Transformation in St. Louis! (Clayton, New Madrid: construction, live, codes)

[flynavyj]

Does anyone think that the redevelopment of areas along metrolink cooridors might have as much to do with the transit being there as it does for why the transit is there in the first place? Many of the locations were desirable prior to metrolink being introduced in the 90's, hence the reason metro went through their to begin with...their continued prosparity and economic growth isn't so much a by-product as it is the cause.

And if metro service was somehow a key to redeveloping blighted areas, i'd have expected a ressurgance on the Eastern half of St. Charles Rock Rd, or maybe even Wellston, but based on my last drive through either of those areas...nada has changed, at least not for the better.

[flynavyj]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

Eh, coming from aviation that's exactly how you measured it, ASM (Available Seat Mile).

I was going with the "any long distance type transit" which would seem to cover "any" as you stated...I can agree for rail.

[Amercity]

sounds good but the north side development plan looks like a subrub rather than a city.
Thats the problem. The leader of the Northside Devolpment project (forget name) has worked only in the outlying suburbs where density is not a problem.

[glamatomic]

Density isn't exactly a problem in North City right now either All of those vacant lots and vacant houses- at a stretch I'd say that some suburbs are more densely populated than North City as it stands.

As far as Northside Regeneration goes- I used to be against it because I hate change, and I hate the idea of any place stripping away it's history- but a number of districts in North City as they currently are, need positive change, even if it means losing something of the past in the process of gaining something better.

[1greatcity]

^I second that. When all that's left of once vibrant neighborhoods are broken pavement and weeded lots, any turnaround is a blessing. I think it's fortunate that someone with a vision wants to invest in those areas, rather than letting the cancer spread.

[Dawn10am]

I think it'd be a tragedy to lose any of the historic buildings on the North Side. But, I also have to face the fact that they'll be lost anyway through neglect if something is not done, and it's better to have something than nothing. I say good luck to Mr. McKee, but I really do hope he tries to incorporate the existing buildings with whatever he builds.

[aragx6]

I just don't think the city should give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants to do. Let's have a real, honest discussion about the plans, determine which buildings should and realistically can be saved and determine together what architectural styles will best work as infill. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I just don't think the city should give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants to do. Let's have a real, honest discussion about the plans, determine which buildings should and realistically can be saved and determine together what architectural styles will best work as infill. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Yeah, how easily city leadership seems to bend for just about any development is really depressing... Especially when the historical and architectural beauty of the city is so special.

[1greatcity]

There are a few other plans for transforming St. Louis which I didn't include in my original post; that's because I'm not yet convinced that these proposals will ever become reality. But who knows?
One development plan for St. Louis that has been discussed in recent years: Chouteau's Landing. The website, Chouteau's Landing | An Emerging District For Inspired Minds, hasn't been updated in 3 years. It touts the project as a district for "entrepreneurs, catalytic artists, and intuitive urbanites." Perhaps this plan has been stalled due to the sluggish economy. Anyone?

At any rate, that plan was tied to another proposal that would continue the development westward, past I-55 on the south edge of downtown: The Chouteau Lake and Greenway Plan. The concept is described as "a sustainable catalyst for recreation, mixed-use redevelopment and revitalization." The developer's website, Chouteau Lake and Greenway | HOK RENEW, seems up-to-date...we can only wonder if this proposal will ever become reality.

And I should at least mention this grandiose proposal, which would perhaps tie-in to the above: Developer Kevin McGowan, president and CEO of Blue Urban, once expressed interest in building a supertall building (1000 ft +) in downtown St. Louis. (For a time, the building was being called the MW Tower, in reference to the partnership that McGowan once had with fellow developer Nat Walsh.) It was assumed by some that the tower would be located in or near the Chouteau Lake and Greenway zone, a portion of downtown ripe for redevelopment. A few years ago, St. Louis Magazine featured an article The Block-Builder - St. Louis Magazine - September 2008 - St. Louis, Missouri on McGowan, which states, "He’s even passionate about building a new skyscraper that symbolizes St. Louis to the world." McGowan stated that the proposal was still alive, but on hold until the economy rebounds. His quote: "The shadow of the tower I propose will extend to Chicago, Dallas and beyond." Wow.

[flynavyj]

Sorry, but the only idea I saw there that was even remotely enticing was Chouteau's Landing. Some friends stopped there during their wedding for a couple photos under the railroad tracks, and against some old brick buildings....great photos, but the wedding part spent most of the time looking for needles, junkies, and bodies...desolate would be a great word for it. The area has tons of warehouse space available, which would make for great additional loft/mixed use space...I do always get turned off when i hear the word "artist" or "art districts"...I'll be the first to admit that an art district can help bring a more diverse group of people to an area, but typically speaking "artists" is synonymous with "Broke college student who doesn't want real job" which often makes it very difficult for them to either have any purchasing power (necessary for the success of private industries in the area) or have much money to spend on housing stock (necessary to have a diverse group of people in the area), a bunch of super affordable housing is simply a gateway for the next section 8 neighborhood or failed housing project.

When we look at the success of Washington Ave much of it has to do with the what Washington Ave offered...Loft living, exclusivity (it isn't super cheap), lots of bars, night life, clubs, restaurants, etc...What I'd love to see done with this is an eventual sustainable landing area that can stretch from the arch further south to this district, at a minimum. It can be built with mixed use housing, businesses, bars, restaurants, etc...unfortunately i think the actual success of even completion of such a project would take decades on decades as there simply isn't enough demand for it right now.

The second project looks ok, but it seems really odd that we'd be rerouting the largest rail yards in St. Louis to add lake...not saying it's a bad idea, good idea, or anything else, but it seems odd. And as such, I don't think it should have to much traction as we move forward.

The gigantic sky scraper idea sounds wishful also. Even prior to the "crash" we had empty office space all around the city, and it's even worse afterwards. I highly doubt St. Louis has any business need for a 1000' mega-office tower that would stand 400 feet taller than the arch. It sounds like a guy who's dreaming for the sake of dreaming, and simply has "something to prove" to the world with "St. Louis is fantastic, lets show Chicago and Dallas by spending billions of dollars on an office tower that will remain fairly vacant for years to come!"