The New Highlands Development Replaced The Arena Next Door To The Original Highlands
The Highlands was an amusement park on the current site of the St. Louis Community College Forest Park campus (see Fire Cleared Forest Park Highlands, St. Louis Community College Forest Park Opened 7 Years Later). Today The Highlands is a real estate development on the site to the west, the longtime location of The Arena.
According to the book “St. Louis Day by Day” by Frances Hurd Stadler, The Arena was dedicated on September 24, 1929 (Wikipedia says 9/23/1929). The former home of the National Dairy Show was razed in 1999 after the Blues hockey team began playing in the Kiel Savvis Scottrade Center.
A business / residential development now occupies the land that the St. Louis Arena called home, including:
Two apartment buildings featuring loft-style units
A Hampton Inn Hotel
1001 Highlands Plaza Drive West, an office building home to—among other business—the St. Louis group of Clear Channel Communications radio stations (KSLZ, KMJM-FM, KBWX, KATZ, KLOU, and KSD). A grass plaza, with an oval grass section surrounded by concrete sidewalks now sits at 1001 Highlands Plaza Drive West at the location where the original Arena stood.
The Krieger’s Sports Grill on the site closed in early 2008 and subsequently reopened as “The Highlander Pub & Grill” in September of the same year. (Wikipedia)
This post is a look at how the site was redeveloped after The Arena was razed. Let’s start with an aerial overview.
The green center mentioned in the quote and shown above is much smaller than the former Arena, you can compare them at historicaerials.com. The green is smaller but I appreciate the idea and arranging buildings around a central lawn can be powerful. The following photos were taken on the afternoon of Monday July 9, 2012.
I want to continue on Oakland Ave and work our way back to the center.
Now let’s take a look at the building facing Oakland Ave on the east side of the drive as well as the hotel and restaurant.
I was on the adjacent campus of St. Louis Community College after I left the Highlands and saw someone walking with lunch from the Jimmy Johns restaurant in the building with the retail spaces. The Highlands isn’t friendly to those who live or work there and it’s unwelcoming to those on the outside.
Additional housing will soon be built on the remaining vacant land south of the central lawn:
Balke Brown brought in Humphreys & Partners, a prolific design firm based in Dallas, as the Cortona’s architect. The five-story building will have an exterior “reminiscent of an Italian villa,” with earth-tone panels, the developer said.
When completed in early 2014, the Cortona will have nearly 200 one-bedroom apartments and 80 two-bedroom units. A large courtyard will have a 7,000-square-foot clubhouse, a saltwater swimming pool, an outdoor kitchen and a spa, the company said. (stltoday.com)
Given the fact Balke Brown started with a blank 16 acre site adjacent to a college campus I’d say they did a poor job creating interesting public space. Perhaps it’s sufficient enough to please their investors and those Gen Y types that are afraid to live in authentic neighborhoods. Living in a generic office park isn’t appealing to me. Here’s a promo video for the lofts which look like suburban apartments.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CP4bc_OUVs
I just don’t get it.
— Steve Patterson
“I just don’t get it.”
My thoughts exactly Steve. Given that they had a blank slate to work with you’d think something better could have been achieved. I was really hoping for a miniature walk-able village or something like that. The project area is not very big really. You could totally park your car in a carpark at the edge of the development (or underneath) and then walk to your destination. This would have removed the mess of roads all over the property and increased development space. Could have been more of a destination for FPCC students or those living in Dogtown or the lofts.
My wife’s doctor is in the medical building and I always start ranting whenever we go there. Yes it’s nice that the site is being used but it sure would have been great to see a proper urban development go in there.
the first building built on the site doesn’t have an entrance facing Oakland, meaning there’s very little sidewalk activity.
Many businesses like to have a single entrance to their facilities (receptionist, security, grand entryway etc.).
Perhaps it’s sufficient enough to please their investors
That’s sort of the point. Money doesn’t grow on trees.
the elevation change and brick wall prevents window shopping. Huge fail.
In general you are correct, but if the audience here is people from within the development on their lunch break or whatever, the barriers do not get in their way.
The city owned the Arena and probably helped finance this project one way or another. If pedestrian access was required from the street the building could’ve been designed differently to make everyone happy.
You will never, ever be able to “make everyone happy”. People don’t “window shop” like they used to, they “surf the net”. And designing a building with direct “pedestrian access from the street” and keeping it unlocked and usable by the occasional pedestrian once the building is completed and occupied are two very different things. Little used, unsecured entrances pose a very real security risk, especially in urban areas, and invariably end up being kept locked. And with most people choosing to drive, the entrance most convenient to most drivers will, by default, become the primary public entrance. Just because there’s a public sidewalk doesn’t mean that a tenant will view that side of their space as being the “front”. As shown here, it can just as easily be viewed (and used) as a private patio as it can be viewed as a (potential) public entrance. The real key is a large number of actual pedestrians actually walking by!
What don’t you get? That not everyone shares the same vision for “ideal” urban living that you have? That many people actually want to drive? That the project is successful in spite of these apparent design “failures”? Part of “educating” people is giving them better, smarter options, especially ones that they can afford. Compared to many, many other apartment options out there, this is a step in the right direction – density, mixed use, limited surface parking – and its success should motivate developers to continue down this path, instead of doing the generic stuff that typifies too many large, suburban and suburban-style developments today, especially around the St. Louis region.
A different, more subtle issue here is the disconnect between public transit and the overall site design. You, as a transit user, feel like a second-class citizen because you ARE being dropped off at the back door. IF the bus route actually deviated off of Oakland, and circled the Central Lawn, your perspective would be a bit different. I’m guessing that neither the developer nor Metro have asked, so the bus just stays on Oakland. EVERY building, especially a mixed-use one is going to have a “front” and a “back” Truck deliveries, trash storage and handling and access to structured parking all have to happen somewhere, preferably away from the main entrance. And as long as we continue to view public transit more as a “service” to be hidden than as an equal or preferred mode of travel for all users, we’re going to continue to have these disconnects.
Designing a mixed 16 acre project that is easily walked and connected to adjacent areas can also be accessed by car — they’re not mutually exclusive!
Deviating from the road is a bad idea, it slows the bus down significantly for the 90%+ of passengers who are going to any other location. (And makes them carsick in the process)
See http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/be-on-the-way.html for a related discussion
Agree that deviations are a bad thing for most riders, but as the link points out, transit works best when it penetrates populated destinations. Between Hampton and Kingshighway (and unlike between McCausland and Hampton), the bus route is essentially on a freeway frontage road – there’s nothing pedestrian-friendly on the north side of Oakland. IF the bus could be routed through the center of the community college campus, the center of this development, the center of SLUH’s campus and along the south side of the Science Center (if Berthold / College Drive / Parkview Place were actually contiguous) then Metro could do a much better job of serving their riders here, much like how they do in Dogtown. Instead, we get four major developments where “you can’t get there from here”, out of fears over cut-through traffic and “security” for their surface parking lots. As tpekren notes, what’s really missing is the fine-grained urban grid, for both pedestrians and transit. For now, however, we need to balance better serving these relatively-new developments with keeping existing riders happy. (Or, to use your logic, we shouldn’t deviate off of Oakland into Dogtown, just stay on Oakland between McCausland and Hampton, and use McCausland between Oakland and Dale, because “90%+ of the passengers” aren’t going to Dogtown!)
Based on the 1960s design of the campus it’s impossible to go through the middle. The bus line I rode only travels eastbound on Oakland — not westbound.
Then Metro’s bus route is more F’ed up than I thought. So, the ONLY way to go west from any of these institutions (on Metro) is to go east, then circle back on I-64, AFTER transferring onto a westbound bus or cycling through the CWE Metrolink Station?! Obviously, transit is NOT a priority here . . .
That was the route I rode, other routes might go south or west.
Upon further review, it looks like Metro runs two different 59 routes, one that starts at the CWE station, uses I-64 to get to Hampton, then immediately returns to the CWE station along Oakland – OK service to these 4 institutions. The other one appears to run the full route, out to the Rock Hill Loop, and may or may not operate westbound on the north side of Oakland – interesting, and definitely not very transparent . . . . http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Metrobus_Maps/Map59112811.pdf http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Metrobus_Schedules/59112811.pdf http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Metrobus_Turning_Directions/TD59083010.pdf
You really have a lot more Metro options for going west from the Highlands center. For example, you can just walk up to Hampton and take the #90 north to the Forest Park Metrolink station to go east or west. Or you could take the #90 south to connect with the #32 east or west. Other options exists depending on where you want to go. You have to transfer to get full flexibility. I just use either google maps on my computer or smart phone to find the best route.
That wasn’t my point. Of course, you can walk several blocks, in several directions, to improve your options – there are several nearby bus routes. My point was that the one route that touches the project doesn’t penetrate the project, instead, it drops you off at an obscure corner, and not in the heart of the action. If we want more people to embrace Metro, we need to quit treating them like second-class citizens!
I’m also surprised that you didn’t make a point that there is no sidewalk on the north side of Oakland, opposite the development. Makes catching a westbound bus much more difficult . . .
The places where a bus stop exists there is a crossalk and a sidewalk serving that stop.
“authentic neighborhoods”? “suburban apartments”? A neighborhood is what you make of it. Suburban apartments? They don’t look very “suburban” to me. Suburban would have parking under or in front of them. But I digress….if one really wants to know why this development was layout this way, the only sure way is to talk to the developer. I’ll wait.
Let me clarify, these are being billed as lofts. But looking at the interior photos they look like a typical apartment.
Kinda see it on both ends.
I think what JZ71 is emphasing is that the developer built what they think would sell, more specifically what would lease and rent. In this case, I think front facing retail is very small componenet and as noted in comments is really geared towards the development itself and some traffic from Community College. Your certainly not going to get Wash Ave, the Loop or even a good ol corner store. But they certainly have gotten things right as a developer who built in the city, filling its space and breaking ground on more residential and understand a forthcoming office building.
As far what Steve has to stay, you have to agree that their was some opportunity with this development to do a better job of tying into surrounding neighborhood. It would have been doable and I think beneficial at the end of the day if they would have carried their west side access all the way through to the east side of the development to incorporate more of a street grid and yet fundamentally keep their intended development. But take your pick between Science Center, Forest Park Community College and now Highlands or the city for that matter, none had any intention of connectivity by promoting an east west back street parallel to Oakland that would have provided much more connectivity.
What neighborhood do you want this development to interact with?
The parking lot of SLCCC? The highway to the north? The abandon Channel 2 / hardees to the west? Or the industrial buildings to the south?
Apartment buildings back up to the west edge and the old TV station site could be redeveloped to expand development to Hampton. Houses face part of the south boundary.
I agree with JZ71, this is a successful development. It has lured “suburban” jobs to “urban” St. Louis. I could care less about the transit options or connections inside of the place. There are connections. One of the reasons people are FAT today is because they don’t want to walk anymore.
My beef with this development is not with public transit access, but that the proposed residential building is not taller. Here you have prime real estate right across from one of the country’s – if not the world’s – most notable parks and a rinky dink (short) – albeit nice – residential building is about to be built. A 10-to-15 story building could have commanded some good rent money for the developer because people would have loved to have those park views.
Suburban jobs to the city? The original building is largely occupied by Daniel & Henry that was previously at Market & Jefferson in the building now occupied by MSD.