The city recently purchased the old MSD HQ at Hampton & i-44 (article), map link. Combined with the city’s street dept site this will create a 26 acre site with highway appeal. The potential for something great is high but Im afraid our leadership will have such low standard. pedestrian access and internal connection should be high. New residential should be included in some form. we deserve something better than St Louis Marketplace II.now is the time to establish some good standards.
Currently there are "29 comments" on this Article:
Amen to the standards, but they need enforcement teeth. We’ll need a band of club-wielding goons to make sure no city official or developer steps out of line. You spelled ‘shopping’ with three P’s.
Not sure what you mean by standards (zoning, building codes, architectural, etc.)? In hindsight, I think the The St. Louis Marketplace would have been a much better decision if it was placed at I-44 and Hampton since this type of development is dependent on high traffic flow. Which is what I think will happen here now. Simply because a majority of us have cars and will demand this development in some form or another. Why not use a spot like this to fullfill such demand.
I think the failure is along Manchester where you have a great example of bad decisions happening over time due to poor zoning and planning. Talk about an incoherent mix of failed commercial, such as St. Louis Marketplace, industrial, light industrial, and residential from the city limit to Kings Highway. Furthermore, it feels like a back alley on trash collection day between Jefferson and Kings Highway even though you got the Highlands Developement, Forest Park Community College and the Science Center only a couple blocks away. It is sad that all three institutions have destroyed the neigborhood/urban feel of the area by simply cutting off the street grid for their surface parking lot desires.
Although this site is much smaller, Denver had a similar opportunity/challenge when they closed their old airport and redeveloped it – a brownfield site with direct access to I-70, close to downtown, but with industrial areas on one side and established middle-income residential neighborhoods on the other.
.
Before any work started, a public process developed standards contained in the Stapleton Development Plan, a.k.a. the Green Book(http://www.stapletondenver.com/Stockholm_Partnership_for_Sustainable_Communities_Award.aspx). The end result has been a remarkable success, with stability, solid increases in property values and multiple design awards.
.
It took a vision. It took leadership from both the top down (Mayor, City Council, Planning Director) and from the bottom up (concerned citizens & neighborhood groups). It took standing firm with the developer on established principals. It took a black mayor telling a black community that it made more sense to invest in a new shopping center here than it did to invest in an existing moribund shopping center in a black neighborhood a mile away. In the end, this “rising tide” has increased property values in the existing adjacent neighborhoods, and now the old center, Holly Square, is renovated and fully leased*.
.
Can it happen here? Yes. A good first step would be getting Stapleton’s developer involved, Forest City. They’re now doing projects like this across the country, so they “get it”. They understand both the challenges and the opportunities. An important second step is focusing on the end result, not just short-term gains. Finally, there’s the need to look at the bigger picture – this site is part of an existing neighborhood, and needs to be both integrated into the neighborhood fabric and to provide spin-off benefits beyond the immediate site.
.
*”Holly Square is a Family Dollar anchored multi-tenant shopping center and pad site located at 3347 Holly Street in Denver, CO. The property is approximately four miles east of Downtown Denver, one mile south of Interstate 70, and eight blocks west of Monaco Parkway. Built in 1955, the 100% occupied shopping center consists of 22,286 square feet of rentable space on approximately 1.37 acres of land. The property is leased to Family Dollar and a variety of local tenants.”
26 acres is quite small for a PUD, but one could possibly be considered here. I think more likely there will be proposals for a lifestyle center type of mixed-use development because that is what is currently trendy for developers. While this is certainly better than the conventional sprawl pattern retail center, it’s unfortunately not much better. Without going into a point by point criticism of lifestyle centers, I believe most can see the attempts at pedestrian-scaled planning to be hollow contrivance. Clearly, the Stapleton site is much, much larger and had the scale in acres needed to establish a governable PUD that results in the type of control most urbanists would be satisfied with. While I’ve often been a sharp critic of the DPZ stranglehold on what New Urbanism really could have been and should be, in urban areas (read: brownfield infill) the physical patterns of New Urbanism at the planning scale are perfectly relevant. The physical form advocated in all of the CNU publications is what should be the focus, and not what’s typically put forth by DPZ unfortunately. Without means of strong, visible, inviting and safe pedestrian connections to the existing residential streets beyond the bounds of the highly trafficked Hampton and I-44 this site will not likely be much more than either a conventional sprawl pattern wart or a lifestyle center will all of its disappointing shortcomings.
I would, however, much prefer DPZ to plan something for a site like this than what we usually see in St. Louis, and they must be given the credit they deserve for taking the fight right to those content to perpetuate the march of destructive sprawl pattern land consumption, where urbanists tend to keep their sights trained on older, inner-city neighborhoods and urban centers like downtown.
I think this discussion and the previous posting not only brings up the point about planning but also what you have for infrastructure at the moment and what you can realistically expect in the short term. This area is really a small portion of the city that is between two interstates (I-64 & I-44) which happens to include two major rail lines, heavy & light industry and a creek that was turned into a concrete sanitary ditch. I really don’t think of it as part of the hill, etc. This property in terms of the present is bounded by a freeway, busy arterial street, a concreete ditch, more industry and no street grid. Building a stand alone development such as urban lifestyle center or PUD on this space really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me at the moment or can I see a developer going that route unless the city throws a lot of tax incentives his/her way. Put that effort along Jefferson, N. Grand, and any other arterial streets right now that would support a pedesterian/urban environment without a huge infrastructure undertaking. My take, a strip mall and/or box stores if built on this spot can easily and cheaply be torn down once you start addressing some of the long term infrastructure that is in place. One of my infrastructure wishes for St. Lou, combine the rail lines coming into the city near this area into one corridor that would support future commuter service along with increase inter-city service to KC, consolidate industrial use along the rail corridor and re-establish the natural creek as a greenway corridor.
Don’t forget, to be a real city, we need zones too for manufacturing, production and light industrial activity – this is a perfect site for that – the last thing that we need is another f***** shopping area. If you are going to have dense neighborhoods, where people can use public transit or walk to work, you also need areas for other uses. This is the perfect opportunity to set up a high technology manufacturing area. We should use the tax advantages and the site advantages mentioned by Tim E (rail transport, being close to freeways) to leverage a company to put a pharmacutical, high technolgy manufacturing or other facility there. We have a number of companies that could transform this area – think Sigma Adrich, Solae, MEMC, Stereotaxis, Zolatek, etc., into a “green” clean manufacturing site. Lets make it easy for some of these companies that are going to take us into the future to stay here – start by getting rid of the damm employment head tax like was promised to Centene! ps. good luck with the recuperation Steve….
I don’t know how you can compare the Denver airport (how many available acres?) to a 26 acre corner boarder by an interstate, a creek, and a railroad. This is a perfect auto centric area for a Walmart which could bring convenient economic shopping to middle and lower middler class shoppers.
There are more than enough Wal-Marts, and we certainly don’t need any more of them. Though I most agree with Paul W’s comment regarding manufacturing, unfortunately our global economy won’t have us seeing much more manufacturing facilities being built anywhere, let alone this very appropriate site. It will most likely be just another sprawl pattern shopping center with Christmas capacity surface parking, and they’ll likely offer just about whatever tax incentive imaginable to lure whatever retailer will build a box there. Crappy.
Like I said, this area is much smaller than an airport. But there’s absolutely no reason why the city, as property owner, can’t set higher standards for its own development. It’s one thing to impose higher standards on a private developer, but it’s another thing for us, as a community to say that we want something better. Denver could’ve sold the airport site to a developer for the highest bid, either in smaller parcels or as one large one, for an immediate cash infusion, but chose not to . . .
.
As for the existing disconnect form the surrounding neighborhoods, that’s precisely why we should look at the bigger picture and reconnecting. The assumption seems to be that planning has to happen in two dimensions, not three. This site sits in a valley. Parking is a given. If parking happens at ground level and development occurs above, both the site’s density and the ability to connect accross the perimeter “barriers” goes up substantially.
.
Finally, the preservation of industrial sites. I have mixed feelings. St. Louis has multiple industrial sites, many underutilized or vacant. Unless there’s a fundamental shift in the world’s economy, we will never see the level of manufacturing here that we saw in the last century. So yes, we need to preserve some sites/areas, but we also need to find viable reuses for the others, as well. Sites like this one, with locations amenable to the success of retail, hospitality, office and/or residential uses probably should be higher on the list for redevelopment.
Think big(ger) – there’s really no reason why the “site” can’t (or shouldn’t) be expanded, beyond River Des Peres on the north and the chain link fence on the east, all the way to Manchester on the north and Sublette on the east, respectively. Cover the “river” (as it already is further east and north) and combine the existing rail lines into one shared corridor away from Manchester, and you create multiple opportunities for much better urban design, including connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, plus you double the value of the site. As it stand now, yes, about the only viable alternative with the 22 acre will, unfortunately, be Loughborough Commons II . . .
While all of that is certainly true Jim, there remains the reality of the Union Pacific line that will always bisect this possibly expanding site. If the area is to be redeveloped into [commercial office space with live/work lofts and apartments, restaurants and non-box retail similar in walk up scale to your average midwest lifestyle center], then this must be factored into the plan in a manner that is not disruptive and attracts tenants. The U/P line runs right past my backyard, and it took a bit of getting used to but I convinced myself that this fixture was to be real part of my property before deciding to buy.
In Denver’s Central Platte Valley, the rail yard left, the UP main line stayed and multi-story condos were built next to the tracks. Yes, additional measures were required for sound proofing, but because of location, location, location, they sold quickly and have continued to appreciate.
.
If our goal/vision for Manchester between Hampton and Kingshighway is to remain industrial, sure, leave the railrod tracks parallel to the street. But if we want to make the area more urban, moving the tracks south into a single rail corridor (instead of the present two corridors separated by less than a block) would be, in my mind, effort and money well spent.
.
Steve’s original point, as is mine, is do we dream big and strive for the highest and best use of the site/area, or do we aim low, take the 22 acres and just find a developer to do a typical suburban shopping center? The easy, maybe even safe, answer is to aim low. It has minimal risk and will yield adequate returns. The big question is when, if ever, do we start expecting and demanding better, especially on a parcel of this size, that we, the citizens own and, in theory, control?!
In order to communicate the intended result of aiming high, we will really need to have graphic examples that will allow people to envision that end, and it wouldn’t exactly hurt to have groups of individuals dedicated to making competitions and charettes happen frequently so that citizens can actually BE involved in the shaping of our urban environment with a voice beyond blogs and editorial pages. What would your definition of dreaming big be, and how would you prefer to communicate that far off eventuality to those who should be convinced?
A definition of dreaming big would require more than just my view (which is that building a strip shopping center isn’t), and would require a community consensus and vision. It comes from strong leadership and an empowered planning department. We pay our city planners good money for their expertise, but we waste a lot of it by keeping their hands tied. We have the expertise, both inside and outside of government, we just don’t seem to have the political will to sometimes say no to mediocrity . . .
…and giving the powers-that-be a clear indication of what the most interested in the community desires, through process of concensus visioning, will at least give the unelected or unhired a chance to prevent mediocrity and possibly influence land development policy to our satisfaction. The ‘political will’ only likely will reflect the level of public interest and demand through visible action, and will do little otherwise.
Shifting gears, from the what to the who, who would logically “fit” here? I’m guessing that the city is thinking retail, given the highway exposure and access, with office and hospitality (hotel) uses in a distant second position, and with residential, everything from condos to senior housing, even further back on the wish list (since they generate less in taxes and demand more in services).
.
Assuming retail, it appears that most of the “usual suspects” are already well-located in the general area and would only canibalize sales from their existing stores if they opened here – Wal·Mart, K-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, Schnuck’s, Dierberg’s, Shop-N-Save, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Lowe’s all fit the criteria. The one win-win I could think of is Home Depot. If an astute developer could put the pieces together, combining the existing Brentwood and Kingshighway stores here, in a bigger, newer “super” store, the Brentwood site would become available for a killer TOD project. Unfortunately, it would also leave a hole along Kingshighway.
.
That leaves two other types of retail, car dealers and furniture stores, that like this combination of good regional access, highway exposure and a big chunk of land to drop in a big one-story building and a big parking lot. An “auto mall” is one concept, which would probably kill (and attract) the existing new car dealers on Kingshighway. Alternately, it may be a good location for Autonation or Carmax to enter the St. Louis market. On the furniture side, maybe American (or another local) would be interested in opening a new store here, or we might be able to attract the legendary Nebraska Furniture Mart (http://www.nfm.com/) to enter the St. Louis market with a store here. But if Mayor Slay really wants to land the “killer” deal of the year for this site, I have only one word . . . IKEA!
Ha! I thought I’d get a response from that. Actually, an IKEA would be perfect for this site because of both the demographics of the area and the high visibility afforded from I-44.
Ald Waterhouse seemed interested in getting a big box development in there and Bass Pro or a Costco were the two he mentioned at our last neighborhood meeting. The big draw was that the city owns the land and can control who can come in as opposed to any developer just coming in. I agree that its nice to have the upper hand and decision but my fear is that we get another Marketplace.
Personally I think that there are some other areas in the city that $2Million could have gone towards that would have greater impact today.
For those wanting IKEA – they only build from the ground up and not on prexisisting land so that nulls Marketplace and this new area at 44/Hampton.
Dont forget that Mayor Slay is up for reelection so development that happens out side of downtown is always a good press release- spreading the wealth to us South Siders
Huh? Preexisting land? Like any other big box, IKEA wants a clean site with good highway exposure and good access – their Chicago site certainly isn’t “new” (link above). If there’s contamination here, it waould have to be addressed for any tenant. Yes, they don’t want to move into an existing building, but the only “new” land they’re gonna find around here would be a dredge-and-fill island in the middle of a river, and I doubt they’d want that! That said, I could be good with a Costco, but I doubt they’ll be building a fourth one on this side of the river (there’s a new one under construction out west, at Manchester & 141[?]). Bass Pro is a real long shot, too. If the alderman wants a “destination” big box, why not go after an REI Flagship store?
I think Jim has some great ideas- obviously Ikea would be a St. Louis wet dream, and the folks at the new Drury across the highway would be loving it to. Do you think Ikea would jump if we offered the land to them for free and gave them a 50 year tax abatement? hey- why not offer to build a pedestrian bridge to the 3 hotels across the street over the highway. We could make it a toll bridge if the cost is to high. All things the city has a history of BTW.
Whatever happens unless the powers that be pull their heads out and start enforcing some planning guidelines by creating a development package for this area, we will get more of the same and prove almost everyone else in this comment area right about the city government once again.
what the heck is gained moving kingshwy home depot, their busiest store in area, from one old industrial plot to another? you people that detest bb retail must never have to shop for bargain diapers. the point being that walmart offers great bargains to working families and presently their sales tax dollars are taken out to the county. our city fathers can do worse then try to rebuild our retail and sales tax generating base.
we have tons of land up north to develop fantasy disney lands.
do you have any idea what it takes to relocate a rail line. secondly, those lines have been there since st l was a town of 50,000. thirdly, those lines are owned by competitors and run the length of the country. i don’t expect they will be giving them up soon.
poorly paying jobs and cheap, Chinese and other cheap foreign-made products and bad land development practices that show no respect for local property owner concern is no great bargain Southsider The sooner those who can least afford to have corporate giants dangle low-paying job carrots in front of their noses, the stronger we’ll be as a nation.
With the Wal·Mart in Maplewood doing well and scheduled to be expanded into a supercenter soon, Wal·Mart has absolutely no interest in opening another store 3 miles away. They might be interested in putting one in Soulard, but not here.
.
I’m a cynical, pragmatic, idealist. I’ve done commercial architecture for 30+ years, so I realize and accept the golden rule, that he who has the gold rules, the market drives where businesses choose to locate, or not. I’ve also been involved with community-level politics for nearly as long, so I’ve seen that you only move above mediocrity when decide to dream big and to work for change. In many ways, both architecture and politics is the art of the possible.
.
This site is a microcosm of the challenges facing St. Louis. The easy and safe answer is to do a generic suburban-style shopping center here (Loughborough Commons II, St. Louis Marketpace II). It would help keep sales taxes in the city, and it might even attract county shoppers from places like Maplewood and Richmond Heights. It appears (based on some of the comments posted here) that a lot of the decision-making lies with an individual alderman, even though this is a site owned by all the citizens of St. Louis (not just those in one ward) and its succuess, both short-term and long-term, will impact the city as a whole. And instead of an overall vision of where we want to be in twenty or fifty years, and how we might get there, we just keep throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what, if any, sticks.
.
As for “hating bb’s” – not true – they’re a fact of today’s life. But they’re certainly not the highest and best use of most properties, especially the one at Hanley and 40. The Home Depot on Kingshighway has been successful because it hasn’t had any real competition – it’d be interesting to know how much of a hit their sales have taken since Lowe’s has opened their two stores (in Maplewood & LC). They’re both smaller than many newer HD’s, and certainly not as nice inside as many newer suburban ones around here. To stay competetive, they’re going to have to do something, either by remodelling their existing stores on Kingshighway and Hanley, or by building a new location. And part of being a success in the development business is looking at the bigger picture and all possible options.
.
Retail in every community is a dynamic animal. It continues to renew itself, and some businesses whither and die. Remember Venture stores? Bahama Breeze? Carabba’s? Wendy’s? Crestwood Plaza and North County Mall are on their last legs. With the zoning in place, South Kingshighway will remain a retail corridor, much like MLK and Natural Bridge have remained retail corridors on the north side. The devil is in the details. We (the city) need to continue to attract new players as well as keeping existing ones viable. This site is an opportunity, as are many others in the city. The question is will it be Payday Loans & Rent-to-Own, Kohl’s and Aldi’s, Trader Joe’s and Circuit City, or IKEA and REI? We get whgat we deserve and what we’re willing to work for!
john w. I have no idea what this comment means…….The sooner those who can least afford to have corporate giants dangle low-paying job carrots in front of their noses, the stronger we’ll be as a nation……….
i had a low paying job once. it was called entry level.
Getting back to my first thoughts, i think, the Manchester corridor has always been an industrial block going all the way down to the former Chouteau pond which was converted to rail yards. Why spend a lot of time and effort converting this little isolated ground to some accessible live work residential area when there are so many parts of town that were/are residential that can be reworked. ie. dog town’s obsolete housing or the hill’s for that matter. so much of the post war housing in those areas are ripe for demo.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
Amen to the standards, but they need enforcement teeth. We’ll need a band of club-wielding goons to make sure no city official or developer steps out of line. You spelled ‘shopping’ with three P’s.
Not sure what you mean by standards (zoning, building codes, architectural, etc.)? In hindsight, I think the The St. Louis Marketplace would have been a much better decision if it was placed at I-44 and Hampton since this type of development is dependent on high traffic flow. Which is what I think will happen here now. Simply because a majority of us have cars and will demand this development in some form or another. Why not use a spot like this to fullfill such demand.
I think the failure is along Manchester where you have a great example of bad decisions happening over time due to poor zoning and planning. Talk about an incoherent mix of failed commercial, such as St. Louis Marketplace, industrial, light industrial, and residential from the city limit to Kings Highway. Furthermore, it feels like a back alley on trash collection day between Jefferson and Kings Highway even though you got the Highlands Developement, Forest Park Community College and the Science Center only a couple blocks away. It is sad that all three institutions have destroyed the neigborhood/urban feel of the area by simply cutting off the street grid for their surface parking lot desires.
Although this site is much smaller, Denver had a similar opportunity/challenge when they closed their old airport and redeveloped it – a brownfield site with direct access to I-70, close to downtown, but with industrial areas on one side and established middle-income residential neighborhoods on the other.
.
Before any work started, a public process developed standards contained in the Stapleton Development Plan, a.k.a. the Green Book(http://www.stapletondenver.com/Stockholm_Partnership_for_Sustainable_Communities_Award.aspx). The end result has been a remarkable success, with stability, solid increases in property values and multiple design awards.
.
It took a vision. It took leadership from both the top down (Mayor, City Council, Planning Director) and from the bottom up (concerned citizens & neighborhood groups). It took standing firm with the developer on established principals. It took a black mayor telling a black community that it made more sense to invest in a new shopping center here than it did to invest in an existing moribund shopping center in a black neighborhood a mile away. In the end, this “rising tide” has increased property values in the existing adjacent neighborhoods, and now the old center, Holly Square, is renovated and fully leased*.
.
Can it happen here? Yes. A good first step would be getting Stapleton’s developer involved, Forest City. They’re now doing projects like this across the country, so they “get it”. They understand both the challenges and the opportunities. An important second step is focusing on the end result, not just short-term gains. Finally, there’s the need to look at the bigger picture – this site is part of an existing neighborhood, and needs to be both integrated into the neighborhood fabric and to provide spin-off benefits beyond the immediate site.
.
*”Holly Square is a Family Dollar anchored multi-tenant shopping center and pad site located at 3347 Holly Street in Denver, CO. The property is approximately four miles east of Downtown Denver, one mile south of Interstate 70, and eight blocks west of Monaco Parkway. Built in 1955, the 100% occupied shopping center consists of 22,286 square feet of rentable space on approximately 1.37 acres of land. The property is leased to Family Dollar and a variety of local tenants.”
26 acres is quite small for a PUD, but one could possibly be considered here. I think more likely there will be proposals for a lifestyle center type of mixed-use development because that is what is currently trendy for developers. While this is certainly better than the conventional sprawl pattern retail center, it’s unfortunately not much better. Without going into a point by point criticism of lifestyle centers, I believe most can see the attempts at pedestrian-scaled planning to be hollow contrivance. Clearly, the Stapleton site is much, much larger and had the scale in acres needed to establish a governable PUD that results in the type of control most urbanists would be satisfied with. While I’ve often been a sharp critic of the DPZ stranglehold on what New Urbanism really could have been and should be, in urban areas (read: brownfield infill) the physical patterns of New Urbanism at the planning scale are perfectly relevant. The physical form advocated in all of the CNU publications is what should be the focus, and not what’s typically put forth by DPZ unfortunately. Without means of strong, visible, inviting and safe pedestrian connections to the existing residential streets beyond the bounds of the highly trafficked Hampton and I-44 this site will not likely be much more than either a conventional sprawl pattern wart or a lifestyle center will all of its disappointing shortcomings.
I would, however, much prefer DPZ to plan something for a site like this than what we usually see in St. Louis, and they must be given the credit they deserve for taking the fight right to those content to perpetuate the march of destructive sprawl pattern land consumption, where urbanists tend to keep their sights trained on older, inner-city neighborhoods and urban centers like downtown.
I think this discussion and the previous posting not only brings up the point about planning but also what you have for infrastructure at the moment and what you can realistically expect in the short term. This area is really a small portion of the city that is between two interstates (I-64 & I-44) which happens to include two major rail lines, heavy & light industry and a creek that was turned into a concrete sanitary ditch. I really don’t think of it as part of the hill, etc. This property in terms of the present is bounded by a freeway, busy arterial street, a concreete ditch, more industry and no street grid. Building a stand alone development such as urban lifestyle center or PUD on this space really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me at the moment or can I see a developer going that route unless the city throws a lot of tax incentives his/her way. Put that effort along Jefferson, N. Grand, and any other arterial streets right now that would support a pedesterian/urban environment without a huge infrastructure undertaking. My take, a strip mall and/or box stores if built on this spot can easily and cheaply be torn down once you start addressing some of the long term infrastructure that is in place. One of my infrastructure wishes for St. Lou, combine the rail lines coming into the city near this area into one corridor that would support future commuter service along with increase inter-city service to KC, consolidate industrial use along the rail corridor and re-establish the natural creek as a greenway corridor.
Don’t forget, to be a real city, we need zones too for manufacturing, production and light industrial activity – this is a perfect site for that – the last thing that we need is another f***** shopping area. If you are going to have dense neighborhoods, where people can use public transit or walk to work, you also need areas for other uses. This is the perfect opportunity to set up a high technology manufacturing area. We should use the tax advantages and the site advantages mentioned by Tim E (rail transport, being close to freeways) to leverage a company to put a pharmacutical, high technolgy manufacturing or other facility there. We have a number of companies that could transform this area – think Sigma Adrich, Solae, MEMC, Stereotaxis, Zolatek, etc., into a “green” clean manufacturing site. Lets make it easy for some of these companies that are going to take us into the future to stay here – start by getting rid of the damm employment head tax like was promised to Centene! ps. good luck with the recuperation Steve….
I don’t know how you can compare the Denver airport (how many available acres?) to a 26 acre corner boarder by an interstate, a creek, and a railroad. This is a perfect auto centric area for a Walmart which could bring convenient economic shopping to middle and lower middler class shoppers.
There are more than enough Wal-Marts, and we certainly don’t need any more of them. Though I most agree with Paul W’s comment regarding manufacturing, unfortunately our global economy won’t have us seeing much more manufacturing facilities being built anywhere, let alone this very appropriate site. It will most likely be just another sprawl pattern shopping center with Christmas capacity surface parking, and they’ll likely offer just about whatever tax incentive imaginable to lure whatever retailer will build a box there. Crappy.
Like I said, this area is much smaller than an airport. But there’s absolutely no reason why the city, as property owner, can’t set higher standards for its own development. It’s one thing to impose higher standards on a private developer, but it’s another thing for us, as a community to say that we want something better. Denver could’ve sold the airport site to a developer for the highest bid, either in smaller parcels or as one large one, for an immediate cash infusion, but chose not to . . .
.
As for the existing disconnect form the surrounding neighborhoods, that’s precisely why we should look at the bigger picture and reconnecting. The assumption seems to be that planning has to happen in two dimensions, not three. This site sits in a valley. Parking is a given. If parking happens at ground level and development occurs above, both the site’s density and the ability to connect accross the perimeter “barriers” goes up substantially.
.
Finally, the preservation of industrial sites. I have mixed feelings. St. Louis has multiple industrial sites, many underutilized or vacant. Unless there’s a fundamental shift in the world’s economy, we will never see the level of manufacturing here that we saw in the last century. So yes, we need to preserve some sites/areas, but we also need to find viable reuses for the others, as well. Sites like this one, with locations amenable to the success of retail, hospitality, office and/or residential uses probably should be higher on the list for redevelopment.
Think big(ger) – there’s really no reason why the “site” can’t (or shouldn’t) be expanded, beyond River Des Peres on the north and the chain link fence on the east, all the way to Manchester on the north and Sublette on the east, respectively. Cover the “river” (as it already is further east and north) and combine the existing rail lines into one shared corridor away from Manchester, and you create multiple opportunities for much better urban design, including connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, plus you double the value of the site. As it stand now, yes, about the only viable alternative with the 22 acre will, unfortunately, be Loughborough Commons II . . .
While all of that is certainly true Jim, there remains the reality of the Union Pacific line that will always bisect this possibly expanding site. If the area is to be redeveloped into [commercial office space with live/work lofts and apartments, restaurants and non-box retail similar in walk up scale to your average midwest lifestyle center], then this must be factored into the plan in a manner that is not disruptive and attracts tenants. The U/P line runs right past my backyard, and it took a bit of getting used to but I convinced myself that this fixture was to be real part of my property before deciding to buy.
In Denver’s Central Platte Valley, the rail yard left, the UP main line stayed and multi-story condos were built next to the tracks. Yes, additional measures were required for sound proofing, but because of location, location, location, they sold quickly and have continued to appreciate.
.
If our goal/vision for Manchester between Hampton and Kingshighway is to remain industrial, sure, leave the railrod tracks parallel to the street. But if we want to make the area more urban, moving the tracks south into a single rail corridor (instead of the present two corridors separated by less than a block) would be, in my mind, effort and money well spent.
.
Steve’s original point, as is mine, is do we dream big and strive for the highest and best use of the site/area, or do we aim low, take the 22 acres and just find a developer to do a typical suburban shopping center? The easy, maybe even safe, answer is to aim low. It has minimal risk and will yield adequate returns. The big question is when, if ever, do we start expecting and demanding better, especially on a parcel of this size, that we, the citizens own and, in theory, control?!
In order to communicate the intended result of aiming high, we will really need to have graphic examples that will allow people to envision that end, and it wouldn’t exactly hurt to have groups of individuals dedicated to making competitions and charettes happen frequently so that citizens can actually BE involved in the shaping of our urban environment with a voice beyond blogs and editorial pages. What would your definition of dreaming big be, and how would you prefer to communicate that far off eventuality to those who should be convinced?
A definition of dreaming big would require more than just my view (which is that building a strip shopping center isn’t), and would require a community consensus and vision. It comes from strong leadership and an empowered planning department. We pay our city planners good money for their expertise, but we waste a lot of it by keeping their hands tied. We have the expertise, both inside and outside of government, we just don’t seem to have the political will to sometimes say no to mediocrity . . .
…and giving the powers-that-be a clear indication of what the most interested in the community desires, through process of concensus visioning, will at least give the unelected or unhired a chance to prevent mediocrity and possibly influence land development policy to our satisfaction. The ‘political will’ only likely will reflect the level of public interest and demand through visible action, and will do little otherwise.
Shifting gears, from the what to the who, who would logically “fit” here? I’m guessing that the city is thinking retail, given the highway exposure and access, with office and hospitality (hotel) uses in a distant second position, and with residential, everything from condos to senior housing, even further back on the wish list (since they generate less in taxes and demand more in services).
.
Assuming retail, it appears that most of the “usual suspects” are already well-located in the general area and would only canibalize sales from their existing stores if they opened here – Wal·Mart, K-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, Schnuck’s, Dierberg’s, Shop-N-Save, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Lowe’s all fit the criteria. The one win-win I could think of is Home Depot. If an astute developer could put the pieces together, combining the existing Brentwood and Kingshighway stores here, in a bigger, newer “super” store, the Brentwood site would become available for a killer TOD project. Unfortunately, it would also leave a hole along Kingshighway.
.
That leaves two other types of retail, car dealers and furniture stores, that like this combination of good regional access, highway exposure and a big chunk of land to drop in a big one-story building and a big parking lot. An “auto mall” is one concept, which would probably kill (and attract) the existing new car dealers on Kingshighway. Alternately, it may be a good location for Autonation or Carmax to enter the St. Louis market. On the furniture side, maybe American (or another local) would be interested in opening a new store here, or we might be able to attract the legendary Nebraska Furniture Mart (http://www.nfm.com/) to enter the St. Louis market with a store here. But if Mayor Slay really wants to land the “killer” deal of the year for this site, I have only one word . . . IKEA!
For comparison – the aerial photo for IKEA Bollingbrook, IL.: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=750+E+Boughton+Rd+60440&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=62.361795,102.480469&ie=UTF8&ll=41.726967,-88.037739&spn=0.007303,0.01251&t=h&z=16
…so, no more aiming high?
. . . can’t do it all myself, so I might as well strive for something more than a Kohl’s . . .
Ha! I thought I’d get a response from that. Actually, an IKEA would be perfect for this site because of both the demographics of the area and the high visibility afforded from I-44.
Ald Waterhouse seemed interested in getting a big box development in there and Bass Pro or a Costco were the two he mentioned at our last neighborhood meeting. The big draw was that the city owns the land and can control who can come in as opposed to any developer just coming in. I agree that its nice to have the upper hand and decision but my fear is that we get another Marketplace.
Personally I think that there are some other areas in the city that $2Million could have gone towards that would have greater impact today.
For those wanting IKEA – they only build from the ground up and not on prexisisting land so that nulls Marketplace and this new area at 44/Hampton.
Dont forget that Mayor Slay is up for reelection so development that happens out side of downtown is always a good press release- spreading the wealth to us South Siders
Huh? Preexisting land? Like any other big box, IKEA wants a clean site with good highway exposure and good access – their Chicago site certainly isn’t “new” (link above). If there’s contamination here, it waould have to be addressed for any tenant. Yes, they don’t want to move into an existing building, but the only “new” land they’re gonna find around here would be a dredge-and-fill island in the middle of a river, and I doubt they’d want that! That said, I could be good with a Costco, but I doubt they’ll be building a fourth one on this side of the river (there’s a new one under construction out west, at Manchester & 141[?]). Bass Pro is a real long shot, too. If the alderman wants a “destination” big box, why not go after an REI Flagship store?
I think Jim has some great ideas- obviously Ikea would be a St. Louis wet dream, and the folks at the new Drury across the highway would be loving it to. Do you think Ikea would jump if we offered the land to them for free and gave them a 50 year tax abatement? hey- why not offer to build a pedestrian bridge to the 3 hotels across the street over the highway. We could make it a toll bridge if the cost is to high. All things the city has a history of BTW.
Whatever happens unless the powers that be pull their heads out and start enforcing some planning guidelines by creating a development package for this area, we will get more of the same and prove almost everyone else in this comment area right about the city government once again.
jason
what the heck is gained moving kingshwy home depot, their busiest store in area, from one old industrial plot to another? you people that detest bb retail must never have to shop for bargain diapers. the point being that walmart offers great bargains to working families and presently their sales tax dollars are taken out to the county. our city fathers can do worse then try to rebuild our retail and sales tax generating base.
we have tons of land up north to develop fantasy disney lands.
do you have any idea what it takes to relocate a rail line. secondly, those lines have been there since st l was a town of 50,000. thirdly, those lines are owned by competitors and run the length of the country. i don’t expect they will be giving them up soon.
poorly paying jobs and cheap, Chinese and other cheap foreign-made products and bad land development practices that show no respect for local property owner concern is no great bargain Southsider The sooner those who can least afford to have corporate giants dangle low-paying job carrots in front of their noses, the stronger we’ll be as a nation.
With the Wal·Mart in Maplewood doing well and scheduled to be expanded into a supercenter soon, Wal·Mart has absolutely no interest in opening another store 3 miles away. They might be interested in putting one in Soulard, but not here.
.
I’m a cynical, pragmatic, idealist. I’ve done commercial architecture for 30+ years, so I realize and accept the golden rule, that he who has the gold rules, the market drives where businesses choose to locate, or not. I’ve also been involved with community-level politics for nearly as long, so I’ve seen that you only move above mediocrity when decide to dream big and to work for change. In many ways, both architecture and politics is the art of the possible.
.
This site is a microcosm of the challenges facing St. Louis. The easy and safe answer is to do a generic suburban-style shopping center here (Loughborough Commons II, St. Louis Marketpace II). It would help keep sales taxes in the city, and it might even attract county shoppers from places like Maplewood and Richmond Heights. It appears (based on some of the comments posted here) that a lot of the decision-making lies with an individual alderman, even though this is a site owned by all the citizens of St. Louis (not just those in one ward) and its succuess, both short-term and long-term, will impact the city as a whole. And instead of an overall vision of where we want to be in twenty or fifty years, and how we might get there, we just keep throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what, if any, sticks.
.
As for “hating bb’s” – not true – they’re a fact of today’s life. But they’re certainly not the highest and best use of most properties, especially the one at Hanley and 40. The Home Depot on Kingshighway has been successful because it hasn’t had any real competition – it’d be interesting to know how much of a hit their sales have taken since Lowe’s has opened their two stores (in Maplewood & LC). They’re both smaller than many newer HD’s, and certainly not as nice inside as many newer suburban ones around here. To stay competetive, they’re going to have to do something, either by remodelling their existing stores on Kingshighway and Hanley, or by building a new location. And part of being a success in the development business is looking at the bigger picture and all possible options.
.
Retail in every community is a dynamic animal. It continues to renew itself, and some businesses whither and die. Remember Venture stores? Bahama Breeze? Carabba’s? Wendy’s? Crestwood Plaza and North County Mall are on their last legs. With the zoning in place, South Kingshighway will remain a retail corridor, much like MLK and Natural Bridge have remained retail corridors on the north side. The devil is in the details. We (the city) need to continue to attract new players as well as keeping existing ones viable. This site is an opportunity, as are many others in the city. The question is will it be Payday Loans & Rent-to-Own, Kohl’s and Aldi’s, Trader Joe’s and Circuit City, or IKEA and REI? We get whgat we deserve and what we’re willing to work for!
john w. I have no idea what this comment means…….The sooner those who can least afford to have corporate giants dangle low-paying job carrots in front of their noses, the stronger we’ll be as a nation……….
i had a low paying job once. it was called entry level.
Getting back to my first thoughts, i think, the Manchester corridor has always been an industrial block going all the way down to the former Chouteau pond which was converted to rail yards. Why spend a lot of time and effort converting this little isolated ground to some accessible live work residential area when there are so many parts of town that were/are residential that can be reworked. ie. dog town’s obsolete housing or the hill’s for that matter. so much of the post war housing in those areas are ripe for demo.
No more Wal-Mart. That should be easy enough to understand.