Would have been nice to force them to build structured parking with ground level retail here to get the park. Oh well, I guess at least it will theoretically be easier to redevelop in the future.
SMH
SMH
I guess all the Styrofoam they used to fill the area under the plaza (large former rail tunnels) is strong enough to support vehicles.
The foam is strong enough, but the plaza area was mostly filled with dirt and stone. The foam is only along the building foundations that weren't built to bear the ground pressure.
Further echoing how dumb of a move trying to sell this because it needs to go to a citywide vote, the use as a parking lot because there is somehow not enough empty parking already is a joke, and the price is too low even if it were a good idea and passed by voters.
I hope someone or an organization is willing to spend the money on a lawsuit.
Further echoing how dumb of a move trying to sell this because it needs to go to a citywide vote, the use as a parking lot because there is somehow not enough empty parking already is a joke, and the price is too low even if it were a good idea and passed by voters.
I hope someone or an organization is willing to spend the money on a lawsuit.
Alternatively, we can let it remain untaxble land that can't even be used as a park because when it was, it just became as place where homeless and drug addicts hung out around, further echoing how dumb it is to maintain the status quo.MattnSTL wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025The foam is strong enough, but the plaza area was mostly filled with dirt and stone. The foam is only along the building foundations that weren't built to bear the ground pressure.
Further echoing how dumb of a move trying to sell this because it needs to go to a citywide vote, the use as a parking lot because there is somehow not enough empty parking already is a joke, and the price is too low even if it were a good idea and passed by voters.
I hope someone or an organization is willing to spend the money on a lawsuit.
Regardless of if it needs to go to a vote or not (I think it should, but so should the Green Line changes), the nuanced view is that making this a parking lot is an objective improvement over the status quo for the city on both a business front and a tax revenue/spending front.
Interco Plaza's sale, according to Alderman Rasheen Aldridge who brought the sale forward in a bill, doesn't need to be approved by voters because the space isn't specifically listed as a park under city ordinance. Under that definition, 46 of the city's other 109 parks also wouldn't need voter approval if the city wants to sell them.
^This is where it gets tricky. The official city webpage for InterCo Plaza directly calls it a city park. I don’t know what ordinance Aldridge is referring to, but this seems to contradict that.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... rking.html
Sale was approved for $275,000 10-5, both downtown Alders supported the bill.
Sale was approved for $275,000 10-5, both downtown Alders supported the bill.
- 917
Selling this for a parking lot is just such an awful decision. I mean if the guy had an actual proposal then I would be fine with it. The building is literally surrounded by parking lots already. So frustrating. Why does downtown suck? Look no further than decisions like this
The fact that the city is going to just sell land because one guy says he wants a parking lot. No request for proposals put out? This is small town stuff it’s crazy
The fact that the city is going to just sell land because one guy says he wants a parking lot. No request for proposals put out? This is small town stuff it’s crazy
- 172
the drivers with their vehicles that will populate this lot where do they presently park?
I think you have to look at the entire picture. This "park" is a nuisance, no one actually uses it as a park, it is often fenced off due to the crowd that it attracts. The city has to spend money to maintain it and it's not taxable. A parking lot will be taxable, a private owner will maintain it, and it will help nearby office buildings attract tenants.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025Selling this for a parking lot is just such an awful decision. I mean if the guy had an actual proposal then I would be fine with it. The building is literally surrounded by parking lots already. So frustrating. Why does downtown suck? Look no further than decisions like this
The fact that the city is going to just sell land because one guy says he wants a parking lot. No request for proposals put out? This is small town stuff it’s crazy
This is pretty cut and dry. And it's not like we have a shortage of parks downtown either.
- 340
The lot across Tucker. I know there have been some safety issues as some of my coworkers have been waiting at the light to cross the street. I'm not entirely sure my company will be able to park in the new lot, but I'm assuming employee safety of other tenants was a factor into this decision.BarryGlick wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2025the drivers with their vehicles that will populate this lot where do they presently park?
To put it into perspective, here's a map with the current parking lot highlighted in green. This lot is more than sufficient for the building's current tenants since Block (the biggest tenant) has flexible work schedules that allow their employees to work from home for some of the week. I think they want more parking in anticipation of a rollback of the flexible work schedule, more tenants coming to the building, or both. Like you say, safety is probably also a consideration. They do not have access to the garage east of the building since that is used exclusively by the Post-Dispatch for their HQ on N. 10th St. The other two lots north of the building I believe are private lots, so those are off-limits as well, hence the red x's. However, there are several other lots similar in size to InterCo Plaza that I think are public (yellow ?'s). For the safety reasons stated above, they might not want to use these lots since they are further from the building.Miss Shell wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2025The lot across Tucker. I know there have been some safety issues as some of my coworkers have been waiting at the light to cross the street. I'm not entirely sure my company will be able to park in the new lot, but I'm assuming employee safety of other tenants was a factor into this decision.BarryGlick wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2025the drivers with their vehicles that will populate this lot where do they presently park?
I never even considered that Tucker is a death trap, just makes this make even more sense.
- 340
I'm not even sure this lot will be accessible to Block employees. We haven't received any announcement about it. There is no plan to have any return to office requirement, as probably over half of employees don't live near one. This could be something another tenant requested, or the building owner just wanted to do to attract future tenants. But I will say, it is useless green space. Always fenced off. And our back patio is fenced off for a reason.
- 917
Sure I don’t really care about the park. But another parking lot downtown is a nuisance and any public land in the city of st. louis certainly should not be sold for a parking lot. Sure in some specific cases I would be okay with a park parcel being sold for actual development, but not a single one should be sold for private parking. This is horrible precedent and poor use of land downtown
The current land use is worse. An untaxable, unuseable park that if anything lowers land values and serves as a deterrent to nearby businesses and properties.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2025Sure I don’t really care about the park. But another parking lot downtown is a nuisance and any public land in the city of st. louis certainly should not be sold for a parking lot. Sure in some specific cases I would be okay with a park parcel being sold for actual development, but not a single one should be sold for private parking. This is horrible precedent and poor use of land downtown
What an enormous waste of time. If it was a park, it was an ugly park that no one cared about. Suddenly an activist group cares. People need hobbies.
Are we conceding then that the charter amendment passed to prevent the sale of parks by the BoA is meaningless? There are a few other parks that should be sold entirely, like Minnesota and Hill Park, Aloe Plaza West Park, Busche Park, Carnegie Park, Kaufmann Park, and a few partially to make them better parks. Like Lucier Park. Use the funds riased to improve the other parks.
^ Probably a good law case study/analysis for SLU students. Can city revert public land to say a non park status to sell the land and or does the city require them to put in place the resident approval for sale? I recall the charter amendment does provide a path for city park land but a much more involved process with some sort of city referendum if not mistaken.
- 13
What the heck is the status of this project ?
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local ... 77de1ff61e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local ... 77de1ff61e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 502
I saw a tweet from DB showing repaving work beginning on Tucker. I imagine the improvements will be done simultaneously (like has been seen on Jefferson, Kingshighway, and Tower Grove)
- 9,539
Started today. The contractor brought the armada. Never seen so many trucks and crews for a single 1 mile job. They milled and repaved 2 lanes just today. I think they want to finish by Opening day, although painting will have to wait for a few weeks after because this has to sit for 30 days
- 13
So they aren’t replacing the medians or anything that they’ve been talking about since 2017 lol…? I mean repaving the street is just general maintenance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk