Ballpark Village: An Urban Playground
Olivia White
On April 10, 2006 the St. Louis Cardinals played their first home game at the new Busch Stadium with great fanfare. The new stadium, built directly adjacent to the site of the demolished Busch Memorial Stadium, was planned to open alongside a project called “Ballpark Village,” a commercial retail development that would include luxury condominiums, the Cardinals Hall of Fame, as well as restaurants, bars, and an office park. In a special advertising section for Sports Business Daily it was said that “When the St. Louis Cardinals built a new stadium, they built a new neighborhood too.” Now, Ballpark Village is expected to finally premiere on the Cardinals Home Opener day, Monday, April 7, 2014, nearly fifteen years after the project was first proposed. Downscaled in terms of size and ambition, the project nonetheless hopes to transform downtown not only by attracting residents, but also by installing businesses that are meant to attract consumers year-round, as opposed to the six to seven months of baseball season. The principles guiding the project, however, are based on the idea of turning cities into carnivals, where throngs of people come for the show, spend some money, but ultimately leave. The project ignores the social history of the site on which it will be built, and by doing so attempts to erase and reclaim history for those who consume baseball as patrons. Originally conceived using the principles of New Urbanism, the end result will fail to create what developers describe as an “urban village.” The large scale of the development aims for rapid and sudden change in a way that is unsustainable. As illustrated by the twelve years the project took to finally get off the ground, Ballpark Village was born from a misguided vision and will ultimately turn the blocks of Clark, Walnut, 8th Street, and Broadway into an urban playground rather than an urban village.
Ballpark Village was initially proposed in 2000 when developers were working on plans to build a new Busch Stadium. In December of that year the plans for the development were first unveiled. Two years later city leaders and developers signed a deal for a retail, residential, and office “village” to open in conjunction with the new stadium. Construction on the stadium lasted from 2003 to 2006, but Ballpark Village was left in the planning stages as developers worked to secure both business tenants and funding. After Centene Corporation announced it was going to open its headquarters in Clayton, Missouri instead of in Ballpark Village, the planning became even more difficult as developers had now lost a major business from its proposed office park. In July 2008 a revised plan for Ballpark Village was unveiled, but funding was never secured to build the actual plan. At this point developers began seeking tax subsidies in order to pay for construction. In the throngs of the financial crisis that peaked between 2008 and 2009, the development was put on hold indefinitely.1 The current vision for Ballpark Village was developed and funded by the Cordish Company, the Baltimore-based firm that developed Kansas City’s Power and Light District. It includes a 100 million dollar phase one of construction including a rodeo bar and restaurant, a Cardinals-themed restaurant, the Cardinals Hall of Fame, and, for the meantime, over 400 surface parking spaces.2
Planners envision Ballpark Village as a development that will transform six blocks of downtown adjacent to Busch Stadium into an urban village. The design concept of an urban village is a neighborhood of medium density development that is pedestrian friendly, created from mixed zoning laws, has public spaces, as well as a variety of housing types and heterogeneous population. This kind of neighborhood design is meant to encourage and foster social interactions between people of different ethnic and socioeconomic groupings.3 Ideally, in downtown St. Louis this neighborhood would invite people to eat, drink, and watch the ball game for a night while simultaneously attracting them to spend more time downtown and at Ballpark Village during the off-season. William Dewitt II, President of the Cardinals, expressed early on his belief that Ballpark Village would “create new activity in the downtown area, even on non-game days...the excitement will be there 365 days a year.”4 One of the issues with this grand vision, however, is that Ballpark Village will not attract patrons year-round because it ignores the density and walkability of downtown by attracting car rather than foot traffic, the exact opposite effect of what proponents of the urban village design desire. It is a development that will turn downtown into a playground, an area of space that will be consumed and then abandoned. Ballpark Village, Phase 1, contains no incentive for patrons to visit the space on non- game days, particularly home games, of which the Cardinals average around eighty a year. The luxury condominiums and office spaces would have been a way to make people remain downtown, but without those components, there is no village. Instead of creating a village where people want to live, a parking lot and a couple of restaurants create a play area where people are only there for the show.
Another issue with the design of Ballpark Village is that it ignores the urbanity of downtown by not being more pedestrian friendly. The original renderings included pedestrian walkways and a paved pavilion near the Live! Marketplace (Figure 1). These were all swept away when the plans were altered, however, and have now all become parking lots (Figure 2). Thus, the Village ignores what cardinal to the Busch Stadium experience, which is everyone gathering out on the sidewalks before and after the games. By not improving sidewalk access to patrons, the Village will be less accessible to both the people who live downtown, who would choose to walk there, and the people who use public transportation to get to the ballpark. Ballpark Village as it will open in the Spring of 2014 is marketed towards those who plan to drive from other parts of the city or remote parts of the counties into downtown to see the game, and then vacate the site a few hours later. One detractor and persistent critic of the project, Alderman Scott Ogilvie of the 24th Ward said "We're trying to build a successful, vibrant downtown...these things are not defined by how much surface parking they have. They're defined by people, by density, by walkable experiences.”5 The current rendering of BallparkVillage has mockingly been nicknamed “CarPark Village,” supported by the belief that in this project cars are paramount over people.6 This nickname is more than a funny quip that locals are making about the project however; it represents deeper frustrations about the arch of the development of the project.
The kind of dense, walkable downtown experience Alderman Ogilvie supports is rooted in the principles of New Urbanism. New Urbanism is an urban design movement that came about in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a group of people brought together their ideas about how to resolve issues in the central city and deal with the problem of suburban sprawl.7 The original renderings of Ballpark Village appeared to embody many of New Urbanisms favorite principles. One principle of New Urbanism as used by Ballpark Village, is that “neighborhoods should be compact, pedestrian-friendly, and mixed-use.”8 The original renderings of Ballpark Village were just that, including a pedestrian square and mall at the Live! Marketplace, a plethora of sidewalks, and mixed-used retail and residential development. Dreamers hope that one day the parking lots will be replaced by this vision, but currently there are no plans for development. New Urbanists also declared that the redevelopment of cities should be respectful of historical patterns and precedents.9 By ignoring the historical roots of the site, however, Ballpark Village is a development that is completely out of touch with the history of the site and the neighborhood pre-1966, when urban renewal plans cleared an entire neighborhood for the construction of the first stadium, Busch Memorial. New Urbanists are keen on using infill developments to retain and reuse existing structures.10 The Village, however, involves the construction of a new office building in a neighborhood where current buildings are nearly twenty percent empty.11 The Ballpark Village that we will see in April, with its emphasis on parking, lack of density, and lack of adequate pedestrian-friendly access, fails to live up to the ideals of New Urbanism.
Around the same time the principles of New Urbanism came about, St. Louis, along with other cities began to capitalize on their sports franchises in order to revitalize downtrodden urban spaces. In the 1980s and 1990s as cities were attempting to find ways to rejuvenate their downtowns, many turned to bringing sports arenas and stadiums to the central core in order to ensure that people were also using city spaces on the weekends, instead of only during the workweek.12 By capitalizing on sports franchises, many cities created palaces for the rich, creating play spaces for wealthy team owners, athletes, and patrons. These spaces were often built on top of existing historical neighborhoods and blocks, erasing their history from the physical landscape, and often the mental landscape of the public. The first Busch Stadium, called Busch Memorial Stadium, was built on top of St. Louis’s Chinatown, which was called “Hop Alley.” Hundreds of residents were displaced because of this event. At neither Busch Memorial Stadium nor the newer Busch Stadium does there exist any type of memorial to Chinatown.13 This transformed downtown from a place where Chinese-Americans had a cultural claim over an area of the city, to one where the only culture that mattered was that of baseball. Ballpark Village will multiply the effect of this cultural domination by making additional claims over whose cultural memory in downtown St. Louis is allowed to flourish based on whose name is on the building.
Even if the design of Ballpark Village satisfied the principles of New Urbanism, issues with the project would still persist including its incongruence with the surrounding neighborhood. Downtown St. Louis has changed dramatically since the days of Busch Memorial Stadium, and even more so since the plans for Ballpark Village were first unveiled in 2000. The area has seen over five million dollars in investment which have manifested in over four thousand new condos and apartments, the renovation of the Old Post Office, and the Four Seasons Hotel. Approximately 120 new businesses have opened downtown.14 Ballpark Village is incongruent with this new downtown that has been focused on retaining residents and attracting businesses. The Village is a single-minded development that, besides its reliance on the ballpark itself, ignores the existing fabric of downtown that has increasingly turned towards creating a walkable and livable corridor for residents and workers. While downtown has flourished, plans for Ballpark Village have dwindled. Projects similar to the Village are meant to be end-all, fix-all solutions to the problems of job and population losses in the downtown neighborhood, when these projects hold no guarantee and no history of success.15 Similar to other large-scale projects St. Louis has taken on in its past, Ballpark Village is out of touch and incongruent with the life of the city today.
Beyond that it is discordant with downtown St. Louis, another complication with Ballpark Village is that it is designed for use by a particular class of people. By supporting the construction of Ballpark Village, both civilly and financially, city leaders have made certain claims about who they want to see make use of downtown. The type of downtown playground created through Ballpark Village is meant to be used by those in the middle and upper classes who not only have the leisure time to spend a few hours at the ballpark, but who also can afford to spend ten dollars for a beer, twenty dollars for a meal, and seats at the top of the “village” to see into the stadium. If city leaders had wanted downtown to be a space where the masses could join, and people of different socioeconomic classes could and would interact, they would not have accepted a development only marketed towards a specific demographic. New Urbanists imagine neighborhoods with different housing types and price variants in order to attract a diverse range of people as a way to strengthen community bonds.16 The City of St. Louis, though, has decided that specifically those who earn the most money should be the focus of downtown development and marketing because they have the deepest pockets. Through this development, downtown St. Louis will continue to be transformed into a carnival where those with money get to play, while the rest of the population gets to pick up their trash. By designing a space intended for the wealthy, developers and civic leaders have rejected the concept of an urban village where community is born from interactions of all different people.
At first glance catering to wealthy ballpark patrons may not seem like an issue because it makes economic sense for the city. The issue with this idea though is that by gaining wealth through developments like this, the city loses the land, time, and capital to create spaces that hold value to a host of different people. Most of the money spent in the “carnival cities” of the United States is earned outside of the city limits. Creating “hip” districts for people to hang out in does not necessarily create jobs or neighborhood cohesion and unity. Creating cities and neighborhoods that are only fun to play in is not sustainable either. Recently many cities have worked to establish their character based off of attractions for the young and upwardly mobile.17 In doing so, cities are becoming replicas of each other, gaining similar attractions, as well as similar types of populations. As demographer William Frey explains “There are simply not enough yuppies [young urban professionals] to go around.”18 In other words, cities have to be able to cater to a diverse set of demographics in order to sustain growth. Downtown St. Louis would be much better off trying to attract basic services and businesses, like grocery stores, dry cleaners, and retailers, as well as improving public safety and schools. These are the realattractions that bring people to a particular neighborhood to live. If a population base is established in a neighborhood, the attractions will spring up and be able to flourish. There cannot be an urban village without people to populate it.
The City of St. Louis is taking a gamble that they expect to see a return on by constructing Ballpark Village. Civic leaders trust developers to turn downtown into a carnival area with the hope that their investment will make a measurable economic impact on downtown. What they are unprepared to deal with; however, is the fact that the carnival city model must be constantly revised and upgraded in order to keep tourists and suburbanites alike coming back. This reinvention takes not only creative planning, but also additional money to what was spent on the original attraction. Ultimately Ballpark Village will fail to return on the taxpayers’ investment, leaving the city, developers, and St. Louisans disappointed. St. Louis should focus on developments that improve the lives of city residents every day instead of capitalizing on carnival sideshows meant to distract the people from the real issues facing the city.
1 “Ballpark Village Timeline,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 04 December 2010, accessed November 13, 2013. http:// www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ballpark-village-timeline/article_5d218c35-7abc-5464-874d-bea050c6269e.html
2 "Ballpark Village Project Summary 5-21-12, St. Louis, MO,” NextStL.com 21 May 2012, accessed Nov 16, 2013. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94350075/ Ballpark-Village-Project-Summary-5-21-12-St-Louis-MO
3 Michael Biddulph, Bridget Franklin and Malcolm Tait, “From Concept to Completion: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Village,” The Town Planning Review 74 No. 2 (2003) : 169. Accessed November 12 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40112551
4 Special Advertising Section, Sports Business Daily, 2006.
5 Tim Logan, “’CarPark Village’ highlights downtown parking debate,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 18, 2013, http:// www.stltoday.com/business/local/carpark-village-highlights-downtown-parking-debate/ article_92aa6cc9-8ca0-5cbd-931b-0e2ac0ec320e.html
6 Angie Schmitt, “Why is St. Louis Using Tax Money to Subsidize Parking Lots and Bars?” DC Streets Blog. August 15, 2013. Accessed Nov. 5, 2013.
7 Michael Leccesse and Kathleen McCormick, ed. Charter of the New Urbanism. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000), 1.
8 Ibid., 79.
9 Ibid., 49
10 Ibid., 174
11 David Nicklaus, “Why big real estate projects won’t save St. Louis,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov 14 2010, http:// www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/why-big-real-estate-projects-won-t-save-st-louis/ article_8ce8ea28-d95e-5c83-abd7-4ab19ce1ffdd.html
12 David E. Cardwell, “Sports Facilities and Urban Development,” Marquette Sports Law Review 10 no. 2 (2000) : 422.
13 Huping Ling, Chinese St. Louis, From Enclave to Cultural Community, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004), 2.
14 Doug Moore, "New Life for Ballpark Village?" St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 12, 2010, http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/new-life-for-ballpark-village/article_30fac560-0b78-5bc4-b81e-326a739f87c9.html.
15 Nicklaus, “Why big real estate projects won’t save St. Louis,” November 14, 2010.
16 Leccese and McCormick, Charter of the New Urbanism, 89.
17 Joel Kotkin, “The Playground City,” Wharton Real Estate Review, (2005) : 60, accessed Nov 17, 2013. http:// realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/554.pdf
18 Ibid, 61.
Ballpark Village was initially proposed in 2000 when developers were working on plans to build a new Busch Stadium. In December of that year the plans for the development were first unveiled. Two years later city leaders and developers signed a deal for a retail, residential, and office “village” to open in conjunction with the new stadium. Construction on the stadium lasted from 2003 to 2006, but Ballpark Village was left in the planning stages as developers worked to secure both business tenants and funding. After Centene Corporation announced it was going to open its headquarters in Clayton, Missouri instead of in Ballpark Village, the planning became even more difficult as developers had now lost a major business from its proposed office park. In July 2008 a revised plan for Ballpark Village was unveiled, but funding was never secured to build the actual plan. At this point developers began seeking tax subsidies in order to pay for construction. In the throngs of the financial crisis that peaked between 2008 and 2009, the development was put on hold indefinitely.1 The current vision for Ballpark Village was developed and funded by the Cordish Company, the Baltimore-based firm that developed Kansas City’s Power and Light District. It includes a 100 million dollar phase one of construction including a rodeo bar and restaurant, a Cardinals-themed restaurant, the Cardinals Hall of Fame, and, for the meantime, over 400 surface parking spaces.2
Planners envision Ballpark Village as a development that will transform six blocks of downtown adjacent to Busch Stadium into an urban village. The design concept of an urban village is a neighborhood of medium density development that is pedestrian friendly, created from mixed zoning laws, has public spaces, as well as a variety of housing types and heterogeneous population. This kind of neighborhood design is meant to encourage and foster social interactions between people of different ethnic and socioeconomic groupings.3 Ideally, in downtown St. Louis this neighborhood would invite people to eat, drink, and watch the ball game for a night while simultaneously attracting them to spend more time downtown and at Ballpark Village during the off-season. William Dewitt II, President of the Cardinals, expressed early on his belief that Ballpark Village would “create new activity in the downtown area, even on non-game days...the excitement will be there 365 days a year.”4 One of the issues with this grand vision, however, is that Ballpark Village will not attract patrons year-round because it ignores the density and walkability of downtown by attracting car rather than foot traffic, the exact opposite effect of what proponents of the urban village design desire. It is a development that will turn downtown into a playground, an area of space that will be consumed and then abandoned. Ballpark Village, Phase 1, contains no incentive for patrons to visit the space on non- game days, particularly home games, of which the Cardinals average around eighty a year. The luxury condominiums and office spaces would have been a way to make people remain downtown, but without those components, there is no village. Instead of creating a village where people want to live, a parking lot and a couple of restaurants create a play area where people are only there for the show.
Another issue with the design of Ballpark Village is that it ignores the urbanity of downtown by not being more pedestrian friendly. The original renderings included pedestrian walkways and a paved pavilion near the Live! Marketplace (Figure 1). These were all swept away when the plans were altered, however, and have now all become parking lots (Figure 2). Thus, the Village ignores what cardinal to the Busch Stadium experience, which is everyone gathering out on the sidewalks before and after the games. By not improving sidewalk access to patrons, the Village will be less accessible to both the people who live downtown, who would choose to walk there, and the people who use public transportation to get to the ballpark. Ballpark Village as it will open in the Spring of 2014 is marketed towards those who plan to drive from other parts of the city or remote parts of the counties into downtown to see the game, and then vacate the site a few hours later. One detractor and persistent critic of the project, Alderman Scott Ogilvie of the 24th Ward said "We're trying to build a successful, vibrant downtown...these things are not defined by how much surface parking they have. They're defined by people, by density, by walkable experiences.”5 The current rendering of BallparkVillage has mockingly been nicknamed “CarPark Village,” supported by the belief that in this project cars are paramount over people.6 This nickname is more than a funny quip that locals are making about the project however; it represents deeper frustrations about the arch of the development of the project.
The kind of dense, walkable downtown experience Alderman Ogilvie supports is rooted in the principles of New Urbanism. New Urbanism is an urban design movement that came about in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a group of people brought together their ideas about how to resolve issues in the central city and deal with the problem of suburban sprawl.7 The original renderings of Ballpark Village appeared to embody many of New Urbanisms favorite principles. One principle of New Urbanism as used by Ballpark Village, is that “neighborhoods should be compact, pedestrian-friendly, and mixed-use.”8 The original renderings of Ballpark Village were just that, including a pedestrian square and mall at the Live! Marketplace, a plethora of sidewalks, and mixed-used retail and residential development. Dreamers hope that one day the parking lots will be replaced by this vision, but currently there are no plans for development. New Urbanists also declared that the redevelopment of cities should be respectful of historical patterns and precedents.9 By ignoring the historical roots of the site, however, Ballpark Village is a development that is completely out of touch with the history of the site and the neighborhood pre-1966, when urban renewal plans cleared an entire neighborhood for the construction of the first stadium, Busch Memorial. New Urbanists are keen on using infill developments to retain and reuse existing structures.10 The Village, however, involves the construction of a new office building in a neighborhood where current buildings are nearly twenty percent empty.11 The Ballpark Village that we will see in April, with its emphasis on parking, lack of density, and lack of adequate pedestrian-friendly access, fails to live up to the ideals of New Urbanism.
Around the same time the principles of New Urbanism came about, St. Louis, along with other cities began to capitalize on their sports franchises in order to revitalize downtrodden urban spaces. In the 1980s and 1990s as cities were attempting to find ways to rejuvenate their downtowns, many turned to bringing sports arenas and stadiums to the central core in order to ensure that people were also using city spaces on the weekends, instead of only during the workweek.12 By capitalizing on sports franchises, many cities created palaces for the rich, creating play spaces for wealthy team owners, athletes, and patrons. These spaces were often built on top of existing historical neighborhoods and blocks, erasing their history from the physical landscape, and often the mental landscape of the public. The first Busch Stadium, called Busch Memorial Stadium, was built on top of St. Louis’s Chinatown, which was called “Hop Alley.” Hundreds of residents were displaced because of this event. At neither Busch Memorial Stadium nor the newer Busch Stadium does there exist any type of memorial to Chinatown.13 This transformed downtown from a place where Chinese-Americans had a cultural claim over an area of the city, to one where the only culture that mattered was that of baseball. Ballpark Village will multiply the effect of this cultural domination by making additional claims over whose cultural memory in downtown St. Louis is allowed to flourish based on whose name is on the building.
Even if the design of Ballpark Village satisfied the principles of New Urbanism, issues with the project would still persist including its incongruence with the surrounding neighborhood. Downtown St. Louis has changed dramatically since the days of Busch Memorial Stadium, and even more so since the plans for Ballpark Village were first unveiled in 2000. The area has seen over five million dollars in investment which have manifested in over four thousand new condos and apartments, the renovation of the Old Post Office, and the Four Seasons Hotel. Approximately 120 new businesses have opened downtown.14 Ballpark Village is incongruent with this new downtown that has been focused on retaining residents and attracting businesses. The Village is a single-minded development that, besides its reliance on the ballpark itself, ignores the existing fabric of downtown that has increasingly turned towards creating a walkable and livable corridor for residents and workers. While downtown has flourished, plans for Ballpark Village have dwindled. Projects similar to the Village are meant to be end-all, fix-all solutions to the problems of job and population losses in the downtown neighborhood, when these projects hold no guarantee and no history of success.15 Similar to other large-scale projects St. Louis has taken on in its past, Ballpark Village is out of touch and incongruent with the life of the city today.
Beyond that it is discordant with downtown St. Louis, another complication with Ballpark Village is that it is designed for use by a particular class of people. By supporting the construction of Ballpark Village, both civilly and financially, city leaders have made certain claims about who they want to see make use of downtown. The type of downtown playground created through Ballpark Village is meant to be used by those in the middle and upper classes who not only have the leisure time to spend a few hours at the ballpark, but who also can afford to spend ten dollars for a beer, twenty dollars for a meal, and seats at the top of the “village” to see into the stadium. If city leaders had wanted downtown to be a space where the masses could join, and people of different socioeconomic classes could and would interact, they would not have accepted a development only marketed towards a specific demographic. New Urbanists imagine neighborhoods with different housing types and price variants in order to attract a diverse range of people as a way to strengthen community bonds.16 The City of St. Louis, though, has decided that specifically those who earn the most money should be the focus of downtown development and marketing because they have the deepest pockets. Through this development, downtown St. Louis will continue to be transformed into a carnival where those with money get to play, while the rest of the population gets to pick up their trash. By designing a space intended for the wealthy, developers and civic leaders have rejected the concept of an urban village where community is born from interactions of all different people.
At first glance catering to wealthy ballpark patrons may not seem like an issue because it makes economic sense for the city. The issue with this idea though is that by gaining wealth through developments like this, the city loses the land, time, and capital to create spaces that hold value to a host of different people. Most of the money spent in the “carnival cities” of the United States is earned outside of the city limits. Creating “hip” districts for people to hang out in does not necessarily create jobs or neighborhood cohesion and unity. Creating cities and neighborhoods that are only fun to play in is not sustainable either. Recently many cities have worked to establish their character based off of attractions for the young and upwardly mobile.17 In doing so, cities are becoming replicas of each other, gaining similar attractions, as well as similar types of populations. As demographer William Frey explains “There are simply not enough yuppies [young urban professionals] to go around.”18 In other words, cities have to be able to cater to a diverse set of demographics in order to sustain growth. Downtown St. Louis would be much better off trying to attract basic services and businesses, like grocery stores, dry cleaners, and retailers, as well as improving public safety and schools. These are the realattractions that bring people to a particular neighborhood to live. If a population base is established in a neighborhood, the attractions will spring up and be able to flourish. There cannot be an urban village without people to populate it.
The City of St. Louis is taking a gamble that they expect to see a return on by constructing Ballpark Village. Civic leaders trust developers to turn downtown into a carnival area with the hope that their investment will make a measurable economic impact on downtown. What they are unprepared to deal with; however, is the fact that the carnival city model must be constantly revised and upgraded in order to keep tourists and suburbanites alike coming back. This reinvention takes not only creative planning, but also additional money to what was spent on the original attraction. Ultimately Ballpark Village will fail to return on the taxpayers’ investment, leaving the city, developers, and St. Louisans disappointed. St. Louis should focus on developments that improve the lives of city residents every day instead of capitalizing on carnival sideshows meant to distract the people from the real issues facing the city.
1 “Ballpark Village Timeline,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 04 December 2010, accessed November 13, 2013. http:// www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ballpark-village-timeline/article_5d218c35-7abc-5464-874d-bea050c6269e.html
2 "Ballpark Village Project Summary 5-21-12, St. Louis, MO,” NextStL.com 21 May 2012, accessed Nov 16, 2013. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94350075/ Ballpark-Village-Project-Summary-5-21-12-St-Louis-MO
3 Michael Biddulph, Bridget Franklin and Malcolm Tait, “From Concept to Completion: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Village,” The Town Planning Review 74 No. 2 (2003) : 169. Accessed November 12 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40112551
4 Special Advertising Section, Sports Business Daily, 2006.
5 Tim Logan, “’CarPark Village’ highlights downtown parking debate,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 18, 2013, http:// www.stltoday.com/business/local/carpark-village-highlights-downtown-parking-debate/ article_92aa6cc9-8ca0-5cbd-931b-0e2ac0ec320e.html
6 Angie Schmitt, “Why is St. Louis Using Tax Money to Subsidize Parking Lots and Bars?” DC Streets Blog. August 15, 2013. Accessed Nov. 5, 2013.
7 Michael Leccesse and Kathleen McCormick, ed. Charter of the New Urbanism. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000), 1.
8 Ibid., 79.
9 Ibid., 49
10 Ibid., 174
11 David Nicklaus, “Why big real estate projects won’t save St. Louis,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov 14 2010, http:// www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/why-big-real-estate-projects-won-t-save-st-louis/ article_8ce8ea28-d95e-5c83-abd7-4ab19ce1ffdd.html
12 David E. Cardwell, “Sports Facilities and Urban Development,” Marquette Sports Law Review 10 no. 2 (2000) : 422.
13 Huping Ling, Chinese St. Louis, From Enclave to Cultural Community, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004), 2.
14 Doug Moore, "New Life for Ballpark Village?" St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 12, 2010, http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/new-life-for-ballpark-village/article_30fac560-0b78-5bc4-b81e-326a739f87c9.html.
15 Nicklaus, “Why big real estate projects won’t save St. Louis,” November 14, 2010.
16 Leccese and McCormick, Charter of the New Urbanism, 89.
17 Joel Kotkin, “The Playground City,” Wharton Real Estate Review, (2005) : 60, accessed Nov 17, 2013. http:// realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/554.pdf
18 Ibid, 61.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Bibliography
Ballpark Village Project Summary 5-21-12, St. Louis, MO.” NextStL.com. May 21, 2012, accessed November 16, 2013. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94350075/Ballpark-Village-
Project-Summary-5-21-12-St- Louis-MO
“Ballpark Village Timeline.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. December 4, 2010. http:// www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ballpark-village-timeline/ article_5d218c35-7abc5464-874d-
bea050c6269e.html
Biddulph, Michael, Bridget Franklin and Malcolm Tait, “From Concept to Completion: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Village,” The Town Planning Review 74 No. 2 (2003) : 165-
193. Accessed November 12 2013 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40112551
Cardwell, David E. "Sports Facilities and Urban Redevelopment." Marquette Sports Law Review 10 No.2. (2000): 422. Web. Accessed November 17, 2013.
Kotkin, Joel. “The Playground City.” Wharton Real Estate Review. (2005) : 60. Web. Accessed November 12, 2013. http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/554.pdf
Leccese, Michael, and McCormick, Kathleen, ed. Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Ling, Huping, Chinese St. Louis, From Enclave to Cultural Community, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004.
Logan, Tim. “‘CarPark Village’ highlights downtown parking debate. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. August 18, 2013. Web. Accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.stltoday.com/business/
local/carpark-village-highlights-downtown-parking-debate/ article_92aa6cc9-8ca0-5cbd-931b-0e2ac0ec320e.html
Moore, Doug. "New Life for Ballpark Village?" St. Louis Post Dispatch. December 12, 2010. Web. Accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/new-life-
for-ballpark-village/article_30fac560-0b78-5bc4-b81e-32a739f87c9.html
Nicklaus, David. “Why big real estate projects won’t save St. Louis.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. November 14, 2010. Web. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://www.stltoday.com/
business/columns/david-nicklaus/why-big-real-estate-projects-won-t-save-st-louis/ article_8ce8ea28-d95e-5c83-abd7-4ab19ce1ffdd.html
Special Advertising Section, Sports Business Daily. 2006.
Schmitt, Angie. "Why is St. Louis Using Tax Money to Subsidize Parking Lots and Bars?" DC Streets Blog. August 15, 2013. Web. Accessed November 5, 2013.
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/08/15/why-is-st-louis-using-tax-money-to-subsidize-parking-lots-and-bars/
Ballpark Village Project Summary 5-21-12, St. Louis, MO.” NextStL.com. May 21, 2012, accessed November 16, 2013. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94350075/Ballpark-Village-
Project-Summary-5-21-12-St- Louis-MO
“Ballpark Village Timeline.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. December 4, 2010. http:// www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ballpark-village-timeline/ article_5d218c35-7abc5464-874d-
bea050c6269e.html
Biddulph, Michael, Bridget Franklin and Malcolm Tait, “From Concept to Completion: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Village,” The Town Planning Review 74 No. 2 (2003) : 165-
193. Accessed November 12 2013 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40112551
Cardwell, David E. "Sports Facilities and Urban Redevelopment." Marquette Sports Law Review 10 No.2. (2000): 422. Web. Accessed November 17, 2013.
Kotkin, Joel. “The Playground City.” Wharton Real Estate Review. (2005) : 60. Web. Accessed November 12, 2013. http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/554.pdf
Leccese, Michael, and McCormick, Kathleen, ed. Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Ling, Huping, Chinese St. Louis, From Enclave to Cultural Community, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004.
Logan, Tim. “‘CarPark Village’ highlights downtown parking debate. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. August 18, 2013. Web. Accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.stltoday.com/business/
local/carpark-village-highlights-downtown-parking-debate/ article_92aa6cc9-8ca0-5cbd-931b-0e2ac0ec320e.html
Moore, Doug. "New Life for Ballpark Village?" St. Louis Post Dispatch. December 12, 2010. Web. Accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/new-life-
for-ballpark-village/article_30fac560-0b78-5bc4-b81e-32a739f87c9.html
Nicklaus, David. “Why big real estate projects won’t save St. Louis.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. November 14, 2010. Web. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://www.stltoday.com/
business/columns/david-nicklaus/why-big-real-estate-projects-won-t-save-st-louis/ article_8ce8ea28-d95e-5c83-abd7-4ab19ce1ffdd.html
Special Advertising Section, Sports Business Daily. 2006.
Schmitt, Angie. "Why is St. Louis Using Tax Money to Subsidize Parking Lots and Bars?" DC Streets Blog. August 15, 2013. Web. Accessed November 5, 2013.
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/08/15/why-is-st-louis-using-tax-money-to-subsidize-parking-lots-and-bars/