2,930
Life MemberLife Member
2,930

PostSep 10, 2012#201

We need to consider the specific developer and their intentions if we’re to properly forecast what they may do to Union Station.

LHM is above all a hotelier. They have made a niche in high-end hotels with modern touches, as well as multiple other regular hotels. They operate as well as a closed-end real estate investment trust, needing to produce enough income from their sites to keep their investors happy. From friends in the hotel industry, that has often translated to their properties running on very low margins.

But, back to being a hotelier… Their primary concern is making their sites attractive, both to potential guests of their properties as well as non-guest visitors. This often is manifested in attractive restaurants and bars on their properties, with some retail touches as well.

Notable LHM properties include:
- Hilton at the Ballpark, which includes 360, hands-down the most popular new bar/restaurant in Saint Louis;
- The Cheshire, which has just finished a massive redevelopment of their hotel while continuing to progress on their restaurant building (with yet-to-be-named primary restaurant at the site);
- The Moonrise Hotel in the East Delmar Loop, featuring the Eclipse restaurant and rooftop bar; and
- Westport Plaza, the planned office/retail/restaurant development that also features one of their major hotels.

Best move would be to develop something that feeds the following needs:
1. Attract business guests, especially noting that they are not that close to the America’s Center as other hotels (hence the need for an additional 50K sq.ft. of convention space).
2. Attract individual guests, such as families and vacationers, and doing so in a competitive market… How can they best differentiate themselves to the weekend travelers? What can they offer that other hotels can’t?
3. Generate revenues (predominantly from retail) from non-hotel guests from a site that has long languished for not being able to produce retail revenues. The big question we have is what stores they will add… I ask, will stores be the biggest attraction?
- What will differentiate the Union Station consumer experience from that of Galleria shoppers?
- Will they have non-store attractions to lure people in, such as trains under the shed?
- Will they have plays or concerts?
- How about a climbing wall or other such interactive attractions?
- Could the movie theater come back?
- And most of all, what restaurants will they bring in?

Meanwhile, they’ll have to overcome the stigma that the old Union Station management helped foster, that it was potentially unsafe, that there were crappy offerings, that Nelly was confronted by security for wearing a do-rag, that the homeless just shuffle through it, that it’s only for tourists (now that Hooters is in Kiener Plaza), and that it is overpriced.

My first question: What are you going to do about parking?

10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostOct 09, 2012#202

Trains at the train station??? Wha??

Personally, I wish LHM would move their offices to Union Station from Westport.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 0f31a.html

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 09, 2012#203

^ They should, though guessing the senior management wouldn't enjoy the drive. THEY should move into the city.

678
Senior MemberSenior Member
678

PostOct 09, 2012#204

Seems like a safe, fairly organic plan. It would be nice to make the outdoor area and the retail a "lifestyle center" or basically a faux urban setting with lots of small shops, and restaurants with outdoor seating. Westport would be considered one.

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostOct 09, 2012#205

I love the idea of a rail museum at Union Station, but worry whether two such museums (with the Museum of Transportation in the county) are warranted. In a perfect dream world, they'd partner together and build a commuter rail line between the two sites. I can't see how they'd do that profitably, though.

I also like the idea of a smaller, more concentrated retail area. But is Westport truly all that successful? Is that the model they should be using downtown? Not tearing the idea down - I'm honestly curious. I haven't been to Westport in 10 years and see little reason to go there today.

I think private charter rail out of US makes a ton of sense. But US already had one of those once. What makes them think their charter rail can succeed where the other failed?

Completely agreed that the owners should move their offices downtown if they want to show their full commitment to the site.

I'm hopeful these new owners will do well, and I think the change of ownership might be just what the station needs to be rejuvenated once again. But I do wonder whether they're being too 'safe' with what they're attempting.

-RBB

5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostOct 10, 2012#206

^ Agree it is a very very safe plan,

I do think they have a good plan in the short term, downsizing retail and expanding space for hotel. The hotel by far is the best asset. However, they really failed to give a bold vision for Union Station. Maybe that will change once LHM owns the property and looks beyond parking revenue. It seems like a great location for mixed use with great access to transit and freeway not to mention the entertain factor literally just down the street.

I certainly have my doubts on chartered rail which I consider another term for a dinner train (something that has been tried and failed from US) and certainly don't see how another musuem that competes with Museum of Transportation will succeed. Actullay think the water park would be better draw and pull more people to stay downtown at the end of the day.

1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostOct 10, 2012#207

rbb wrote:I love the idea of a rail museum at Union Station, but worry whether two such museums (with the Museum of Transportation in the county) are warranted. In a perfect dream world, they'd partner together and build a commuter rail line between the two sites. I can't see how they'd do that profitably, though.
I believe the Museum of Transportation would relocate. There wouldn't be two.

rbb wrote:I also like the idea of a smaller, more concentrated retail area. But is Westport truly all that successful? Is that the model they should be using downtown? Not tearing the idea down - I'm honestly curious. I haven't been to Westport in 10 years and see little reason to go there today.
When LHM purchased Westport, the overall tenant occupancy was 72%. So not bad. I'm sure they will increase occupancy over the next year.

rbb wrote:Completely agreed that the owners should move their offices downtown if they want to show their full commitment to the site.
Does a $25 million investment not show full commitment?

5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostOct 10, 2012#208

stlien wrote:
rbb wrote:I love the idea of a rail museum at Union Station, but worry whether two such museums (with the Museum of Transportation in the county) are warranted. In a perfect dream world, they'd partner together and build a commuter rail line between the two sites. I can't see how they'd do that profitably, though.
I believe the Museum of Transportation would relocate. There wouldn't be two.
Do you actually understand that the Museum of Transportation is actually a St. Louis County Park? or have you been there? They have invested a significant capital to expand the park. Just not sure where you get the idea that Musuem of Transportation wants to move or why would St. Louis County parks move it to the middle of another county.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 10, 2012#209

It is, and they have, but I don't imagine it's impossible that it would move. The county parks are under budget pressure and I believe that a very significant majority of the funds used to operate the Museum of Transportation come from private sources (someone tell me if this is wrong). The Transport Museum Association is a 501(c)3 with a board of directors separate from the parks. It was founded as a private enterprise in 1944, became a non-profit in 1948 and then a part of the county parks in 1979. Who's to say that can't change?

That said, their collection is huge and expanding - hard to imagine it all at Union Station, but perhaps there's adjacent rail yard that could be used? I think it would just be cool if several trains could be on loan to Union Station - have a half dozen there at a time.

Oh, and there may just a lot more happening at Union Station than a train museum: http://nextstl.com/downtown/major-leagu ... ion-vision

1,190
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,190

PostOct 10, 2012#210

^Is there any seriousness to this potential MLS stadium or is this just some people throwing around some ideas? Have they contacted the MLS about the possibility of even landing an MLS team?

I think it would be a great addition to Union Station, but question the viability given all of the parties that have to be involved for this to happen.

592
Senior MemberSenior Member
592

PostOct 10, 2012#211

Alex Ihnen wrote:It is, and they have, but I don't imagine it's impossible that it would move. ... Who's to say that can't change?
Putting aside the MLS stadium, my vote would be for the Museum of Transportation to become part of the ZMD and operate a satellite facility at Union Station.

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostOct 10, 2012#212

Well, that's more like it; it's certainly less safe. Is this just a tire-kicking exercise or something they're seriously considering? How likely would it be to acquire or purchase a team? I honestly haven't followed - is MLS still in expansion mode? How is LHM's financial situation compared to Jeff Cooper's (I believe that was the holdup on his plan...)

I am also curious to see how they would cram a stadium in/around Union Station. I assume that the stadium in the ICON image is a generic clip-art style copy/paste job, but might the BBVA Compass logo on the field be of consequence?

-RBB

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostOct 10, 2012#213

rbb wrote:Well, that's more like it; it's certainly less safe. Is this just a tire-kicking exercise or something they're seriously considering? How likely would it be to acquire or purchase a team? I honestly haven't followed - is MLS still in expansion mode? How is LHM's financial situation compared to Jeff Cooper's (I believe that was the holdup on his plan...)

-RBB
MLS currently has 19 teams and it's widely expected that the 20th team will be a 2nd NY team. I think the MLS commissioner is on the record as saying he would like to see 22 teams by the end of the decade, so there's going to be a tough battle to land one of those two spots. Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte & Detroit are all somewhat ahead of St. Louis, from what I've read.

623
Senior MemberSenior Member
623

PostOct 10, 2012#214

Isn't Kronke and THF involved in this as well? There is your big bucks and soccer connection. There has to be something to this otherwise it is just so completely random. I mean no one on the forum even mentioned it as an idea.

641
Senior MemberSenior Member
641

PostOct 10, 2012#215

I mentioned it as an idea many moons ago in this thread but I wanted it under the shed....maybe I work for THF?

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostOct 10, 2012#216

Answering my own question re: BBVA Compass - no, it's not related to anything in St. Louis. The stadium in ICON's picture is a layout of the current home of the Houston Dynamo.

-RBB

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostOct 10, 2012#217

stlhistory wrote: Putting aside the MLS stadium, my vote would be for the Museum of Transportation to become part of the ZMD and operate a satellite facility at Union Station.
Absent a much expanded tax rate or base funding ZMD, the only way for another attraction to be added to the district would be for it to replace an existing one. So very, very unlikely. Politics are such that no one would back taking away money from the existing participants to aid another.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 10, 2012#218

^ good questions - if one assumes that Stan Kroenke (THF Realty) is involved, then he's likely the only party needed to make it happen.

172
Junior MemberJunior Member
172

PostOct 10, 2012#219

I'm not sure the MLS plan pictured on the homepage would be smart given the layout and the apparent destruction of the Powerhouse building, movie theater, the building Emmis radio is in, plus the smokestack. I know there is more land acquisition involved, but wouldn’t it make more sense to put an MLS stadium next to the Station to the West where the current Drury Inn, surface parking lot and garage are located? It seems like you could do more with that parcel of land which would possibly allow for a redone 22nd Street/20th Street interchange funneling directly into the area.

Not only does this allow for a larger space for development, but it also keeps existing parking (much needed) and structures in place.

1,523
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,523

PostOct 10, 2012#220

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ good questions - if one assumes that Stan Kroenke (THF Realty) is involved, then he's likely the only party needed to make it happen.
Very true, Garber likes money (duh), NY2 has had difficulty pulling it all together, though I still think they will find a way to make it work, Garber likes NY. if Stan is involved, that would make about 90% of what Garber is looking for.

The question is... is Stan involved.

62
New MemberNew Member
62

PostOct 10, 2012#221

ricke002 wrote: MLS currently has 19 teams and it's widely expected that the 20th team will be a 2nd NY team. I think the MLS commissioner is on the record as saying he would like to see 22 teams by the end of the decade, so there's going to be a tough battle to land one of those two spots. Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte & Detroit are all somewhat ahead of St. Louis, from what I've read.
For the record, nobody really knows who is "ahead" in this race. At one point, St. Louis and Philadelphia were the only two candidates and obviously Philly got a team. NY has long been rumored for a second team but residents in Queens are fighting the current stadium proposal. Even if we are behind the cities you mentioned, its not like it would take much to catapult us ahead, especially with a legitimate proposal.

PostOct 10, 2012#222

If the stadium is placed behind Union Station, how will this effect the walkability/livability of the area? Already, the place is fairly unnavigable from a pedestrian perspective. I realize that the stadium would butt up against a highway anyway, and it is currently a sea of parking lots.

However, if another "big attraction" is added to an area that already has Scott Trade, the Peabody, and Union Station does it help or hurt the area? Basically, it will be four huge structures that disrupt the street grid and take up multiple city blocks.

Obviously, the area will be lively when an event is happening at one of these venues but what about all the other times? Hopefully, the plan includes some ideas for residential and retail to be integrated and enliven the area.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostOct 10, 2012#223

^ Right. A city-approved stadium proposal and money is all that sits between St. Louis and an MLS team.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostOct 10, 2012#224

stlhistory wrote:Putting aside the MLS stadium, my vote would be for the Museum of Transportation to become part of the ZMD and operate a satellite facility at Union Station.
Ditto, it just seems so obvious. It's ironic and annoying that only one type of transport can get you to the Museum of Transportation. I still haven't been there. I realize it's a tough climate for this given the recent scandals at the Science Center and History Museum, and an anti-tax attitude prevailing. But hey we're supposed to pass a new tax for CityArchRiver, right?

136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostOct 10, 2012#225

Looking at the newest (and potentially greatest) MLS stadium site (BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston) it takes up an approximately 1000' x 600' plat of land and looking at potential sites near the Union Station the only potential site (in my opinion) is directly west of the Union Station on Market and bordering the relocated 21st Interchange ramps.



Positives for this site:
-Visibility from I-64
-Visibility on Market
-Economic development potential at Union Station and surrounding locale
-Development of MetroLink stop at the stadium (or directly underneath the stadium like Brooklyn's new stadium)
-Adjacent parking at Union Station and ease of access to I-64

Negatives for this site:
-Need to acquire 5 individual parcels and acquire MoDOT Right-of-Way
-Site may still be too tight for proposed stadium and related features/functions
-Need to develop parking structure for 20,000 seat capacity

To integrate with Union Station, one could imagine the facade of the Stadium facing Market would be identical in character to the Union Station facade but could be a more contemporary take on it.

But this is just one's vision...

Read more posts (124 remaining)