urbanSTL

^Yeah, it's a small class III. Eastern end of the former Rock Island line to Kansas City. It used to be Central Midland, which was a Progressive Rail company. It's Missouri Eastern now, which is owned by Jaguar Transport out of Joplin. Connects to the Terminal near Page and 170, which is right on an easement Metrolink picked up for the Clayton extension anyway. (And which they use between Clayton and Shrewsbury.) It mostly goes through some pretty light and empty areas of the county. Creve Coeur Lake is on the line. (And was at one time a resort developed by the original railroad.)

Yeah, it's a pretty inefficient way to get to Union. I honestly don't even know that it would make great sense as Metrolink. Once you get past Maryland Heights there's just no population along the route, and really only the one destination. Creve Coeur Lake. Gumbo Flats. Wildwood's wilder and woodier neighbor St. Albans. And many miles later Union. It'd be scenic. I think it could be a good tourist railroad. But I don't see how you make it transportation for anything other than the few industries presently using it.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Nov 21, 2024

^Yeah, it's a small class III. Eastern end of the former Rock Island line to Kansas City. It used to be Central Midland, which was a Progressive Rail company. It's Missouri Eastern now, which is owned by Jaguar Transport out of Joplin. Connects to the Terminal near Page and 170, which is right on an easement Metrolink picked up for the Clayton extension anyway. (And which they use between Clayton and Shrewsbury.) It mostly goes through some pretty light and empty areas of the county. Creve Coeur Lake is on the line. (And was at one time a resort developed by the original railroad.)

Yeah, it's a pretty inefficient way to get to Union. I honestly don't even know that it would make great sense as Metrolink. Once you get past Maryland Heights there's just no population along the route, and really only the one destination. Creve Coeur Lake. Gumbo Flats. Wildwood's wilder and woodier neighbor St. Albans. And many miles later Union. It'd be scenic. I think it could be a good tourist railroad. But I don't see how you make it transportation for anything other than the few industries presently using it.

Did we just get a Gumbo Flats mention?

Couple things:

I know the city has high dollar developments underway.  I also know that we want/need more of them and agree that this type of development and investment could really be used in the city, whether downtown or somewhere else.  It would have a significant impact that would really help our built environment and public perception of the city.  I understand that in a slow/no-growth region like ours, there aren't plenty of these projects to go around.

They can call it whatever they want to...urban is whatever we want to define it as.  It does appear to be denser and more mixed-use that the rest of Chesterfield, that's still a win in my book.  What do you all think should happen on this site?  Seriously, what would you recommend instead?  This is progress.  I know we may want it elsewhere or denser or....I still think this helps the region and makes it more likely to incentivize the region to support High-Capacity transit to this area.

I just don't understand the talking down towards people who live in the suburbs, our neighbors.  Policy across the country, both present and past, forced and monetarily incentivized low-density development.  They are trying to do something different here and all you can say is they should've done this sooner?  Or they fought this for so long they don't deserve to change their mind?  Someone who smokes for decades finally wants to quit...and you're trying to tell them no, or don't quit that way?

I get the concern that this is taking from other urban areas in the region, but I still think this type of development makes us more competitive nationally, and helps to get suburbanites more comfortable with denser, more-"urban" life.

They can call it whatever they want.  From what I can tell, this seems to be more "urban" that plenty of development within the city...it's just in the wrong zip-code...

dblarsen314 wrote: ↑

Nov 21, 2024

Couple things:

I know the city has high dollar developments underway.  I also know that we want/need more of them and agree that this type of development and investment could really be used in the city, whether downtown or somewhere else.  It would have a significant impact that would really help our built environment and public perception of the city.  I understand that in a slow/no-growth region like ours, there aren't plenty of these projects to go around.

They can call it whatever they want to...urban is whatever we want to define it as.  It does appear to be denser and more mixed-use that the rest of Chesterfield, that's still a win in my book.  What do you all think should happen on this site?  Seriously, what would you recommend instead?  This is progress.  I know we may want it elsewhere or denser or....I still think this helps the region and makes it more likely to incentivize the region to support High-Capacity transit to this area.

I just don't understand the talking down towards people who live in the suburbs, our neighbors.  Policy across the country, both present and past, forced and monetarily incentivized low-density development.  They are trying to do something different here and all you can say is they should've done this sooner?  Or they fought this for so long they don't deserve to change their mind?  Someone who smokes for decades finally wants to quit...and you're trying to tell them no, or don't quit that way?

I get the concern that this is taking from other urban areas in the region, but I still think this type of development makes us more competitive nationally, and helps to get suburbanites more comfortable with denser, more-"urban" life.

They can call it whatever they want.  From what I can tell, this seems to be more "urban" that plenty of development within the city...it's just in the wrong zip-code...

I'll stop talking down when they stop destroying the country. Sound like a deal?

Auggie you're not making many friends.

Well, I get a little irritated when they want to create urbanism but don't want to contribute to OR bash the city.   Together we rise, divided we fall.

Urban Downtown isn’t whatever we define it. Each metro area has one urban downtown and it’s the one that was here 250 years ago

Regardless of everyone's personal opinion, this project IS setting up the stage for an I-64 BRT just like the former Virginia silver line bus. If we get that, this entire project will be worth it. 

stl07 wrote: ↑

Nov 21, 2024

dblarsen314 wrote: ↑

Nov 21, 2024

Couple things:

I know the city has high dollar developments underway.  I also know that we want/need more of them and agree that this type of development and investment could really be used in the city, whether downtown or somewhere else.  It would have a significant impact that would really help our built environment and public perception of the city.  I understand that in a slow/no-growth region like ours, there aren't plenty of these projects to go around.

They can call it whatever they want to...urban is whatever we want to define it as.  It does appear to be denser and more mixed-use that the rest of Chesterfield, that's still a win in my book.  What do you all think should happen on this site?  Seriously, what would you recommend instead?  This is progress.  I know we may want it elsewhere or denser or....I still think this helps the region and makes it more likely to incentivize the region to support High-Capacity transit to this area.

I just don't understand the talking down towards people who live in the suburbs, our neighbors.  Policy across the country, both present and past, forced and monetarily incentivized low-density development.  They are trying to do something different here and all you can say is they should've done this sooner?  Or they fought this for so long they don't deserve to change their mind?  Someone who smokes for decades finally wants to quit...and you're trying to tell them no, or don't quit that way?

I get the concern that this is taking from other urban areas in the region, but I still think this type of development makes us more competitive nationally, and helps to get suburbanites more comfortable with denser, more-"urban" life.

They can call it whatever they want.  From what I can tell, this seems to be more "urban" that plenty of development within the city...it's just in the wrong zip-code...

Agree completely. It's like some here prefer the abandoned mall. So historic! We need to preserve it /s

Some here would have said to not build the mall in the first place because it was stupid and unsustainable.

My issue is some people complain about when a strip mall goes in a somewhere in the county because it’s not urban, but when someplace in the county actually proposes an “urban” development they also crap on it. You can’t have it both ways. If you just hate Chesterfield then that’s fine but just own it and don’t flip flop to try to rationalize it.

I think this is is fine and I think in the long run this will be a good thing, even if short run it steals from somewhere else. We need more urban areas like these to attract people in my opinion.

Do I wish the money was being used for downtown, of course, but if it is not going to be I’d rather see this than strip malls or the like out there.

I think it’s the idea of a new “mega” development in an area without the need. Plus, the branding of it as a “downtown” just turns people off because our authentic regional downtown has struggled.

Also, if it was more granular or smaller in scale, ie. the Boulevard in Richmond Heights or some of the projects in midtown, it would not require inevitably pulling businesses, residents immediately out of the core and could gradually grow into another urban area more naturally. Their mega development model makes it where either the downtown Chesterfield will fail or it will make some other area in the city fail.

This type of investment would be great for the Bottle District, Kosciusko, areas just north of Downtown West, or even in the metro east. The big gaps that we have to fill to make ourselves a more cohesive metro area.

Chesterfield is an area of middle to high income, new winding subdivisions. That’s fine, and you have to have that in a metro because some people want that. But the “urban” investments should be going into the urban areas. That’s just a lot of money that people wish was being used in a more impactful way

The project is unnatural and with the context of a region that continues to ignore investment in its actual downtown, the whole thing comes off unsavory.

TRUESONJB wrote: ↑

Nov 21, 2024

Did we just get a Gumbo Flats mention?

I am plenty old enough to remember when it was underwater. (I was eating lunch in the Festus fire department taking a break from sandbagging when the Monarch levy collapsed.) Yep. Gumbo flats. It's in a river. We just sort of forget that.

Anyway, I don't have much of a strong opinion on Park and Main. It's probably a good idea? Just weighing in on the idea of commuter rail on the old Rock. Tourist trains? Yessir. There's no money in it, but yes please. Commuter rail? Not the line I would pick. I'd use the Jeff City sub out to Washington for that, or the Wabash out to Wentzville. Or maybe even the Alton to Alton. (Or better yet the ITC, since it's presently a bike path.) But the Rock would not be a priority. (We won't discuss what I may or may not have done with it in NIMBY Rails. I should probably call it YIMBY Rails.)

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Nov 22, 2024

My issue is some people complain about when a strip mall goes in a somewhere in the county because it’s not urban, but when someplace in the county actually proposes an “urban” development they also crap on it. You can’t have it both ways. If you just hate Chesterfield then that’s fine but just own it and don’t flip flop to try to rationalize it.

I think this is is fine and I think in the long run this will be a good thing, even if short run it steals from somewhere else. We need more urban areas like these to attract people in my opinion.

Do I wish the money was being used for downtown, of course, but if it is not going to be I’d rather see this than strip malls or the like out there.

West county, especially west of 270, is a vacuum devoid of culture or taste. So yes, anything they do out there will be crapped on and rightfully so.

Chesterfield wants its own DT because the people that live there are too frightened to drive inside 170 and utilise the downtowns they already have. This project deserves every ounce of the ridicule and scorn it receives.

It makes perfect sense for Chesterfield to pursue this project, this node of density will go a long way towards strengthening their tax base. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already functionally insolvent when it comes to all the spread out infrastructure that will need to be replaced in the coming decades. Basic Strong Towns stuff. Not to mention they are probably looking at our other desirable suburbs like Webster, Kirkwood, and St. Charles and realizing that they could use a town center for culture and community reasons.

On a regional level, it's obviously not great, but this project is completely rational for the independent city of Chesterfield to build. Just think about Crestwood. They had a golden opportunity to build themselves a downtown on their dead mall site, but they completely squandered it.

Last I checked Chesterfield didn't have a property tax. They rely on shoppers, especially non-resident shoppers. Also a lot of the big roads are maintained by the county or state. There are subsidy streams from productive places to spread out ones baked into utility rates.

Chiming in again, I think some of the comments make sense.  I am not trying to crap on Chesterfield, really.  I do fear they will do what they have done best.  Build something and drain from other areas (employers in this case for their 'downtown' commerce).

The perfect example of this is indeed their shopping (their tax base).  How many outlet malls have we shuffled?  Beltz in Wentzville, the outlets in Warrenton, the Mills in St. Louis County, and then the TWO in Chesterfield - which with the changing times also contributed to the downfall of the Chesterfield Mall.

Again, props to them for wanting an urban downtown (which we could all have if we supported it) but I just get disappointed when we are fighting over the same businesses.  We are not working for the greater good.

It’s a shame Jimmie Carter killed the Columbia-Waterloo new airport. That would have re-centered our metro downtown. Is it true that the Arch is moving to the Missouri riverbank near the Chesterfield floodplain? And our metro area will be renamed The Chesterplex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Nov 23, 2024

It’s a shame Jimmie Carter killed the Columbia-Waterloo new airport. That would have re-centered our metro downtown.  Is it true that the Arch is moving to the Missouri riverbank near the Chesterfield floodplain?  And our metro area will be renamed The Chesterplex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never knew this. Certainly would have been a game changer. The main airport should certainly be the location of the “St. Louis Downtown Airport.” It would be convenient to downtown and it is in flood bottoms - not a lot else you can do with such large land footprint. Would have stabilized river bottoms and make downtown StL the undoubted economic and tourist center it should be.

delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑

Nov 23, 2024

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Nov 23, 2024

It’s a shame Jimmie Carter killed the Columbia-Waterloo new airport. That would have re-centered our metro downtown.  Is it true that the Arch is moving to the Missouri riverbank near the Chesterfield floodplain?  And our metro area will be renamed The Chesterplex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never knew this. Certainly would have been a game changer. The main airport should certainly be the location of the “St. Louis Downtown Airport.” It would be convenient to downtown and it is in flood bottoms - not a lot else you can do with such large land footprint. Would have stabilized river bottoms and make downtown StL the undoubted economic and tourist center it should be.

Should be reminded that Downtown is still a major economic hub and it is the tourist center. It's not like people are traveling here to go visit Westport.

Who do we think "Downtown Chesterfield" is going to poach from Downtown then?

It’s most likely to poach from other suburban office parks (many of which are beginning to show their age) like Riverport, Timberlake, and Woodsmill.

Yeah, nothing that ends up in “downtown” Chesterfield was considering Downtown. People or companies.

Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑

Dec 03, 2024

Who do we think "Downtown Chesterfield" is going to poach from Downtown then?

I think it'll end up poaching more from Clayton than anything.