Love a good spoiler. Maybe Staenberg can move the development where it's actually needed. C'field already gave them sh*t over density issues.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realest ... r-AA1maGez
Looks like the project is back on track. Demo occurring soon. I know a lot of people here have been allergic to this project because it is in the suburbs, but getting rid of that hunk of junk and replacing it is a very good thing for the region.
Looks like the project is back on track. Demo occurring soon. I know a lot of people here have been allergic to this project because it is in the suburbs, but getting rid of that hunk of junk and replacing it is a very good thing for the region.
^ I mean, unless you're a local, you probably don't even know this 'hunk of junk' exists. I don't think it's a 'very good thing for the region' when it could be an even more prominent investment at the front door mat of the region rather than the garage entrance. But hey, bring on the Kendra Scott hand bags, string light patios and an inspired population driven to play city without any of the baggage.
Chesterfield exists, no chance of that changing anytime soon. So, better this than most other uses for the site, other than undeveloped farmland I suppose, but the land is too valuable for that.
Wow, I don't even know what to say. Although I'm sure I know that redevelopment a place is better than leaving it to rot, even if it is not within your eyesight. I can probably assure that if some county rich guy complained about northside revitalization because "nobody goes to that part of the city", you would probably love to have a stern word with him. I always used to think it was the county people who were interested in creating division within STL, but I'm starting to realize that that there are two sides to the coin.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Jan 07, 2024^ I mean, unless you're a local, you probably don't even know this 'hunk of junk' exists. I don't think it's a 'very good thing for the region' when it could be an even more prominent investment at the front door mat of the region rather than the garage entrance. But hey, bring on the Kendra Scott hand bags, string light patios and an inspired population driven to play city without any of the baggage.
- 1,794
As far as there being two sides to this coin, it’s only going to get worse.
With each day that NoCo and SoCo become poorer and that StL County and StL County Municipal finances further deteriorate, merging, consolidating, and creating synergies with the County, becomes less and less appetizing to the City.
Given many opportunities, the County denizens have opposed any attempts at even small scale unification.
If the County ever decides it wants to work with the City, I’ll listen, but it’s time for the City to ply its many competitive advantages over the county rather than try to work with the county.
With each day that NoCo and SoCo become poorer and that StL County and StL County Municipal finances further deteriorate, merging, consolidating, and creating synergies with the County, becomes less and less appetizing to the City.
Given many opportunities, the County denizens have opposed any attempts at even small scale unification.
If the County ever decides it wants to work with the City, I’ll listen, but it’s time for the City to ply its many competitive advantages over the county rather than try to work with the county.
- 977
I think this is entirely the wrong attitude if progress for our region is the goal. What’s the benefit of focusing on competitive advantages of the city over the county vs the competitive advantages of the region as a whole? We’d be guilty of playing the same game as the county, to the detriment of our region as a whole.JaneJacobsGhost wrote:As far as there being two sides to this coin, it’s only going to get worse.
With each day that NoCo and SoCo become poorer and that StL County and StL County Municipal finances further deteriorate, merging, consolidating, and creating synergies with the County, becomes less and less appetizing to the City.
Given many opportunities, the County denizens have opposed any attempts at even small scale unification.
If the County ever decides it wants to work with the City, I’ll listen, but it’s time for the City to ply its many competitive advantages over the county rather than try to work with the county.
More practically, even if there is some deterioration in parts of the county, I can’t envision a scenario where merging, consolidating, and finding synergies with the county isn’t the right move for the city.
- 1,794
If “progress for our region” is the goal, the city should focus on making the city the best city it can be given the constraints. Resources are finite and until there’s evidence the using them on unification efforts isn’t folly, they shouldn’t be deployed there.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Jan 10, 2024I think this is entirely the wrong attitude if progress for our region is the goal. What’s the benefit of focusing on competitive advantages of the city over the county vs the competitive advantages of the region as a whole? We’d be guilty of playing the same game as the county, to the detriment of our region as a whole.JaneJacobsGhost wrote:As far as there being two sides to this coin, it’s only going to get worse.
With each day that NoCo and SoCo become poorer and that StL County and StL County Municipal finances further deteriorate, merging, consolidating, and creating synergies with the County, becomes less and less appetizing to the City.
Given many opportunities, the County denizens have opposed any attempts at even small scale unification.
If the County ever decides it wants to work with the City, I’ll listen, but it’s time for the City to ply its many competitive advantages over the county rather than try to work with the county.
More practically, even if there is some deterioration in parts of the county, I can’t envision a scenario where merging, consolidating, and finding synergies with the county isn’t the right move for the city.
Edit: “Progress for the region” has become a synonym for maintaining the status quo of suburban communities pilfering wealth from the city while externalizing costs onto the city. “Be happy that a massive beef processing facility is being built in Warrenton. It’s good for the Region. Don’t mind the costs and downstream effects it will have on our ability to provide public services.”
For regional optics on a national stage, I would definitely rather see the investment Downtown, or the near north and south sides, and a win for our urban core vitality than towards redeveloping a mall wasteland spawned by fragmentation, sprawl, and chess games of sales tax numbers as a metric for commercial and cultural solvency.stl07 wrote: ↑Jan 10, 2024Wow, I don't even know what to say. Although I'm sure I know that redevelopment a place is better than leaving it to rot, even if it is not within your eyesight. I can probably assure that if some county rich guy complained about northside revitalization because "nobody goes to that part of the city", you would probably love to have a stern word with him. I always used to think it was the county people who were interested in creating division within STL, but I'm starting to realize that that there are two sides to the coin.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Jan 07, 2024^ I mean, unless you're a local, you probably don't even know this 'hunk of junk' exists. I don't think it's a 'very good thing for the region' when it could be an even more prominent investment at the front door mat of the region rather than the garage entrance. But hey, bring on the Kendra Scott hand bags, string light patios and an inspired population driven to play city without any of the baggage.
Hi, I’m here to learn…how are suburban communities pilfering wealth from the City and externalizing costs onto the City?JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 10, 2024If “progress for our region” is the goal, the city should focus on making the city the best city it can be given the constraints. Resources are finite and until there’s evidence the using them on unification efforts isn’t folly, they shouldn’t be deployed there.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Jan 10, 2024I think this is entirely the wrong attitude if progress for our region is the goal. What’s the benefit of focusing on competitive advantages of the city over the county vs the competitive advantages of the region as a whole? We’d be guilty of playing the same game as the county, to the detriment of our region as a whole.JaneJacobsGhost wrote:As far as there being two sides to this coin, it’s only going to get worse.
With each day that NoCo and SoCo become poorer and that StL County and StL County Municipal finances further deteriorate, merging, consolidating, and creating synergies with the County, becomes less and less appetizing to the City.
Given many opportunities, the County denizens have opposed any attempts at even small scale unification.
If the County ever decides it wants to work with the City, I’ll listen, but it’s time for the City to ply its many competitive advantages over the county rather than try to work with the county.
More practically, even if there is some deterioration in parts of the county, I can’t envision a scenario where merging, consolidating, and finding synergies with the county isn’t the right move for the city.
Edit: “Progress for the region” has become a synonym for maintaining the status quo of suburban communities pilfering wealth from the city while externalizing costs onto the city. “Be happy that a massive beef processing facility is being built in Warrenton. It’s good for the Region. Don’t mind the costs and downstream effects it will have on our ability to provide public services.”
Hasn't this been covered and explained multiple times on this forum?kbshapiro wrote: ↑Jan 12, 2024Hi, I’m here to learn…how are suburban communities pilfering wealth from the City and externalizing costs onto the City?JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Jan 10, 2024If “progress for our region” is the goal, the city should focus on making the city the best city it can be given the constraints. Resources are finite and until there’s evidence the using them on unification efforts isn’t folly, they shouldn’t be deployed there.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Jan 10, 2024I think this is entirely the wrong attitude if progress for our region is the goal. What’s the benefit of focusing on competitive advantages of the city over the county vs the competitive advantages of the region as a whole? We’d be guilty of playing the same game as the county, to the detriment of our region as a whole.
More practically, even if there is some deterioration in parts of the county, I can’t envision a scenario where merging, consolidating, and finding synergies with the county isn’t the right move for the city.
Edit: “Progress for the region” has become a synonym for maintaining the status quo of suburban communities pilfering wealth from the city while externalizing costs onto the city. “Be happy that a massive beef processing facility is being built in Warrenton. It’s good for the Region. Don’t mind the costs and downstream effects it will have on our ability to provide public services.”
- 6,118
^I feel like that belongs in urbanism threads, rather than one specific to Park and Main. That's probably where you'll find it, but we've absolutely had the conversation around here before. Take a look there.
- 320
Chesterfield Mall owner sets date it will close permanently, with demolition to follow
![]()
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2024/01/30/chesterfield-mall-closing-demolition-tenants-tsg.htmlThe owners of Chesterfield Mall have set a date for when mall will close and work could start on a new $2 billion project to replace it.
All tenant leases at the mall will end Aug. 31, and demolition of the mall could start as soon as the fall, ahead of the mixed-use Downtown Chesterfield project, said Tim Lowe, senior vice president of leasing and development for The Staenberg Group, the owner of the mall and developer of Downtown Chesterfield.
Mall tenants are aware of the Aug. 31 deadline, which is when the mall’s leases officially end, Lowe said. Plans for Downtown Chesterfield, to be built at the mall site at Interstate 64 and Clarkson Road in Chesterfield, have moved forward since The Staenberg Group received final approval from the city council in September, Lowe said.
“Soon you will see real progress,” he said.
With more than 2,500 apartments, along with high-rise offices, retail, restaurants and a hotel, Downtown Chesterfield will create an urban city center in Chesterfield, a suburb that has never before had a downtown. In the weeks before the final vote for approval, The Staenberg Group paused the project after some officials took steps toward capping the number of apartments allowed in the development.
The project will border another massive mixed-use development already under construction on 80 acres west of the mall, St. Louis-based developer CRG’s $1 billion project Wildhorse Village. The two projects combined received about $300 million of tax-increment financing from the city intended to fund public infrastructure in and around the sites.
For some reason I thought that Cheesecake Factory and movie theater were staying in tact while everything else was demolished. But I’m not sure that is structurally possibly. It’s been awhile since I have been there to know the setup.airforceguy1 wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2024Chesterfield Mall owner sets date it will close permanently, with demolition to follow
![]()
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2024/01/30/chesterfield-mall-closing-demolition-tenants-tsg.htmlThe owners of Chesterfield Mall have set a date for when mall will close and work could start on a new $2 billion project to replace it.
All tenant leases at the mall will end Aug. 31, and demolition of the mall could start as soon as the fall, ahead of the mixed-use Downtown Chesterfield project, said Tim Lowe, senior vice president of leasing and development for The Staenberg Group, the owner of the mall and developer of Downtown Chesterfield.
Mall tenants are aware of the Aug. 31 deadline, which is when the mall’s leases officially end, Lowe said. Plans for Downtown Chesterfield, to be built at the mall site at Interstate 64 and Clarkson Road in Chesterfield, have moved forward since The Staenberg Group received final approval from the city council in September, Lowe said.
“Soon you will see real progress,” he said.
With more than 2,500 apartments, along with high-rise offices, retail, restaurants and a hotel, Downtown Chesterfield will create an urban city center in Chesterfield, a suburb that has never before had a downtown. In the weeks before the final vote for approval, The Staenberg Group paused the project after some officials took steps toward capping the number of apartments allowed in the development.
The project will border another massive mixed-use development already under construction on 80 acres west of the mall, St. Louis-based developer CRG’s $1 billion project Wildhorse Village. The two projects combined received about $300 million of tax-increment financing from the city intended to fund public infrastructure in and around the sites.
Those are actually some pretty good looking buildings. I wish we'd get more like that in the City, rather than the usual cut-and-paste crap.
- 2,623
Those buildings won't look 50% as nice as they do in those renderings
- 977
Renderings are always nicer than reality, but I agree the buildings seem like an upgrade compared to some of the stuff we have gotten in the city.
I am curious to see how well they are able to secure ground floor retail tenants. They may be much better set up for that than many of these apartment buildings in the city that have struggled to attract retail.
I am curious to see how well they are able to secure ground floor retail tenants. They may be much better set up for that than many of these apartment buildings in the city that have struggled to attract retail.
The website for Downtown Cheaterfield is now up.The website shows some pretty ambious renderings.
https://downtownchesterfieldstl.com/
https://downtownchesterfieldstl.com/
Lol at "Department Store," where Dillards won't sell
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
- 1,792
you know my initial reaction to this was sure Chesterfield SHOULD have a downtown urban center. And stylistically this is not bad. But now, after some consideration, I think this is just more of the same BS. Just look at how the development addresses Clarkson and Chesterfield Parkway, meaning not at all. This is not a downtown, it is an island. The people and businesses adjacent are not part of it.
Clarkson might as well be a freeway so I’m not sure how you would integrate the other side of it anyway without a major road diet, which wouldn’t happen.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Feb 09, 2024you know my initial reaction to this was sure Chesterfield SHOULD have a downtown urban center. And stylistically this is not bad. But now, after some consideration, I think this is just more of the same BS. Just look at how the development addresses Clarkson and Chesterfield Parkway, meaning not at all. This is not a downtown, it is an island. The people and businesses adjacent are not part of it.
The other side of chesterfield parkway has plenty of other development going on that seems like it would be integrated fine. With what is going on here. Easy enough to walk to “downtown chesterfield” from there.
Couldn't help but compare that situation to downtown St Louis. Downtowns only work well if there is easy walkable and transit access to adjacent neighborhoods, not when ever visitor is forced to drive in. St Louis cut off our downtown with freeways, Chesterfield is building theirs within an existing highway. When will planners learn that urbanism doesn't work in isolation?jshank83 wrote: ↑Feb 09, 2024Clarkson might as well be a freeway so I’m not sure how you would integrate the other side of it anyway without a major road diet, which wouldn’t happen.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Feb 09, 2024you know my initial reaction to this was sure Chesterfield SHOULD have a downtown urban center. And stylistically this is not bad. But now, after some consideration, I think this is just more of the same BS. Just look at how the development addresses Clarkson and Chesterfield Parkway, meaning not at all. This is not a downtown, it is an island. The people and businesses adjacent are not part of it.
The other side of chesterfield parkway has plenty of other development going on that seems like it would be integrated fine. With what is going on here. Easy enough to walk to “downtown chesterfield” from there.
Yeah can't they at least build sidewalk connections to the surrounding area? I know there isn't much to hook into but there would be potential down the line.
I mean it is directly connected to the Wildhorse village development.
I feel like this is going to give clayton a taste of their own medicine lol.
Also think it's funny that Dillard's is still in the development after throwing their fit.
I'm also glad this wasn't around when PWC was doing their relocation search. No way they would have chosen their downtown location over this. And therein lies the problem of this project, even though I am pro-downtown chesterfield over the abandoned mall. Since it is within the VIA metro STL zone I hope transit is incorporated.
I feel like this is going to give clayton a taste of their own medicine lol.
Also think it's funny that Dillard's is still in the development after throwing their fit.
I'm also glad this wasn't around when PWC was doing their relocation search. No way they would have chosen their downtown location over this. And therein lies the problem of this project, even though I am pro-downtown chesterfield over the abandoned mall. Since it is within the VIA metro STL zone I hope transit is incorporated.