urbanSTL

^ Mayor Slay promised that in 1999.

Lights were on in TGI Friday's this morning and people were cleaning and moving things. Probably nothing, but I haven't seen that before.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Q1 office report

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 23, 2023

Q1 office report

for a layman like me, what does "net absorption" mean?

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Jun 23, 2023

Previously vacant space that is now occupied (+) or previously occupied that is not not (-).  Got to be total change from previous report or start of tracking the data.

So am I reading correctly that downtown is filling previously empty office space while previously occupied office space is being vacated in Clayton according to these numbers?

_nomad_ wrote:

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Jun 23, 2023

Previously vacant space that is now occupied (+) or previously occupied that is not not (-).  Got to be total change from previous report or start of tracking the data.

So am I reading correctly that downtown is filling previously empty office space while previously occupied office space is being vacated in Clayton according to these numbers?

I would assume that Clayton loss has to do with new office space being built.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

They restart the clock if you will on Jan 1 and from Jan 1 to end of March 2023 downtown had 65,000 sf more of office space occupied than it had on Dec 31.

Absorption is the change in occupied space over a period of time (quarter, year) defined by the report.  While absorption impacts occupancy, the total supply of space is not considered in the calculation.

For example...
Say your market has 100,000 SF of office space fully leased, so 100% occupied. Over the next year another 100,000 SF is built and added to the market (total 200,000 SF) with 50,000 SF of that new space leased.  So the market has absorbed 50,000 SF of space (pretty good), but your occupancy has dropped from 100% to 75%.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... f=0IejgNtz

Sadly, I don’t think Downtown StL will ever do this, but really should. At a minimum, several blocks of Washington should be closed to cars.

^ Downtown does not have anywhere near the density to do this currently. If we shut down streets, it would crush our restaurants and retail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CG91 wrote: ↑

Jul 06, 2023

^ Downtown does not have anywhere near the density to do this currently. If we shut down streets, it would crush our restaurants and retail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This has not been the case where streets have been closed in other cities and there is no evidence it would be the case here. Shutting down selected streets in a planned manner has led to business growth and more density because the areas became more pedestrian/cyclist-friendly, livable, and in-demand.

Last time I went to a City SC game they didn’t even shut down that one block of Olive north of the stadium. Would have been great to walk from the Schlafly block party to the stadium without cars in the way.

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Jul 07, 2023

Completely & permanently closing any section of Wash Ave to cars is NOT a good idea.  If you wanted to widen sidewalks to create more sidewalk space for patio dining, I would entertain the idea but even that i am not sold on it.

Why is it not a good idea? It's an ideal street for it with all the buildings having access to St Charles or Lucas for deliveries and garages. Why would a strategy that has proven successful in multiple cities not be a good idea here?

Closing Washington from the bridge to 17th makes a lot of sense and you can keep open the N/S cross streets. Same for locust in midtown

dbInSouthCity wrote:Closing Washington from the bridge to 17th makes a lot of sense and you can keep open the N/S cross streets. Same for locust in midtown

Yep. Near perfect precedent as always is Denver’s 16th street mall.

I love going to city garden and that experience is enhanced by the comfort that 9th street is closed for vehicular traffic. I think closing streets will definitely increase pedestrian traffic. When forest park was closed during pandemic to facilitate social distancing it definitely improved experience for pedestrians.

_nomad_ wrote:

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Jul 07, 2023

Completely & permanently closing any section of Wash Ave to cars is NOT a good idea.  If you wanted to widen sidewalks to create more sidewalk space for patio dining, I would entertain the idea but even that i am not sold on it.

Why is it not a good idea? It's an ideal street for it with all the buildings having access to St Charles or Lucas for deliveries and garages. Why would a strategy that has proven successful in multiple cities not be a good idea here?

Adding a truly protected bike network including on Washington AVE or just north or south (as well as east-west connectors) is a far better option. We’re not Barcelona or Denver. Even designing streets that are “bike/ped first” and “cars are second” is a better concept. Eliminating cars from streets completely in STL is a bad idea — partially because we do need the wallets that drive in and want to park close to their destination.

There’s no reason why Washington Avenue (and Downtown for that matter) can’t have it both ways: streets designed for bike/ped and cars. Cincinatti is doing a decent job in some areas downtown by elevator crosswalks and bumping out corners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we can't even close Tower Grove Park to traffic (which is a slam dunk in my opinion), I doubt we would ever be able to close Wash Ave.

Downtown1999 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2023

_nomad_ wrote:

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Jul 07, 2023

Completely & permanently closing any section of Wash Ave to cars is NOT a good idea.  If you wanted to widen sidewalks to create more sidewalk space for patio dining, I would entertain the idea but even that i am not sold on it.

Why is it not a good idea? It's an ideal street for it with all the buildings having access to St Charles or Lucas for deliveries and garages. Why would a strategy that has proven successful in multiple cities not be a good idea here?

Adding a truly protected bike network including on Washington AVE or just north or south (as well as east-west connectors) is a far better option. We’re not Barcelona or Denver. Even designing streets that are “bike/ped first” and “cars are second” is a better concept. Eliminating cars from streets completely in STL is a bad idea — partially because we do need the wallets that drive in and want to park close to their destination.

There’s no reason why Washington Avenue (and Downtown for that matter) can’t have it both ways: streets designed for bike/ped and cars. Cincinatti is doing a decent job in some areas downtown by elevator crosswalks and bumping out corners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most everywhere pedestrianizing streets and closing them to cars has been tried it has resulted in growth and a better environment. I'm tired of people saying "we're not X city" or "it can't work here" when it has worked in multiple comparable car-oriented cities. We can't sit around waiting for some arbitrary threshold to be met before rebuilding streets like this, rather rebuilding streets like this is what would increase walkability and density. People won't get out of their cars if we don't give them a reason to. We should not be catering to a handful of cars at the expense of people walking, there are plenty of parking spots in the immediate vicinity and plenty of other routes to drive in the area. The odd driver who refuses to go somewhere because they can't park right next to the door 1) probably isn't going to Wash Ave anyway and 2) will be more than counterbalanced by an increase of people want to be somewhere designed for people rather than cars.