Lol, a soccer field wrapped in an 8 ft chain link fence?
- 2,419
I can't believe somebody commissioned someone to make drawings for this.
Hard pass.
Hard pass.
I’m fine with it. Urban soccer pitches add character and activity. Can easily been built on when it makes sense to.
The grove is not short developable land. Takes one off the radar for bit.
The grove is not short developable land. Takes one off the radar for bit.
- 921
It doesn’t make sense here though. This directly on top of a commercial strip. Grove has plenty of demand for rentals.
There’s some lots, even in the Grove, that could be an acceptable place for such a proposal. This isn’t one.
- 340
Should have made them pickleball courts. The gays love pickleball.
Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk
I'm confused. Is this an actual proposal? By whom? Who would own it and control access to the field? How would it be paid for?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s the fact that it doesn’t fit that makes it interesting. That’s my brand of urbanism. Parks where they don’t belong create memorable places.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote:It doesn’t make sense here though. This directly on top of a commercial strip. Grove has plenty of demand for rentals.
There’s some lots, even in the Grove, that could be an acceptable place for such a proposal. This isn’t one.
Soccer is a global sport, about to be reinvented in North America by the World Cup. This is a global city amenity to have.
When this is active, this intersection will feel active. It’s not parking. It’s no an empty lot. I’d love a big tall building, but that doesn’t seem likely anytime soon.
- 3,762
^ but it's not a park. it's just a field surrounded by a fence. there's not a single tree or any other park amenity in the drawing that would be attractive to anyone not playing soccer.
if it's only meant to be temporary then fine—better than dirt. but the little "future building" shown in the drawing (concession stand? bathrooms?) makes me worry that it's intended to be permanent, which would be a huge waste of prime real estate in a neighborhood with relatively high demand in a city that is overflowing with vacancy and green space and desperate for people, housing, and retail.
if it's only meant to be temporary then fine—better than dirt. but the little "future building" shown in the drawing (concession stand? bathrooms?) makes me worry that it's intended to be permanent, which would be a huge waste of prime real estate in a neighborhood with relatively high demand in a city that is overflowing with vacancy and green space and desperate for people, housing, and retail.
- 398
I am not aware of many kids living in the grove area? Maybe I just don't see them because they are not on Manchester, or because I am there in the evenings. I think places like this are best off of the main street of an entertainment district. The conservatives are still pushing bills to mandate where drag can occur to "protect the children", but someone is proposing soccer fields right by Just John's and Rehab and where Grovefest occurs.
I think these are parks. I think they promote community, provide outdoor space for playing/watching, promote healthy living.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Parks don’t have to be centered around children. I guarantee this field would be most used by SLUH, college, young professionals playing a pick-up game every summer evening. All of which will disperse to one of the many restaurants and bars already available.
The more I argue for it, the more I love it. I think it’ll be a big traffic generator. Paired with the closed street park and Grove sign, could be one of the coolest summer vibes in the city.
Parks don’t have to be centered around children. I guarantee this field would be most used by SLUH, college, young professionals playing a pick-up game every summer evening. All of which will disperse to one of the many restaurants and bars already available.
The more I argue for it, the more I love it. I think it’ll be a big traffic generator. Paired with the closed street park and Grove sign, could be one of the coolest summer vibes in the city.
- 1,607
The park at Newstead and.Chouteau always has kids/families at it.
Despite the land use, I don't mind this for now. Imagine a nice evening with a mix of folks playing soccer, going out, walking the neighborhood... it's activated! And could easily be built on in the future. And there are other sites in the Grove in flux - what about the former Attitudes space proposal? The auto shop/Narwhals? Etc etc
- 921
It’s a private developer right? Won’t they be trying to make money somehow? Will it even be open to the public?
I usually like your ideas and takes @addxb2 but not agreeing with you here. I really liked your book market idea for muni courts. I think here you might be applying the “I’ve seen this in Europe, would be great here” logic and I just dont think the Grove is where we give up prime real estate, right at the entrance to the district, for soccer fields, considering the state of our development. It seems like you are wishful as a soccer fan and wants it to be here what is in Europe (and I admit I am biased the other way bc I’m not much of a soccer fan so maybe i’m not seeing the value I should here with this proposal idk)
I usually like your ideas and takes @addxb2 but not agreeing with you here. I really liked your book market idea for muni courts. I think here you might be applying the “I’ve seen this in Europe, would be great here” logic and I just dont think the Grove is where we give up prime real estate, right at the entrance to the district, for soccer fields, considering the state of our development. It seems like you are wishful as a soccer fan and wants it to be here what is in Europe (and I admit I am biased the other way bc I’m not much of a soccer fan so maybe i’m not seeing the value I should here with this proposal idk)
- 1,607
I feel like this is supposed to be like Truman’s right? Concept being tgey have a bar with an athletic option? Since it’s topical - like wave taco in 2010?
- 3,762
yes but, again, that is an actual park with trees (albeit too few and not mature yet) and playground equipment and tables and a dog run IN ADDITION TO a basketball court. it has amenities to attract a variety of users. and of the examples that addxb2 posted, two include playgrounds. this proposal would be great a block off of Manchester, but it's not appropriate plopped into the middle of the commercial district.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Mar 02, 2025The park at Newstead and.Chouteau always has kids/families at it.
i don't believe the owner of 4101 Manchester (Spencer Development LLC) owns any of the adjacent bars, and he bought the property from the LRA back in 2017 for $175K based on the promise of development. then last year he listed it for sale for over $2M (https://nextstl.com/2024/02/infamous-va ... -for-sale/). he got a free lunch and doesn't want to give up those $$$—and like d2d2d said, a little soccer field isn't going to make money—so i'm guessing this is just a diversion to make it look like he's not speculating while he continues speculating.
Is this the right summary for the site?
Maybe it is time for the city to claw the parcel back since the developers have not met the terms of the agreement, coming up on 8 years now. Nothing against Spencer Development, I think they did good work at both 4321 Manchester and the Dogwood (I think both of those were theirs), but if they are not ready to build the appropriate building, it is time to give someone else a shot, rather than let them landbank. Does anyone have an estimate on how much the city would have to pay to cover the work already done on the property?
- City issues RFP for the site (former city-owned surface parking lot) in 2016
- 3 proposals submitted for the site, and Spencer Development's is chosen in 2017. They pay $175,000 for the parcel, and the 2-year construction clock started counting down at this time
- Development proposed, awarded 10 years of tax abatement
- Multiple changes in rendering over the years, suggesting that submitted plan was not ready to be executed at the time of submission. Proposals generally propose commercial first floor with 5-6 floors of office/residential above
- Some site development work done, including removing the surface parking lot, excavation, and sinking piers
- Things go essentially silent mid-2019. This was pre-COVID19, so hard to pin all the blame on that
- Spencer Development lists the parcel for sale at $2.2 million in February 2024
- Spencer Development proposes a soccer field February 2025
Maybe it is time for the city to claw the parcel back since the developers have not met the terms of the agreement, coming up on 8 years now. Nothing against Spencer Development, I think they did good work at both 4321 Manchester and the Dogwood (I think both of those were theirs), but if they are not ready to build the appropriate building, it is time to give someone else a shot, rather than let them landbank. Does anyone have an estimate on how much the city would have to pay to cover the work already done on the property?
- 1,607
Maybe send that to Ald. Browning and see how he feels about it. I assuming since he wanted to demo a building for WashU with no plan and gave incentives after the fact for the good will building and he is unopposed he will not care.
4101 Manchester is owned by MATT Spencer. 4321 and The Dogwood (and many other properties) are owned by SEAN (and Kelly) Spencer.rbeedee wrote: ↑Mar 02, 2025Is this the right summary for the site?
Putting any sort of low-density use at such a prominent parcel along the commercial district seems like a non-starter to me. I know it is advertised as "temporary," but we have seen bait-and-switches before. I don't think this neighborhood needs more green/plaza space, there is already a neighborhood park and several playgrounds, not to mention close proximity to Forest Park and Tower Grove Park. Hard to believe a field would be a permissible use per the form-based code. This site is also potentially very valuable from both a tax perspective and an urban design perspective. I can't see any permissible use for this site other than commercial first floor, with 5+ floors of residential or commercial above. No one likes an ugly lot, but they do a much better job of keeping pressure on developers and politicos to do something productive, in a way that a landscaped field or derelict building does not. For example, there is essentially no public pressure to do something about the Arbor on Arco site since the existing buildings were demolished, despite that also being a potentially valuable site with a checkered proposal history.
- City issues RFP for the site (former city-owned surface parking lot) in 2016
- 3 proposals submitted for the site, and Spencer Development's is chosen in 2017. They pay $175,000 for the parcel, and the 2-year construction clock started counting down at this time
- Development proposed, awarded 10 years of tax abatement
- Multiple changes in rendering over the years, suggesting that submitted plan was not ready to be executed at the time of submission. Proposals generally propose commercial first floor with 5-6 floors of office/residential above
- Some site development work done, including removing the surface parking lot, excavation, and sinking piers
- Things go essentially silent mid-2019. This was pre-COVID19, so hard to pin all the blame on that
- Spencer Development lists the parcel for sale at $2.2 million in February 2024
- Spencer Development proposes a soccer field February 2025
Maybe it is time for the city to claw the parcel back since the developers have not met the terms of the agreement, coming up on 8 years now. Nothing against Spencer Development, I think they did good work at both 4321 Manchester and the Dogwood (I think both of those were theirs), but if they are not ready to build the appropriate building, it is time to give someone else a shot, rather than let them landbank. Does anyone have an estimate on how much the city would have to pay to cover the work already done on the property?
That will remain a soccer field for a long time if 3.5M is invested. Hard pass. If I had to guess, the site as it sits doesnt pencil as a ground up mixed use if more than 1M - 1.5M.
- 921
Does not look temporary. A no from me