no one is kicked out of their home and only a handful of small businesses have to relocate.framer wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2020That's just a portion of the overall development, remember. Here's the entire site plan (with lots more parking):
Public Storage has just given their tenants until February 28th to be cleared out.
Oddly, they cite the City of Olivette taking the property through eminent domain. I guess they don't know that they're actually located in, and being sued by, the City of University City.
Oddly, they cite the City of Olivette taking the property through eminent domain. I guess they don't know that they're actually located in, and being sued by, the City of University City.
You can clearly see from their plan that the traffic light is halfway between Woodson and the highway and would run along the western edge of where the residential neighborhood is now. There's no need to take it all the way to Woodson, except that the developers are greedy, aren't satisfied with just having a Costco and want to try a get a Red Robin, Ross Dress For Less, Burlington Coat Factory, T-Mobile store, etc... around an additional sea of parking.qwerty112 wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2021All anyone cares about is getting that Costco built (and the tax dollars.) Unfortunately, a big box store like Costco needs a traffic light and so they need to take all the land from the highway to Woodson.wabash wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021Why not just develop these 25 acres (!!!). Seems like a complete win-win: U. City gets its sales taxes, the developer gets its big cash cow tenant in (but with fewer out buildings), no one is kicked out of their home and only a handful of small businesses have to relocate.framer wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2020That's just a portion of the overall development, remember. Here's the entire site plan (with lots more parking):
Anyways, it's wishful thinking. I'm sure they'll bulldoze the residential streets and strip malls comprised primarily of local small businesses (particularly the one on the north side of Olive) even though it isn't necessary to accommodate their primary tenant.
There isn't because it's the State's decision and not the City's.wabash wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2021You can clearly see from their plan that the traffic light is halfway between Woodson and the highway and would run along the western edge of where the residential neighborhood is now. There's no need to take it all the way to Woodson, except that the developers are greedy, aren't satisfied with just having a Costco and want to try a get a Red Robin, Ross Dress For Less, Burlington Coat Factory, T-Mobile store, etc... around an additional sea of parking.qwerty112 wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2021All anyone cares about is getting that Costco built (and the tax dollars.) Unfortunately, a big box store like Costco needs a traffic light and so they need to take all the land from the highway to Woodson.wabash wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2021Why not just develop these 25 acres (!!!). Seems like a complete win-win: U. City gets its sales taxes, the developer gets its big cash cow tenant in (but with fewer out buildings), no one is kicked out of their home and only a handful of small businesses have to relocate.
Anyways, it's wishful thinking. I'm sure they'll bulldoze the residential streets and strip malls comprised primarily of local small businesses (particularly the one on the north side of Olive) even though it isn't necessary to accommodate their primary tenant.
This was posted on Nextdoor today by City Manager Gregory Rose:
"The City of University City is engaged in the condemnation of three commercial properties along Olive Boulevard that are required for the Costco Phase of the University City Place development. To date, the Mayor and Council have not made a final decision on the potential purchases. The City of University City has until February 28, 2021, to make a decision on purchasing the properties."
"The City of University City is engaged in the condemnation of three commercial properties along Olive Boulevard that are required for the Costco Phase of the University City Place development. To date, the Mayor and Council have not made a final decision on the potential purchases. The City of University City has until February 28, 2021, to make a decision on purchasing the properties."