It looks like Creve Coeur wants to continue to develop a "downtown" in addition to all the City Place buildings that have been built.



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument



Found the plans mentioned in the article:

http://www.creve-coeur.org/Com-Dev/cbd/cbd.htm



Overall the plans look good.

significantly taller than 6 stories?



This is a complete 180 from what they were talking about a few years ago in regards to this issue. I'm all for more urban development, but that's turning CC into another clayton. As a resident - I say NO thanks. We've got enough traffic problems on olive/270 and ballas/ladue as it is. Now you're going to add how many more trips, with no public transportation options? No.



I was expecting them to go towards a kirkwood/u-city type urban environment - nothing taller than 3-4 stories. That would create a good type of urban environment without adding too much in the way to trip generators than in already there in the office park. But more than 6? That's going to get astronomically congested - and it really will affect the quality of life for the residents.

The "Architectural Guidelines" are really quite impressive. Sounds like they were written by a committee of Urban St. Louis members. And I don't think we have to worry about this becoming another Clayton. They're really stressing mid-rise buildings, with anything taller being limited to one specific area.

Framer wrote:The "Architectural Guidelines" are really quite impressive. Sounds like they were written by a committee of Urban St. Louis members. And I don't think we have to worry about this becoming another Clayton. They're really stressing mid-rise buildings, with anything taller being limited to one specific area.

You know, although I agree with you Framer that the guidelines are well thought-out, I wonder if they are too restrictive. I suspect requirements like "facade changes every 75 feet with common horizontal elements" will make this "downtown" look artifical and TOO planned. Real downtowns are a mixture of good planning and organically-developed need -- all plans with no need will look like Disneyland or Las Vegas artifice.

What I find interesting is that although many people in Creve Coeur criticize downtown and question why people would want to live in an urban area, yet they are trying to create their own "urban" area.



The thing that bothers me is that New Town, Chesterfield, and now Creve Coeur are treating an "urban" lifestyle as if it's the new SUV out on the market or some really cool trend that they want. While urban living is making a comeback it will never truly be urban in settings such as these. If they like fake things then I have a really nice Van Gogh reprint hanging on my wall I am willing to sell them for several million $.

Seems only logical that a town would want some kind of CBD and central gathering place. Cities and towns alike have been doing this since the dawn of civilization. I don't question Creve Coeur for doing this, I ask "what took so long?" and "why aren't more muni's doing this"?



Just think about it, IMO the best suburbs are Clayton, Maplewood, Kirkwood, and Webster. (to name a few) Is it any coincidence that these towns also have a town center/mini DT?

Sure with 10+ story buildings traffic will become more of a problem, every growing city has growing pains, but growth is coming to this area and I'd rather see it take place in an organized fashion. What would be cool is if we could get a transit link from Metro's Ballas transfer center to Cityplace/downtown Creve Coeur somehow.

STLgasm wrote:The City of St. Louis should have enacted these guidelines years ago.

Absolutely!

Better Creve Coeur than Wentzville. I think its important to build up what we have in the county as well as the city.



I do find it funny that the city keeps suburbanizing itself in areas, wrecking what built environments we had in order to attract more people there, and the suburbs are building downtowns and urban living to keep their own.



Maybe the city has been doing something wrong for years?

There used to be the Essen hardware store on the south side of Olive across old ballas to the west of where Growlers is now. It is now gone. Under Essen (it was built on a slab) and to the south, in what is a vacant lot (north of the offices) there was a large 19th century cemetery (shown on the 1878 County Plat map). Theoretically, all the bodies were moved to Hiram over on Mason in the early 20th century, but in my experience, (I currently work in preservation and planning, but am a trained historic archaeologist), when cemeteries were moved prior to about 1930, they often just moved headstones and/or people who had family members that were still around and watching. I have seen this firsthand locally (for example, Spanish Land Grant Park in Florissant). If this downtown thingy goes through and sombody starts excavating there, I would bet money that they will find burials. I hope Creve Coeur officials are aware of this.

They're here...

Is this some kind of scramble to remain competitive or even viable?



Consumer preferences are changing rapidly. In the next 10-20 years, no-place places like CC will be on the steep downside of the market that dominated since the 1940s. Leadership there must have taken a workshop on placemaking from someone. Good for them but I don't know if you can recreate a town or CBD from nothing and still compete with authenticity and history - two things that consumers have a growing appetite for.

TB1000 wrote:What I find interesting is that although many people in Creve Coeur criticize downtown and question why people would want to live in an urban area, yet they are trying to create their own "urban" area.

I have been to numerous meetings in Creve Coeur and I actually find most people in CC don't actually want an urban area. In fact the only thing most people want added to the area is a hardware store… and that won’t happen because CC’s successful commercial market is eating up all the new significant land developments and the lack of any pre-existing large retail developments with a low enough price/square foot.

To those citizens who do care (other than dealing with the traffic) its an attractive idea to have a nice downtown like Kirkwood or Maplewood -- but everyone can see that CC’s development isn't geared toward a classy “small town” type of downtown... they are geared toward a cold glass, heartless steel Clayton style office center... and they are already getting all the "problems" associated Clayton (severe traffic during the day and ghost town at night) and none of the “benefits” that Clayton enjoys (urban residential component that is growing in Clayton, or the prestige able to land “marquee building projects” (like Centene or Montgomery Bank) The lack of singular focus from those in charge (city council etc.) is leading the city to a future precariously between what some want (Mini Clayton) and what others want (Mini Ladue)…

Tysalpha wrote:You know, although I agree with you Framer that the guidelines are well thought-out, I wonder if they are too restrictive. I suspect requirements like "facade changes every 75 feet with common horizontal elements" will make this "downtown" look artifical and TOO planned. Real downtowns are a mixture of good planning and organically-developed need -- all plans with no need will look like Disneyland or Las Vegas artifice.

I think if the people in CC are to accept any type of mid or high-rise building it would be more of that they are getting ~ the completely sanitized look. Could you imagine a Frank Gehry building there? They want simple. They want known/safe.

I think the conclusion I have come to (which really means nothing at all except I have an outlet here to spew) is that they don’t know what they want… most members of the city council know what the land developers (Koman Group in particular) tell them they can have… and they jump on it. (The mess with the Olive TDD? Too me it’s a great example of the problems the city faces) CC needs someone good to take this “project” by the horns soon, and at a minimum give the city a clear and attainable goal that is in the best interest of everyone (residence, workers, shoppers and companies… not just corporations) and work for a long term achievement of that goal. There is a lot of promise here, and I doubt that CC is going to “fail” as long as million dollar houses and office towers are going up… but they should shoot for excellence.

Don't you sound like a BANANA or NIMBY



Go online and read the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Plan. It specifically does not seek to replicate Clayton's CBD unlike your arguement. The plan only calls for a limited amount of intersection (1 or 2) to have buildings taller than six levels (stair walking sustainable) unlike City Place which is a separate entity. The CC downtown proposal starts with a street grid, allows property owners to choose when to redevelop, and guidlines, sketches, and photographs in the document represent Kirkwood and Webster Groves like downtowns not a massive office CBD.

Furthermore, the plans indicate the construction of a new bridge over I-270 to provide an alternative to Olive Blvd. The changing roadway system seeks to alleviate Olive by providing an alternative.



Another aspect of your argument is keeping CC like Ladue. If you read the Comp Plan you will see that residential neighborhoods will remain low density, rural-suburban like similar to Ladue.



Please take a more objective approach to analysis and not being overly stereotypical like the sanitized Gehry or heartless Clayton. Clayton is gaining in urban culture, just more high class and out of yours or mine price range.

AlongForTheRide wrote:it'd be a whole lot cooler if creve coeur put on more family events since most people who live in creve coeur are families. no one is going to ever say "let's go to creve coeur to hang out"

perhaps this is true. if by family you mean people with children, just from my experience working there, though, it seems like there is a sizable portion of boomers w/college age children, older working persons, and retirees.

AlongForTheRide wrote:i think this is a dumb idea. the proposed location is crappy because of traffic problems. there's no easy way to get in or out of there. the traffic lights in the area suck.

sounds like the same complaints that have always been levelled at downtowns (i.e. "it's so crowded no one goes there anymore.")

it'd be a whole lot cooler if creve coeur put on more family events since most people who live in creve coeur are families. no one is going to ever say "let's go to creve coeur to hang out"

I think you underestimate the number of young professionals who live in the area, or who might want to given the large employment base there. It's not so much about getting people from all over the metro to go hang out in Creve Coeur, rather giving the local folks a place to go, and the choice to live in a more walkable environment.

Kirkwood has 150 years of history. Creve Coeur does not.



I also question the statement that Kirkwood is dominated by chains. Its many fine restaurants include: Blue Water Grill, Massa's, Citizen Kane's, Cafe Provencal, Amicci's, Dewey's (pizza) The Ice and Fuel, PJ's, Mike Duffey's, and the Alandale's microbrewery. Also we have one of the best farmer's markets in the Metro. None of which are chains. Yes, we also have a McDonalds, Hardees, Steak n Shake, Einsteins, Subway, Quizno's Starbucks, Johnny Rockets, McCallisters, etc. But in Dowtown Kirkwood basically all you get is excellent local fine dining, along with many local sports bars/pub and grills.



Creve Coeur will never become the 2nd Kirkwood.

^ I'm not sure what asckee's point is really, but they said "local chains" I think they were saying quite the opposite about Kwood.

wheelscomp wrote:Creve Coeur will never become the 2nd Kirkwood.

No. Webster Groves is the 2nd Kirkwood. Or is Kirkwood the 2nd Webster Groves?



Never mind...I think I'll leave that debate to the Statesmen and Pioneers faithful.



These neodowntowns don't excite me all that much, but I think a denser built environment within existing suburbs is a step in the right direction, even if I might not like all of the design elements. There are young professionals in and around Creve Coeur that might like a suburban setting but would prefer to live in a small yet dense area like this, where basic amenities and dining/shopping options are within walking distance. It may also appeal to empty-nesters that don't want to leave the community in which they've lived for 30 or 40 years, yet don't want the hassles of home maintenance either. It's too bad that a TOD here is probably out of the question. I get the feeling this development will feel somewhat sterile and forced like New Town- but IMHO even New Town is a step forward in suburban living.

While I think urban enviroments are the true mark of a metropolis, I personally think this is an aweful thing for St. Louis. To me this really seems to be along the same lines of thinking that have caused St. Louis' decline since the 1950's. People want to live in St. Louis but never actually be in St. Louis. Real urban cities come alive when people actively attempt to be involved in the downtown area (anyone who has ever been to Chicago knows exactly what I mean). This just seems to be another reason for residents of the metro area to never actually come into the city. I really think it's a shame that the only reason people come into downtown is for sports. I realize that this is not a huge development, but it just seems as though they are attempting to seperate themselves from a need for downtown stl as much as possible. Shoot it down Creve-Cour.