This site is zoned I Central Business District which has no parking mandate.
- 12
Well, in that case, I wish St Louis had greater sustainable transport infrastructure that would enable us to reduce the amount of parking
^ There is a MetroLink station less than 1,000' from this site. Despite its problems, downtown is still rather walkable. Market these units to those that want to live and work downtown or those that live or work near existing transit stations elsewhere. After all, most of the major job centers, hospitals and universities in center of the region are accessible to the light rail.
If the finishes are nice. I actually think it will be a nice building and fit in well. Missed opportunity with the lack or retail though. A nice restaurant on the mall with patio seating and Arch views would have been a nice addition.
- 2,631
Not having any retail element in this project is an inexcusable missed opportunity.
- 991
Counterpoint and a probably unfavorable position here on UrbanSTL: is there that much demand for retail downtown right now? A quick glance at Loop Net shows there's plenty of available retail spots, so it's not as if this space would be guaranteed to land an awesome tenant (or any tenant at all in the near future).
I'd much rather have a development that adds residents downtown to increase demand for future retail than have an empty store front. There's plenty of other potential retail spots once demand for it picks up. Let's just get people downtown and the rest will follow.
I'd much rather have a development that adds residents downtown to increase demand for future retail than have an empty store front. There's plenty of other potential retail spots once demand for it picks up. Let's just get people downtown and the rest will follow.
inexcusable missed opportunity
WHAT retail would go there?
is there that much demand for retail downtown right now?
Thank You!
WHAT retail would go there?
is there that much demand for retail downtown right now?
Thank You!
- 1,797
The location falls within the Stadium/Theater portion of DT. I think a restaurant space would be successful here (as one was for many years).
BizJournal reporting that the site was purchased by LHM, with no development plans at present. I don't have full access, what's the scoop with the complicated ownership of the underlying land?
The land is owned by an LLC tied to a Florida company that leased the land to Shannon and did a new lease with LHM.
The other wrinkle is that StL City, StL County, the Cardinals, and Cordish can prevent anything taller than 35 feet from being built there.
The other wrinkle is that StL City, StL County, the Cardinals, and Cordish can prevent anything taller than 35 feet from being built there.
- 2,419
It goes back to when the Hilton was directly across the street from Busch Stadium.
I think it'd only help the area if something significant could be built on that lot.
I think it'd only help the area if something significant could be built on that lot.
- 1,609
Cardinals leveraged past alderman to limit height restrictions next to stadium. Its actually an ordinance (I believe specific) for that parcel.
- 1,291
With the removal of the tower and the rotating restaurant, I'd love to see the height restriction removed and a replacement of sorts built on the site of the old Mike Shannon's building. Given the address, it'd be cool for there to be a 666' tower built there. There'd be some phenomenal views from a rotating restaurant there.
Yeah that sounds right, so the Mike Shannon building lot doesn't have any height restriction.
- 1,609
Yes it does. It was imposed by ordinance at the request of the Cardinals to protect their interests (views into stadium/competition for BPV. Mike Shannon and his family sued the City and Cardinals for years trying to get it repealed.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2025Yeah that sounds right, so the Mike Shannon building lot doesn't have any height restriction.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... aster.html
To my knowledge it has never been rescinded.
[Edit]
Per Google AI -
- The building had covenants that required the city, Cardinals, and others to consent to any development that was taller than 35 feet.
- Shannon and the Cardinals disagreed over the plans.
- 9,558
There are no plans for Mike Shannon’s other then demo and parking in the future
- 1,609
It's causation because the covenants are still in place. Several tried an failed since 2016 to get relief. I think we all can generally agree that if this lot did not have a 35' height restriction it would likely have a different owner and development plan, potentially already been built.
- 925
Fine with demo. The Spanish Pavilion next door does brutalist much better with some historical and architectural significance. Yea, it would probably be enhanced with some greenery but the land use of Mike Shannon’s is rather poor.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 22, 2025There are no plans for Mike Shannon’s other then demo and parking in the future
But we CANNOT put up a parking garage here. Holy ****. Whoever has these plans, please look across the street at Keiner garages or down walnut at the stadium garages. If we put up a parking garage at this site, I will go stand in front of the wrecking ball. We have already dealt with the ugly as sin Keiner garages for decades that drag down the gateway mall and our downtown.
I digress.
I thought a residential developer owned this site? It wasn’t that long ago that we had a decent proposal, though I think there could be more impressive ones.
I can’t believe the Cardinals would actually want to impose this restriction in today’s downtown environment. More people downtown makes more money for BPV and the Cardinals. These would be residents that would go to games and spend their money at restaurants at BPV. The competition would be offset and likely surpassed by the increased consumer market and patrons brought by a solid residential development of the site.
Feel free to move this convo to the Mike Shannon’s thread.
- 1,609
Its HLM, owner of the Hilton. ideally they build a 3rd tower.