Doering Mansion Sacrificed for Disappointing Mississippi Bluffs Developments

South Broadway once had some stately homes, with great views overlooking the Mississippi River. In early 2006 one was gone — razed for a multi-building condo project known as Mississippi Bluffs.

Most of the site for Mississippi Bluffs was to come from the former Good Samaritan Home, the Doering Mansion to the North, was included in the sale of the closed retirement home. The developer wanted just the retirement home site, but the seller wouldn’t split them up. Rather than market the Doering Mansion himself, the developer incorporated that land into his plans:

He’s building an oasis of 34 high-end condominiums on the Mississippi, each with its own garage and surrounded by 6.2 acres of park, sidewalks for dog walking and jogging, and a large pool. It sits on the city’s only mile of terrain above the flood plain, 80 feet above the Mississippi, perfectly positioned for views of the barge industry to the north, vast river to the south and Illinois forest to the east. 

Now, if only he could sell that idea to everyone else.

The land Curran is so fond of was once the site of a retirement home run by the Good Samaritans. The nonprofit organization also owned the adjacent Doering Mansion, which sat unused for 30 years. When the complex went up for sale in 2003, the owners’ only stipulation was that the mansion and the home could not be sold separately—no exceptions. Thus both buildings just sat. And sat. (St. Louis Magazine — September 2007)

I wrote about this project quite a bit at the time:

• 10/2005: Historic Doering Mansion in Path of Broadway Bluffs Townhouses
• 11/2005: Doering Mansion Should Not Be Razed for Mississippi Bluffs Condos
• 12/2005: Mississippi Bluffs Project To Destroy More Than the Doering Mansion
• 2/2006: Another One Bites The Dust
• 4/2006: Rumor: Mississippi Bluffs Project Facing Challenges
• 9/2006: Developer Curran Tosses Egg on Preservation Board’s Face

Many questioned the plan and the developer’s ability to perform. See map.

But the balance of the site remained vacant for years. Now the plan has changed — not for the better.

Their views of the river are stunning.

It’s certainly possible had the Doering Mansion not been razed it would still be vacant and falling apart, but it’s also possible it would’ve been renovated and occupied years ago. A trusted politically-connected developer was allowed to raze one the few remaining mansions in a historic district because his project would fail without doing so. It failed anyway.

If only the Doering Mansion had been offered for sale on its own, only then would we have known if anyone would’ve been interested in renovating it. I’m just glad I don’t get down to this area very much anymore, I’d hate to see these garages on a regular basis.

— Steve Patterson

What To Do With 1.2 Million Square Feet In The Railway Exchange Building (UPDATED)

Downtown’s Railway Exchange Building, completed in 1913, occupies an entire city block. From the 2009 National Register nomination:

The Railway Exchange Building was recognized as an architectural and engineering wonder even before it was constructed. But the building’s rich history was built more on the shoulders of the companies it was designed to house than the structural supports and ornamental flare it boasted in its design. The building has been a commercial asset to the St. Louis downtown since its construction, housing what became the city’s largest department store. In addition, many local businesses operated on the upper floors of the building, and the building’s official moniker derived from the abundance of railroad company tenants occupying the building when it opened.

The Railway Exchange Building was designed in 1912 by Mauran, Russell and Crowell as a home for the newly merged Famous-Barr Company. By the time Famous and Barr were merged, each had established themselves as a prominent department store in St. Louis. William Barr & Company opened as a drygoods store in 1850. Located on Fourth Street between St. Charles and Vine, the drygoods company grew rapidly, and by 1876 boasted over 300 employees and 32 departments with a separate manager for each division. In 1880 William Barr moved into the Julia Building, a four-story construction that occupied half the block at 6th an Olive Streets. As the city’s first department store, Barr’s took advantage of the mail-order trade as well as the in-house sales. The company remained in this building until it was replaced in 1913 by the Railway Exchange Building.

May Department Stores was bought out by Federated Department Stores in August 2005, a year later Famous-Barr became a Macy’s (Wikipedia). In 2011 Macy’s consolidated into the lower 3 floors, from 8, but still couldn’t make it. Macy’s closed in 2013 (Post-Dispatch).

Tuesday morning I attended the public presentation by ULI St. Louis’ Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) on their recommendations to the developer that owns the structure. Unfortunately, their presentation isn’t yet online. Here are some highlights from memory:

• With 1,000 parking spaces in the block to the South they didn’t recommend including any parking within the building.
• Reskin/update the parking garage, remove the ramp off 7th
• Consider a plaza for the surface lot at 6th & Olive.
• The building would get sectioned into various zones for development into many functions. Different developers could then work on their portion, without any single developer having to take on the entire project at once.
• The total square footage would be reduced some by opening up floors at various spots — such as creating 2-story volumes in some residential units.
• Remove the roof and create an outdoor walk around the perimeter of the 21st (top) floor.
• Residential units on the floors just below. Various sizes could be offered.
• Two hotels on floors below the residential, one a boutique hotel like 21C and one an extended stay.  With new startups downtown they indicate there is demand for such hotels. Each hotel could have large volume spaces.
• Recreational space, like a gym or basketball court.
• Street-level retail like Urban Target, CVS/Walgreens, a fresh produce market, etc.

The building would still likely be over a million square feet after the reductions in floor area. With four primary facades you could have separate entrances for each function.

I still don’t like the existing garage, it’s old & ugly. The flow inside is awful. The garage needs to be replaced with a new garage if parking is excluded from the building. I’d love an Urban Target, a 24/7 CVS or Walgreens, and a Trader Joe’s. The developer already has interest in a couple of the pieces, but not enough to move forward just yet. The TAP felt if broken up into pieces it could be marketed nationally to interest developers from outside our region.

UPDATE: 5/14/15 # 7:40PM — the ULI presentation wasn’t available online yesterday as I finished the post, but thanks to a reader this morning who posted the link.

— Steve Patterson

Northside-Southside Light Rail Wouldn’t Be Good For St. Louis Neighborhoods

Lately I’ve been hearing people wanting the build the long-planned Northside-Southside MetroLink lines. While I’m a huge advocate of public transit, rail transit in particular, this would ultimately be a costly disaster for St. Louis’ neighborhoods.

For the Northside corridor, the preferred transit alternative was a MetroLink line running from downtown St. Louis north by using rights-of-way along several streets including 14th Street, Natural Bridge Avenue, and West Florissant Avenue into North St. Louis County. Two potential preferred alternatives were selected for the Southside corridor. One was a MetroLink extension from downtown St. Louis running south using rights-of-way within 14th Street, Chouteau Avenue, the Union Pacific Railroad track and along I-55. The other possible design was a Bus Rapid Transit system from downtown south via Market Street, Grand Boulevard, to rights-of-way alongside the Union Pacific Railroad track and Loughborough Avenue, then via I-55 to South St. Louis County. (Northside-Southside Overview)

Here’s what I think these people don’t understand:

• This would be a completely separate system from our existing light rail — Northside-Southside would use different vehicles & track. An existing line coming from the airport, for example, wouldn’t be able to run into south city. Passengers would need to exit the older high-floor light rail vehicles at the Civic Center MetroLink station and walk to 14th Street to board the new line. Fares could be integrated, but physically separate otherwise.
• The vehicle type used would be the same as the proposed St. Louis Streetcar.  These are modern vehicles and are an excellent choice. When used as “light rail” they operate in dedicated right-of-way (ROW) with far fewer stops so as to achieve desired speeds end to end. As streetcars they stop much more frequently, putting more people closer to a stop. The tracks can be crossed easily by pedestrians & motorists. Connectivity, not speed, is the priority.
• The goal for Northside-Southside was to end at large park-n-ride lots and get suburbanites through “scary” city neighborhoods and into downtown as quickly as possible. Stops would be over a mile apart.
• To achieve necessary speeds the number of conflict points between rail & autos/pedestrians would need to be greatly reduced. This is accomplished by building a median down the center of the road (Natural Bridge, Jefferson) with very few points to cross. That left turn you used to make would become impossible, as would walking across the street at all but a few points.
• Property along the routes would need to be taken, some buildings razed. This is because creating a dedicated ROW takes lots of room — more than even our generous ROWs have to offer.This light rail ROW would act similar to a highway — dividing the neighborhoods on either side in an effort to rush people through as quickly as possible.

These are not positives for the neighborhoods, unless you live near one of the few stops it won’t be useful to residents.

We don’t have any examples of light rail in the center of a road, so we need to look elsewhere. In 2012 I visited Dallas and rode their Blue Line south in the center of Lancaster Rd.

All of my photos are from inside the light rail car or at the stations. To understand you you need to view from outside. Short of a personal visit, you can look at Google’s Street View.

Light rail doesn’t appear to have spurred any development in the 18 years it has been open. The rail vehicles, however, do move at a high speed between stations. Success depends on your goals.

What the St. Louis neighborhoods North & South need is an investment in excellent localized rail transit — streetcars. Again, the vehicles are virtually identical — it is the design of the track and number of stops that make the difference. To me, the South/Jefferson County person driving downtown is likely to just stay on I-55 to reach their destination — we shouldn’t design this to persuade them to exit the highway and park in a big parking lot.

We should design & invest in infrastructure that brings the neighborhoods together, that helps local merchants.  Light rail is the wrong choice, streetcars is the best rail choice. If you’re opposed to MoDOT’s plans for Gravois you should be opposed to creating a light rail ROW in the middle of our major aerials.

— Steve Patterson

New Switchback Ramp Between Civic Center MetroLink & Gateway Transportation Center Should Reduce Accidents

To reduce pedestrians being hit by light rail trains they’ve been making changes to conflict points, this is about the access to the Civic Center MetroLink Station from the Gateway Transportation Center, which opened in late 2008.

This change may also be related to the coming smart card technology, a reader is shown above. The question I have is will I have a problem passing through the Civic Center MetroLink to reach the Gateway Transportation Center?

— Steve Patterson

Second Downtown Dog Park: Wedge Between Busch Stadium & MetroLink Line

In March I posted how some want to turn a large developable site into a 2nd downtown dog park, see Temporary Dog Park On Former Cupples 7 Site Would Be Too Costly.  Then last month I offered an alternative location in existing park space, see Second Downtown Dog Park: Serra’s ‘Twain’. Today I’m suggesting another alternative location for a 2nd downtown dog park:

The grassy area and adjacent parking is divided into many separate parcels of land, some owned by the State of Missouri. Most would agree, because of the small size, this isn’t a desirable site for a new building. The location is convenient to those living in the nearby Cupples warehouses. The Cardinals might be able to help out with finding a permanent dog park at this location.

— Steve Patterson