urbanSTL

Imagine taking the position that we need to ban drive thrus and in turn tons of business the city gets from drive thrus and their attatched businesses, and then claim that others are trolling lmao.

You're completely out of touch. Like your position, in this case specifically, is that there are real human beings that want to live on this part of Hampton, and the city needs to reject an actual real life development proposal that will generate significant sales tax revenue and will be heavily used by residents in the surrounding neighborhood, to accomadate this definitely totally real demand for residential.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

My point being that if anyone in leadership/stewardship of this stretch had an iota of forward thought they would be thinking about improving the streetscape, furthering towards a better future.  Instead it's just a connector for highways.  It fuels the problem.  And it perpetuates.  Of course some of this is MODOT directive too on traffic connections as I was told.  How does essentially ignoring the strategic land use plan that actually has future thought of the city at its core help anything? I'm not debating banning drive-thrus.  In fact there are a few downtown in mixed use state that work just fine.  Is it the highest desirable use of the prime real estate? No, but that's not the hill I'm dying on.  It's the low productivity car sewer sludge proposed here that the strategic land use plan implicitly is against and being cast aside.

Something small streetscape-wise would be installing a median similar to Kingshighway near the hospitals.  You could easily lose a lane going north here, get trees and flowers in the middle and instantly have something that felt less than the distress it holds now.  Just showing you value life here would go a long way, and in effect, possibly in an altruistic sense, culture a better future for the stretch, then we wouldn't be saying yes to the lowest hanging fruit.  Maybe there's a brighter future that just has to be imagined.  Or just sticking to the spirit of the plan as it's laid out for us.  No one is missing a 7 Brew when there's a Starbucks the next parcel over.  When does anyone say no?

I mean, they just had to shut southbound traffic just south of 44 to a single lane because of a main break and traffic survived just fine because it's literally a highway connection point at this rate.  Anything to make this stretch less distressed is a plus, someone just has to care first.  At a bare minimum, just fix the road to show you care at least that little.

Lastly, I lament the Kingshighway building being turned into more fast food.  Until someone in leadership shows some soul for their ward, it'll be sh*t in, sh*t out.

The Strategic Land Use plan is not changing the fact this stretch of Hampton is between 2 major interstates. Kingshighway between 64 and 44 isn't any better.

Denying a development proposal on a property that has been vacant for over a year at least is not gonna bring the dream any closer either.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

So, your solution is to say "***** it"?

My proposal is to get someone in here with a vision for improvement because what's been done the last 70 years isn't working.

I think the middle ground here was following the guidance of SLUP which is the defining vision for St. Louis City's land utilization.  That's a completely nonpartisan approach that everyone should be looking at, including developers.

bwcrow1s wrote:So, your solution is to say "***** it"?

My proposal is to get someone in here with a vision for improvement because what's been done the last 70 years isn't working.

I think the middle ground here was following the guidance of SLUP which is the defining vision for St. Louis City's land utilization.  That's a completely nonpartisan approach that everyone should be looking at, including developers.

Or maybe at least act like you have a brain and realize there are better places to direct frustration and resources on land use that are not a vacant site on an extremely car oriented street that connects two interstates and a state highway.

A better place would be the Salvation Army building like less than a block away. Or maybe getting some of the gas stations nearby to close. Or Vandaventer with the new bike infrastructure. Or the vacant medical building at Chippewa and Landsdowne.

In your vision, what goes in here? And how long does the city have to wait for it? And what damage would a long vacant site do to this area?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

They had a shot with the 44 and Hampton gas station.. becoming another gas station.

I'm not disagreeing with better land usage like the gas stations, but someone has to start encouraging it or it will never get better.  Thusly, I have no faith in ward leadership at this point.

My vision is as simple as saying yes and trying something.  Removing one northbound lane, adding a green median with trees.  Saying yes means looking at obvious solutions like a road diet and even just repaving the existing infrastructure we apparently don't even care enough to invest in.  The obvious visual blight is a direct result of the city not caring to regulate any of it.  But that's the whole encouraging node of SLUP.  Then it's completely disregarded as a directive, or even suggestion.

I mean, do we want any better? If not then great you can have your opinion but I don't see why you wouldn't want to improve this stretch, and we should be enforcing the land utilization plan that was adopted by the city.  It's clear that it's valuable real estate but without putting our regulatory foot forward it's just going to be trash in trash out.

bwcrow1s wrote:They had a shot with the 44 and Hampton gas station.. becoming another gas station.

I'm not disagreeing with better land usage like the gas stations, but someone has to start encouraging it or it will never get better.  Thusly, I have no faith in ward leadership at this point.

My vision is as simple as saying yes and trying something.  Removing one northbound lane, adding a green median with trees.  Saying yes means looking at obvious solutions like a road diet and even just repaving the existing infrastructure we apparently don't even care enough to invest in.  The obvious visual blight is a direct result of the city not caring to regulate any of it.  But that's the whole encouraging node of SLUP.  Then it's completely disregarded as a directive, or even suggestion.

I mean, do we want any better? If not then great you can have your opinion but I don't see why you wouldn't want to improve this stretch, and we should be enforcing the land utilization plan that was adopted by the city.  It's clear that it's valuable real estate but without putting our regulatory foot forward it's just going to be trash in trash out.

My point is that "better" in this case is the proposed development. It's going to be better for the area than the Jack in the Box and it will be better than sitting vacant for some indeterminate length of time.

If there was demand for mixed use residential in this area, then obviously that would be better. But there is not and it will be decades before there's any shot for a Grove type apartment building to be proposed here.

Also the Hampton-44 gas station....again, WHAT ELSE IS GONNA GO THERE? I'm talking about gas stations like the Phillips 66 or Circle K or even the Shell. Like maybe a fast food restaurant would be marginally better but this is a hellscape intersection, there's no point in fighting over a gas station being replaced by a gas station in this location.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

10:20 PM - Jul 26

bwcrow1s wrote:They had a shot with the 44 and Hampton gas station.. becoming another gas station.

I'm not disagreeing with better land usage like the gas stations, but someone has to start encouraging it or it will never get better.  Thusly, I have no faith in ward leadership at this point.

My vision is as simple as saying yes and trying something.  Removing one northbound lane, adding a green median with trees.  Saying yes means looking at obvious solutions like a road diet and even just repaving the existing infrastructure we apparently don't even care enough to invest in.  The obvious visual blight is a direct result of the city not caring to regulate any of it.  But that's the whole encouraging node of SLUP.  Then it's completely disregarded as a directive, or even suggestion.

I mean, do we want any better? If not then great you can have your opinion but I don't see why you wouldn't want to improve this stretch, and we should be enforcing the land utilization plan that was adopted by the city.  It's clear that it's valuable real estate but without putting our regulatory foot forward it's just going to be trash in trash out.

My point is that "better" in this case is the proposed development. It's going to be better for the area than the Jack in the Box and it will be better than sitting vacant for some indeterminate length of time.

If there was demand for mixed use residential in this area, then obviously that would be better. But there is not and it will be decades before there's any shot for a Grove type apartment building to be proposed here.

Also the Hampton-44 gas station....again, WHAT ELSE IS GONNA GO THERE? I'm talking about gas stations like the Phillips 66 or Circle K or even the Shell. Like maybe a fast food restaurant would be marginally better but this is a hellscape intersection, there's no point in fighting over a gas station being replaced by a gas station in this location.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I do not agree it will be better for PROGRESS in the area to entomb another valuable parcel of land for 20-30 years for another drive thru.  Added to that, it again goes against everything SLUP has underwritten for the future of this parcel.  If not by legal binding, but spirit.  At some point you've got to demand better or just succumb to the idea that the entire stretch is completely lost and have no standards whatsoever.

bwcrow1s wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

10:20 PM - Jul 26

bwcrow1s wrote:They had a shot with the 44 and Hampton gas station.. becoming another gas station.

I'm not disagreeing with better land usage like the gas stations, but someone has to start encouraging it or it will never get better.  Thusly, I have no faith in ward leadership at this point.

My vision is as simple as saying yes and trying something.  Removing one northbound lane, adding a green median with trees.  Saying yes means looking at obvious solutions like a road diet and even just repaving the existing infrastructure we apparently don't even care enough to invest in.  The obvious visual blight is a direct result of the city not caring to regulate any of it.  But that's the whole encouraging node of SLUP.  Then it's completely disregarded as a directive, or even suggestion.

I mean, do we want any better? If not then great you can have your opinion but I don't see why you wouldn't want to improve this stretch, and we should be enforcing the land utilization plan that was adopted by the city.  It's clear that it's valuable real estate but without putting our regulatory foot forward it's just going to be trash in trash out.

My point is that "better" in this case is the proposed development. It's going to be better for the area than the Jack in the Box and it will be better than sitting vacant for some indeterminate length of time.

If there was demand for mixed use residential in this area, then obviously that would be better. But there is not and it will be decades before there's any shot for a Grove type apartment building to be proposed here.

Also the Hampton-44 gas station....again, WHAT ELSE IS GONNA GO THERE? I'm talking about gas stations like the Phillips 66 or Circle K or even the Shell. Like maybe a fast food restaurant would be marginally better but this is a hellscape intersection, there's no point in fighting over a gas station being replaced by a gas station in this location.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I do not agree it will be better for PROGRESS in the area to entomb another valuable parcel of land for 20-30 years for another drive thru.  Added to that, it again goes against everything SLUP has underwritten for the future of this parcel.  If not by legal binding, but spirit.  At some point you've got to demand better or just succumb to the idea that the entire stretch is completely lost and have no standards whatsoever.

This entire stretch is, was, and will always be lost so long as it is bookended by two interstates so close to eachother. There is absolutely no point in spending political will or using tax incentives to try and make a not-in-demand development work in this location.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Mcausland is also bookended by the same 2 interstates but is nowhere near as ugly and drive-thru oriented

PeterXCV wrote:Mcausland is also bookended by the same 2 interstates but is nowhere near as ugly and drive-thru oriented

McCausland is literally not bookended by 2 insterstated though. Youre just lying.

Hampton is less than a mile from 64 to 44 while McCausland is over 2 miles.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Trololzilla wrote:^ So, still bookended by interstates, just over twice the distance.

Which is super important and not really bookended in a way that would promote car-oriented development the way Hampton or Kingshighway do.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

First time I think I've ever seen someone reference McCausland as a road they want to use as a template for anything. 

I don't really know if I care about the fast food land use of Hampton, obviously not my favorite. I do wish the City would treat the stretch between 44 and 64 as an extension or gateway to Forest Park. Wider sidewalks, maybe a few planted medians, banners, etc. I think overtime, depending on what the Zoo does with the hospital site, it could become a strip for tourists. A hotel would do great near the Salvation Army building. 

addxb2 wrote: ↑

5:14 PM - Jul 29

I don't really know if I care about the fast food land use of Hampton, obviously not my favorite. I do wish the City would treat the stretch between 44 and 64 as an extension or gateway to Forest Park. Wider sidewalks, maybe a few planted medians, banners, etc. I think overtime, depending on what the Zoo does with the hospital site, it could become a strip for tourists. A hotel would do great near the Salvation Army building. 

Exactly.

Just investing in the streetscape if nothing else to at least improve aesthetics and that the city cares about the user experience.  Maybe that added value will be enough to drive change.  Or at least perceived value of a place.  They did it for Kingshighway already which is a very similar thoroughfare if we're going to hinge an entire argument over the grand utility of the stretch of road.  And then, maybe, if we actually cared about the land utilization plan, things might go like how we might desire.  MAYBE.

You are correct in that yes, it's too convenient of a highway connector.  I'd easily advocate for Hampton/64 to be removed.  Not only is the traffic configuration a complete cluster ***** and contributor to the daily backups on the highway, but it does nothing for a pivotal entry point to the nation's largest urban park.

here is the reddit discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/1vp3wnj/hampton_between_64_and_44/