$78.9M Boulevard South Mixed-Use Project May Start Late 2016

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook255Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn35Print this pageEmail this to someone

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 10.10.30 PM

This past November, we wrote about plans to finally build the second phase of The Boulevard development in Richmond Heights. Now, new images of the proposal point to possible progress. According to KMOV and the City of Richmond Heights, Chicago-based developers Condor Properties and Edwards Realty are set to acquire the property under the name CE Boulevard I LLC next month from Pace Properties. Development could be completed in the next 2-3 years.

While nominally controversial, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has been approved for the project twice. The original plan was to complete a second retail and residential phase soon after the first phase was completed in 2005. TIF support was passed for the area back then. Late last year, a 23-year TIF for the $78.9M project was recommended. The latest rendering is by TR,i Architects.

Subsidies, and particularly TIF, for development in St. Louis has received renewed focus. In June, TIF reform was passed with the aim to empower county-wide TIF commissions to prevent subsidies that serve one municipality at the expense of others. Previous law allowed a municipality to override a commission vote. The reform still allows an override, but only demolition and land clearance may be reimbursed to the developer, significantly limited the amount of subsidy provided.

In May, we reported on a first-of-its-kind comprehensive report on economic development incentives in the City of St. Louis. That study found that St. Louis lacks a process to effectively track incentives and evaluate their impact. It also noted that St. Louis is an outlier regarding the degree to which each of the city’s 28 aldermen “can heavily influence the process”. This is somewhat analogous to how individual municipalities, dozens of which are smaller than a city ward (~10,500 residents), can offer incentives.

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 10.11.34 PM{refined site plan and retail layout – September 2016}Boulevard South{draft site plan and retail allocation of Boulevard South – November 2015}

The proposed development would extend from the existing Boulevard south to Antler Drive. The parcel further south, currently the site of a Burger King, was long planned as part of the larger redevelopment, but has been excluded from the latest proposal.

The project could include up to 95,000sf of retail and dining space, 30,000sf of office, and 50 to 165 residential units. A large parking garage would be built to the east, abutting Interstate 170. The Clayton School District, in which the development is located, has opposed the TIF, expressing concern regarding possible increased school enrollment without an offsetting increase in tax revenue. The City of Richmond Heights is comprised of four different school districts, including Brentwood, Clayton, Ladue, and Maplewood/Richmond Heights.

Some recent residential projects in the Clayton school district, most recently the proposed residential component of the expansive Centene proposal, have been negotiated out of the proposed tax abatement. This means that new taxes produced by that residential development would not be captured by the developer, but instead go to the school system.

From our November reporting: According to the redevelopment plan, a TDD (Transportation Development District) is expected to be created. The TDD would levy a 1% sales tax on retail sales and the TIF would capture of portion of new taxes generated to repay development costs. Eligible costs to be reimbursed are listed as $18.7M (23.7% of development cost), and include acquisition, site prep, public parking, and more.

The existing Boulevard features 123,000sf of retail and 74 apartments, named Allegro at The Boulevard. Units feature 10ft ceilings, custom finishes, and room service from Boulevard restaurants P.F. Chang’s, Maggianos & Nadoz. The apartments have maintained a 90%+ occupancy rate according to the developer. Current leasing information shows no retail vacancies, and two office vacancies totaling less than 9,000sf.

BoulevardBoulevard 8IMG_3355{the existing Boulevard St. Louis development}

An inner ring suburb, Richmond Heights has pursued big box and major retail development for decades. At the same time, its residential population has plummeted. The 1960 Census recorded 15,622 residents, showing a population that had increased each decade of the century. By 2010 there were just 8,603 residents. The community has lost at least 8% of its population each decade since 1960.

Population decline has been a predictable outcome as residences have been bulldozed for retail development, and suburban flight has exacerbated the trend. Most recently, a neighborhood was removed to make way for a Menards big box store. New apartment projects including the Boulevard, Manhassett Village, and others may begin to reverse the trend.

Looking north at existing development from Boulevard South site:

IMG_3352IMG_3349

Looking south from existing Boulevard development:

IMG_3353

Boulevard South would replace one-story retail buildings:

IMG_3348IMG_3350Boulevard 3{aerial view of Boulevard St. Louis, Brentwood Boulevard in foreground}

Boulevard 4{streetview of Boulevard St. Louis from Brentwood Boulevard – looking southeast}

Past development plans for phase II:

The Boulevard II_3 The Boulevard II_2 The Boulevard II_1

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook255Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn35Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Alex Ihnen

    Interesting back-and-forth, except the condescension. Anyway, this would be a better convo over in the Urban STL Forum is anyone wants to take it there.

  • Adam

    do people actually live in the Boulevard? so weird.

  • Pingback: In the news: Polite Pass, Boulevard South, Break-ins at Tropicana Lanes | 40 South News()

  • Bobk

    The areas mentioned all seem to be what I remember as populated by very rich or at least well to do citizens. Why give them a tax break. In fact why not build this in north St Louis instead. We need to at least try to overcome income inequality instead of only building where rich people live which promotes more inequality.

    • rgbose

      We’d need to reduce fragmentation considerably or at least move development and incentive decisions up to the county level in order to guide development incentives to depressed areas.

    • HawkSTL

      Bobk — you build shopping areas where shoppers are located and where there is good accessibility and visibility. This spot in Richmond Heights meets those criteria and then some. North St. Louis unfortunately does not. Look at it another way — if you staked your own net worth on a location as a developer, would you build this in Richmond Heights or North St. Louis? The answer is obvious. Yes, unfortunate. But also obvious.

      • matimal

        If only the world were that simple.

        • HawkSTL

          It is that simple. Regions and development patters, however, don’t stay static. Northwest and Crestwood Plazas were once ideal locations (intersection of major streets). When those were developed, the Galleria location was inferior. But now, being at the intersection of 2 interstates is the ideal. So, things change over time. But asking developers to put their money out ahead of that change is unrealistic. It’s not going to happen.

          • matimal

            No it isn’t. Developers put their money where public money has already been spent on infrastructure to support private development. Private investment follow public investment, not customers. In much of St. Louis, and the rest of America, development follows expressways, sewers, and floodwalls, not customers. The customers follow the developers.

          • HawkSTL

            You’re not disagreeing with me. “Good accessibility and visibility” = “expressways.” They are one and the same. Prior to interstates, they were the corners of Lindbergh & the Rock Road and Watson & Sappington. Now, that has changed to places like Hwy 40 & I-170. Again, simple.

          • matimal

            The processes by which those expressways were built are NOT simple or inevitable. At least we agree that it was expressways, and not customers, that often dictated the location of shopping.

          • HawkSTL

            A lot of times it is customers too. That is why the Chesterfield Valley developments have supplanted St. Louis Mills (now outlet mall). More population base with more per capita income.

          • matimal

            It’s customers second, publicly-funded infrastructure first. Customers aren’t the horse, they’re the cart. Government itself is the horse.

          • HawkSTL

            I’m sorry, but you have it backwards. Gov’t builds roads and adds lanes to connect people to destinations. Is it a coincidence that I-70 (the first US Interstate), which connects downtown STL with downtown KC, just happens to run adjacent to Lambert? Is it a coincidence that I-70 also runs by the old GM and Ford plants? Is it a coincidence that I-170 runs by both Boeing and Lambert? Is it a coincidence that I-55 runs adjacent to the brewery? Did those businesses locate there because of the gov’t? In today’s world, businesses do look to gov’t for tax incentives — but that is because local gov’ts are competing against each other and the tax incentives are there. It’s not because gov’t is the horse. Again, it’s the reverse. And, that is why the local gov’ts compete against one another.

          • matimal

            I’m not sorry. You have it backwards. The placement of interstate exits made suburban development possible. Those business located there because of the government actions in building interstates and interstate exits where they did. Government is the horse of the suburban industrial complex. Read Crabgrass Frontier by Delores Hayden.

          • HawkSTL

            Nope. Ferguson, Kirkwood, Webster Groves, etc. all existed before interstates. Try again.

          • matimal

            those aren’t postwar suburbs. Try again. They were built with LOCAL money and had to be able to be sustained with local taxes.

          • HawkSTL

            Nope – those suburbs were built as railroad depots (corporate subsidies and jobs) and farming town squares.

          • matimal

            That’s right. They aren’t postwar suburbs. They aren’t important centers of economic activity in metro St. louis as a result.

          • HawkSTL

            One last one: Ballwin was founded in 1837 by the private landowner to capitalize on the mail route between downtown STL and the new capital in Jefferson City. No interstates close by (Hwy 40 is well to the north and wasn’t an interstate until the 90s). Growth happened well after WWII. Those West County suburbs don’t fit Crabgrass Frontier either . . .

          • matimal

            You’ve missed my point entirely. My point is that government pays for things and does so for its own reasons, not necessarily those of individual Americans. That is how the interstate highways were created..as an economic development initiative to counter the feared return to depression after the end of WWII. There was no grassroots campaign for free, standardized, high-speed highways in America. Some figured out how to capitalize on it AFTER THE FACT. You are seeing far more coherence and foresight than there was, or is, in these matters. It isn’t that simple at all.

          • HawkSTL

            Manchester Rd. through W. County is not an expressway and was not built with federal money. You’ve attributed all growth to federal expressway spending and said that, if local money had been spent, it wouldn’t have happened (and implicitly that no one would have moved out of the city). That’s simply not the case.

          • matimal

            You can’t know what would have been the case. Time doesn’t work like that. You CANNOT know what would have happened without the interstates. We can only make our best arguments. The best argument is that without money from Washington, toll expressways would made suburban expansion much less viable economically.

          • HawkSTL

            Also, historical facts: the A-B Brewery (Soulard), old GM plant (North STL), old Ford plant (Hazelwood), McDonnel Douglas (now Boeing in North STL County) and many more all preexisted interstates by decades. So, saying that “those businesses located there because of government actions in building interstates” is inaccurate. Not saying that to be nasty. Just saying that Crabgrass Frontier and the like avoid inconvenient facts. They only look at facts to advance their narrative and agenda, which is “post-WW II growth of suburbs = bad.” Of course, that conveniently ignores that the suburbs existed and were growing quickly before the interstate highway system existed.

          • matimal

            Also, OTHER historical facts: Expressways were primarily paid for by the national government. If the national government hadn’t paid for them, expressways wouldn’t have been built. If only local taxes had been available for the construction of expressways, they would have been built in different ways and in different places. Saying that the location of most important businesses in metro St. Louis have been because of government actions in building interstates IS accurate. Not saying that to be nasty. Just saying that you’re statements are wrong. You only look at facts to advance YOUR narrative and agenda, which is that “post-WW II growth of suburbs=good.” Almost all growth outside of the limits of the municipality of St. Louis exist where they do BECAUSE of the interstate highway system.

          • HawkSTL

            It simply isn’t true that STL’s major businesses are located where they are because of interstates. A-B, Purina, Laclede, Brown Shoe, Sigma, etc. On the east side, it’s the same thing with chemical and steel plants. All predate or are unrelated to interstates. Same with suburban development. Interstates were built in reaction to desire to move out and were placed in relation to where population was moving already. Most of the posters here are not native STLers. Those of us who are can tell, because it is plain in your lack of handle of this history and inability to critically think about what you see as gospel.

          • Adam

            Within the city limits, and in the inner ring suburbs, I don’t think the argument that highways —> business placement applies because there was already a dense network of roads by which to access them. In the farther-out suburbs—like Maryland Heights—however, it’s very clear that the highways are dictating the location of large employers like RGA, Enterprise, WWT, etc. And the exodus from the city to the suburbs, which has now shifted the population center westward, could not have happened without them.

          • matimal

            Monsanto, Boeing, Reinsurance of America, Enterprise, and all of Chesterfield are “STL’s major businesses.” They are all located where they are solely because of government planned and operated expressways. Interstates were NOT in reaction to desire to move out and were NOT placed where population was moving already. It’s preposterous to suggest that people wanted to got to places that didn’t exist and couldn’t support them without massive spending from Washington (that is money from other people and places). You looking backward from the present to the past not from the past forward as you should. The truth is the truth, wherever you’re from.

          • HawkSTL

            Monsanto has always been in suburbs – STL County and Sauget (f/k/a village of Monsanto). Same with McDonnell Douglas (n/k/a Boeing). We can keep going. But next you’ll cite Centene or some other relatively new enterprise and blame it on interstates.

          • rgbose

            “In 1957, Monsanto moved its headquarters from downtown St. Louis to Creve Coeur.”
            http://stlcin.missouri.org/history/peopledetail.cfm?Master_ID=1826

          • HawkSTL

            Monsanto has old factory property basically on the riverfront. Before modern office buildings, most manufacturing businesses had their offices onsite at the main factory. So, that wasn’t Monsanto going from Met Sq. to Creve Cour. And, the Monsanto STL County HQ campus isn’t adjacent to an interstate. It’s on Lindbergh. So, they’re not out there due to interstates. That’s the point.

          • rgbose

            Interesting, there’s a surprising amount of candor on the MoDOT website regarding the history of highway building. http://www.modot.org/interstate/MissourisInterstateHistory.htm

          • HawkSTL

            Right – I assume you’re citing the part where MO city leaders pushed for the expansion of urban interstates hoping that they would spark redevelopments of depressed downtowns in the 70s and 80s (because businesses like Mosanto had an established suburban presence prior to interstates). That does support the timeline that we’re debating.

          • rgbose

            No this part “In addition, the construction of urban interstate highways frequently led to the destruction of vibrant, working-class neighborhoods in both St. Louis and Kansas City. Interstate construction disproportionately affected poor, ethnic residents in urban areas. Highway planners wanted to keep costs low, so they designed roads that went through depressed neighborhoods where property values were low and right of way could be acquired cheaply. Thus, minority neighborhoods were often split by interstate highway projects, and many local residents lost their homes to highway construction. Urban residents complained as new highways ripped apart their neighborhoods, leading some to conclude that interstates were the “white men’s roads through black men’s homes.” Anger over the destruction of local neighborhoods eventually led to a lawsuit against the Missouri State Highway Department claiming that department officials deliberately built highways in Kansas City to guarantee racial segregation in local schools and to ensure that the economic burdens would fall primarily on black residents. Although the lawsuit was dismissed, racial and economic justice issues continued to haunt the department throughout construction.”

            I’ve read concern about downtown retail was a motivator. And the interstates were done plowing through the city in the 1970s and planned way before that.

          • HawkSTL

            Ok, I understand the point about plowing through neighborhoods. That’s fair and deserves recognition. But, that doesn’t have any bearing on the conversation we’re having re: whether interstates were built to go near preexisting regional hubs (airport) and businesses (GM and Ford plants and McDonnell Douglas). Plus, your quote does align with the idea that commuters were demanding those roads at the time (because the trend to move out had been underway for a while).

          • Adam

            Actually, it totally does have bearing because were determined by the locations of “depressed” neighborhoods, not necessarily by the locations of airports and factories.

          • Adam

            *the routes were determined

          • HawkSTL

            MoDOT chose the cheapest route to those hub and plant locations, which is through lower value properties. Fair to make a criticism of that tactic. Still does not support the notion that the interstates were there to move hub and company locations out to the burbs when they were already there and the trend was moving that direction pre-interstate.

          • Adam

            You’ve only given one example of a company that was already there. And I don’t think anyone is arguing that the highways were built for the purpose of moving companies out of the city. But that was the result.

          • HawkSTL

            You guys crack me up. Not one company, but many. Ford built its Hazelwood plant in the ’40s. Emerson moved to Ferguson in the ’40s. North County developed as the first suburban bedroom communities (yes, pre-interstate) because the jobs were located there. Any baby boomer from North STL County can tell you that. They’d be laughing that we’re even having this “debate.”

          • Adam

            So three companies? Wow. I can think of many more that have located directly adjacent to highways since then. Also not sure I’d consider Ferguson and Hazelwood “suburban” by today’s standards. They’re inner ring with many more connections to the city’s street grid, which I already addressed in my comment below. They were streetcar suburbs. So would those boomers be laughing from their new homes in Chesterfield or Fenton? You know, the exurbs that exploded after construction of the highways?

          • STLEnginerd

            For the record McDonnell Aircraft (Boeing) set up shop because of Lambert Field and rail access, not highway access. The interstates were built to support growing traffic driven by it and other businesses. Present day companies do insist on being located near interstates but there are certainly a variety of urban suburban and exurban sites to choose from.

            This whole thread of comments reminds me of a chicken and egg argument.

          • HawkSTL

            Agreed, and thank you. It doesn’t seem like those points are controversial.

          • HawkSTL

            I don’t know how you can define Hazelwood and Ferguson as “inner ring.” Hazelwood stretches from I-270 to the Missouri River (which, of course, is the outer boundary of STL County). Ferguson stretches to I-270. By comparison, do you consider Fenton to be inner ring? Of course not. But, that’s the argument you’re trying to make.

          • rgbose

            No doubt demand was induced.

          • Adam

            How do you figure “that wasn’t Monsanto”? Sorry, but the company’s own website contradicts you. And even if they’re not located directly next to an interstate (unlike all the other companies that have been cited that reside along 270, for example) the interstate made/makes their exurban location viable.

          • HawkSTL

            Please read the sentence. Monsanto did not relcate from Class A office space in Metropolitan Square (ala Armstrong Teasdale). It built a pre-interstate office complex in the suburbs (and relocated the executive staff from riverfront -both in MO and IL plants- to the STL County HQ) because those executives already lived in the suburbs (again, pre-interstate). Also, Ford, Emerson, McDonnell Douglass, etc. were in STL County pre-interstates (see below posts).

          • Adam

            By “keep going” do you mean continue to conveniently ignore all the other examples that aren’t Boeing (since we’ve now established that Monsanto did, indeed, move from the city to the suburbs concurrent with construction of the interstate system)?

          • HawkSTL

            Monsanto established its STL County campus in the mid-50s. If “concurrent” now means “prior to” the interstate system in STL, then sure, I guess you’re right.

          • Adam

            Late 50’s. And the highway plans were well established by that point. I’m sure Monsanto was completely unaware.

          • HawkSTL

            The execs didn’t care about the highway grid. The commute was short from Ladue and Clayton. There is a parallel to today’s world, in that many executive and professional staff wish to be in Clayton or in a Hwy. 40 office park. Why? It’s closer to home.

          • Adam

            And if you’re now arguing that “Monsanto did not relcate from Class A office space in Metropolitan Square” why did you originally say “Monsanto has always been in the suburbs”? They haven’t. You just admitted that only the executive staff moved to Creve Coeur in the late 50s.

          • HawkSTL

            70 years ago = pre-interstate = “always” as a shorthand. Those are consistent unless you want to go back to when the riverfront had burial mounds.

          • matimal

            You’re arguing that there is no relationship between transportation planning and the distribution of economic activity in metro St. Louis? You can’t be serious.

          • HawkSTL

            No, I’m saying that the original interstates were planned to run by existing destinations, such as airports, large factories, and office HQs that already existed in the suburbs at the time (Lambert, McDonnell Douglas, Ford, GM, Emerson, etc.). North County, as suburban communities, existed pre-interstate. This isn’t controversial to anyone that has been around here for a substantial period of time.

          • matimal

            St. Louis is in no way unique. Roads were planned and built in metro St. Louis is the same way as elsewhere in America. This has nothing to do with the particular history of St. Louis because interstates exist because the national government instigated, planned, and paid for them, not St. Louis city or county. Are you arguing that Chesterfield would have the population and jobs it has WITHOUT I-64? That’s insane. Interstates were an economic development project, not a response to popular demand.

          • HawkSTL

            Yes, to a large degree, the urban and suburban interstates were in response to popular demand. Chesterfield had the growing residential, office, and commercial properties long before I-64. Hwy. 40 turned into I-64 due to popular demand to help with congestion. I-44 in the 70s was built through Webster for the same reason (and that was controversial and led to the alter successful efforts to stop I-170 from extending south). Same with I-70 in the 60s through Northwest STL County — the migration pattern of jobs and residences was in full flight already and the highways came in due to demand and need. That developed into the chicken and egg issue, which is more highways and lanes equals more residences and jobs further out.

          • matimal

            No, you’re wrong. Read Delores Hayden’s Crabgrass Frontier. The existence of even one attempt to stop an expressway shows proves my point. Why would people oppose something if they demanded that somethingyb in the first place?

          • Alex Ihnen

            This conversation is interesting and frustrating at the same time. This debate has raged for decades and if there’s a consensus it is that building Interstates was both a product of demand (overcrowded and dirty cities, and increased car ownership), and a driver of suburban housing and development. Both of you contribute to the good conversation on this site, but seem too happy to talk past one another. 🙂

          • HawkSTL

            Well said — certainly more succinctly stated than I’ve done, and it is accurate. I’ll stop now so that I don’t have to wax on about I-170, Webster Groves, and Buzz Westfall:)

          • Adam

            “Most of the posters here are not native STLers.”

            How do you know this? Other than Alex and possibly rgbose, which posters aren’t native to STL?

          • HawkSTL

            I know you’re from STL. So, pick an article. Look at the content and theme of the posts. It’s pretty easy to tell.

          • Adam

            No offense but I think you’re talking out your ass on this one. 😉

          • HawkSTL

            Also, to clear up a point. I live in the City. I’m not pro suburb. But, like a lot people my age, I understand why people move out (like our moderator Alex for instance). When life moves along, you have to make tough choices. It’s part of growing up.

          • matimal

            I DON’T think you understand who has paid and continues to pay for what and what effects that has on St. Louis and everywhere else in America. You have more growing up to do.

          • HawkSTL

            Who pays for the most for the roads? Affluent parts of STL County, which is the largest county in MO and from which the federal gov’t collects the most in income taxes. It’s called statistics. Also, Boeing (McDonell Douglas) and Monsanto were in STL County long before interstates. Again, I don’t think you’re originally from here. Otherwise, you’d know these things.

          • Adam

            “Who pays for the most for the roads? Affluent parts of STL County, which is the largest county in MO and from which the federal gov’t collects the most in income taxes.”

            What does this have to do with the chicken/egg, highways/jobs argument?

          • Alex Ihnen

            FWIW – my 1920s era “suburb” is quite “urban” by today’s standards. People were able to move there in the 1920s because it was well-connected to the streetcar network and streets were being widened to accommodate more cars. Today, my shopping, kid’s schools, etc. are largely dictated by where the Interstates go. That is, I would never shop at Costco if it weren’t for I-64 and I-270, for just one example.

  • Tim E

    Alex, Someone noted on urbanstl that the owner of Galleria is owned by a Chicago mall owner/developer and the owner taking over this development is out of Chicago. Any chance you might think that both Galleria and Boulevards have same backers when all said and done?

  • Mike Pulley

    This is exciting…now to get rid of the nasty Burger King….and yes, do something about the pedestrian crossing. Maybe an underground tunnel 🙂

    • Tim E

      Also, please try try again at something better fronting the University Tower or whatever the name is these days. Originally a much denser plan with another hotel, retail and some structured parking was proposed. Then recession hit, everything stalled and the underwhelming bank branch was built. Maybe not retail but come back with some more residential, office and the second hotel even if you have to tear down the relatively new bank branch

      That what tie in nicely with what Alex suggest happen with Galleria/improved pedestrian access. However, I can see Clayton fighting hard to convince county that no changes should happen to Brentwood Ave as that will one of the major ingress/egress for Centene’s big push.

  • Pingback: Construction for The Boulevard, phase 2, could begin this year | 40 South News()

  • John

    Phase II is long overdue, but the TIF welfare handout should be removed. This area can support substantial development without the TIF.

    I would like to see the Burger King removed and the project footprint extended, but it won’t happen. I also agree about the pedestrian bridge to the Galleria. It won’t happen either, which is unfortunate.

    • Will M

      I would honestly like to see that burger king lot and the southern most lot in the galleria property become several large office and residential complexes. I think it would really add to what the boulevard is creating (a neighborhood) and it would incorporate the mall. In my opinion, besides re imagining the entire area, that would be the most productive way to create a larger urban district with both the galleria, boulevard, and the developments that surround it.

      not that malls should be the center of our new urban developments, but maybe they could be the anchor for some.

  • Michael B

    It should have been done in Phase I of the development, but a pedestrian bridge from the Boulevard over to the Galleria is sorely needed. As much as Richmond Heights wants to pretend that the Metrolink station doesn’t exist there, a large number of workers (and shoppers!) cross that large intersection daily to get to the Galleria.

    This comment has nothing to do with Phase II of this project, but it bugs me to see this insular environment designed to be pedestrian friendly only if you drive your car there first. Not to mention, if you’re trying to get people to live somewhere, maybe you should make it so they can walk somewhere other than straight to their car.

    • Alex Ihnen

      I’d like to see a much better pedestrian crossing and not a bridge, but having the area truly walkable from the Galleria to the Boulevard would be nice. I made a rough sketch a few years ago showing the Galleria building a Boulevard-type development toward the Boulevard – would make for a well connected area.

      • Michael B

        Fair point. A bridge probably wouldn’t be the best solution to the pedestrian experience. It’s clear that the developers know how to make somewhat pedestrian-friendly environments, but Richmond Heights can’t connect the archipelago together.

    • rgbose

      Narrowing Galleria Pkwy would be a good start.

      • tony

        They need to link all of these could be somewhat walkable enclaves. Beefy pedestrian crossings at Darst and Galleria Pkwy, increased access to the Metro station via Galleria Pkwy, and bike lines up and down Brentwood.

        • john

          Agree but highly unlikely as Richmond Heights has fought against bike lanes and better pedestrian access for years. The one and only pedestrian bridge over 170 at Antler was eliminated by the New 64 project. This decision made pedestrian access from over 150 homes east of 170 more difficult and added a mile in walking to Whole Foods, REI, Trader Joes, etc.

          Also note that access to the Metro station cannot be achieved via Clayton Road even though the station can be easily seen from the old HoJo.

          Making this area more pedestrian/bicycle friendly is necessary as Draper & Kramer is building an 800 unit apartment building at the New 64 and Eager.

          • tony

            Oh definitely. I in no way think they would actually DO any of those things. All of those amenities but very unpleasant, if not impossible, to get to each one without a car. The CWE WF already cut my reasons to go to that area in half. City Foundry could make Brentwood obsolete, save for the random REI trip.

          • Tim E

            I find it interesting that Amazon is building the biggest box stores around (warehouses that now are easily 1 million sq feet) that are competing head to head with the big box store. …
            For all intents and purposes retail as well as food & entertainment going forward will more likely be tied back to residential and neighborhoods. However, I can see Foundry has better chance long term as it will be better tied to the surrounding area and metrolink as things progress. Maybe it has to do with CORTEX working with Lawrence as well as SLU/Lawrence/Green Streets have proposed a blighted area encompassing their vested area for redevelopment that will put some focus on Grand Ave metrolink station all in the context of one city government. As RG noted, the fragmentation is doing the inner surburbs more harm than good

            Brentwood does have an opportunity to reverse some of this if they could convince Dierbergs and maybe relocate Home Deport to better develop the immediate area Brentwood Metrolink Station as part of a long term vision for TOD/connecting neighborhoods adjacent to the Hanley Business park