^smart angle.
- 2,386
^The only problem is that "Big Parking" in our city is our city treasurer. 
Isnt the outlook of the incoming treasurer different?newstl2020 wrote:^The only problem is that "Big Parking" in our city is our city treasurer.
- 2,386
^Yes.
However, despite the outlook of the new treasurer, the office still controls an ocean of parking.
However, despite the outlook of the new treasurer, the office still controls an ocean of parking.
I'm going to try and get some more info on this demolition. The building I work in is apparently structurally attached to this building and this building has a lot of known structural issues. I'll report back if I find out anything more.
Just so Im clear, demo is fine if not for a parking lot right? Or is this just a historic building that some dont want to lose? I haven't seen any documents but I was told this building is structurally terrible. Could be hard to justify a rehab.
I wouldnt mind seeing new construction here if they were to demo.
I wouldnt mind seeing new construction here if they were to demo.
I would argue that every demo permit sought needs to be evaluated exactly in this context. In my view, no building is worth saving in and of itself. Rather, a cost/benefit analysis of what would be going in its place needs to be considered. If some other building that is more economically feasible were going up in its stead, I think there would be a good case for that, if it's as structurally bad as I've heard.stlien wrote:Just so Im clear, demo is fine if not for a parking lot right? Or is this just a historic building that some dont want to lose? I haven't seen any documents but I was told this building is structurally terrible. Could be hard to justify a rehab.
I wouldnt mind seeing new construction here if they were to demo.
Parking lots are hard to justify though because there are so freaking many of them, everywhere downtown.
- 3,235
If a 10 story new construction building was proposed for the site, I would be ok with the demo. But a surface parking lot? Hell no.
- 2,386
My opposition is based on the fact that the replacement plan is parking.stlien wrote:Just so Im clear, demo is fine if not for a parking lot right? Or is this just a historic building that some dont want to lose? I haven't seen any documents but I was told this building is structurally terrible. Could be hard to justify a rehab.
I wouldnt mind seeing new construction here if they were to demo.
If a developer showed up with financing in place ready to replace the building with a new structure, I would not be opposed to demo.
- 3,446
By making the focus of downtown sporting events and arenas, we make it financially attractive to tear down buildings for parking. The enormous arenas need lots and lots of parking, especially in a city with a large suburban vs. core population, and a city with limited mass transit.
We need to get more people living downtown, and more business doing business downtown, so that buildings can compete with sports parking lots financially.
Look at how much surface parking this football stadium requires.
![]()
Would downtown be better off if Stan Kroenke built a new stadium in the county and let the market for parking downtown drop?
We need to get more people living downtown, and more business doing business downtown, so that buildings can compete with sports parking lots financially.
Look at how much surface parking this football stadium requires.
Would downtown be better off if Stan Kroenke built a new stadium in the county and let the market for parking downtown drop?
Some solutions to high parking demand (besides sending sports teams to the hills) are: 1.) taxing parking at a higher rate 2.) providing more and better public transportation or 3.) both.
What if the city imposed a $2,000 per spot annual surface parking tax and a $1,000 per spot garage parking tax for all new parking facilities? The parking operatiors would probably approve, because they could charge more and the value of existing parking structures would increase/or at least be protected. Existing businesses and property owners might not get too up in arms, since assumedly they have already addressed their parking needs, and would be grandfathered out of the tax. Exemptions could be included for garages that are incorporated in structures (office buildings, condo towers, etc...), where the garage itself comprises of less than 50% of the total floor space.
If someone wanted to tear down a building for a 50 spot surface lot they could (assuming they got passed the preservation board), they'd just have to pay $100,000 a year to the city on top of any other property and sales taxes.
What if the city imposed a $2,000 per spot annual surface parking tax and a $1,000 per spot garage parking tax for all new parking facilities? The parking operatiors would probably approve, because they could charge more and the value of existing parking structures would increase/or at least be protected. Existing businesses and property owners might not get too up in arms, since assumedly they have already addressed their parking needs, and would be grandfathered out of the tax. Exemptions could be included for garages that are incorporated in structures (office buildings, condo towers, etc...), where the garage itself comprises of less than 50% of the total floor space.
If someone wanted to tear down a building for a 50 spot surface lot they could (assuming they got passed the preservation board), they'd just have to pay $100,000 a year to the city on top of any other property and sales taxes.
Demolition unanimously denied by preservation board, now we need a buyer
- 8,155
It would be cool to superimpose that to scale of downtown D.C. (or Saint Louis).gary kreie wrote:By making the focus of downtown sporting events and arenas, we make it financially attractive to tear down buildings for parking. The enormous arenas need lots and lots of parking, especially in a city with a large suburban vs. core population, and a city with limited mass transit.
We need to get more people living downtown, and more business doing business downtown, so that buildings can compete with sports parking lots financially.
Look at how much surface parking this football stadium requires.
Would downtown be better off if Stan Kroenke built a new stadium in the county and let the market for parking downtown drop?
- 11K
^ Not quite the same thing, but a similar idea from the Jamestown Mall redevelopment report:
![]()
Also, a blog post from Atlanta with an Interstate interchange vs Florence, Italy: http://atlurbanist.tumblr.com/post/1802 ... i-75-i-285
Also, a blog post from Atlanta with an Interstate interchange vs Florence, Italy: http://atlurbanist.tumblr.com/post/1802 ... i-75-i-285
- 3,235
But it sounds as if he can reapply after he purchases the building for only 60k and 160k in back taxes. Sounds as if the bldg is still in danger according to the Post. Am I correct?
- 11K
You are correct. The owner can also continue to neglect the building until it becomes a real threat to safety and then get a demo permit.downtown2007 wrote:But it sounds as if he can reapply after he purchases the building for only 60k and 160k in back taxes. Sounds as if the bldg is still in danger according to the Post. Am I correct?
I am completely opposed to this demolition for a surface lot. It's insane that this is even up for debate in 2012. Larry Deutch spent a few days in jail for illegally tearing down the former Miss Hullings building one block to the north, which is a lovely surface lot to this day! why doesn't he build a garage on this lot instead? Landlord's like Larry Deutch are what is wrong with downtown. He needs to sell LGL and move elsewhere.
As for taxing parking downtown, that is a terrible idea. Parking downtown is almost double what it costs to park in Clayton, which makes leasing space downtown even more expensive. Keep costs down to attract business!
Let's copy Toronto and make surface lots ILLEGAL in the CBD. The idea that this corner will have three surface lots is insane and does NOTHING to help the progress of development downtown. The building is CLEARLY structurally sound as well.
As for taxing parking downtown, that is a terrible idea. Parking downtown is almost double what it costs to park in Clayton, which makes leasing space downtown even more expensive. Keep costs down to attract business!
Let's copy Toronto and make surface lots ILLEGAL in the CBD. The idea that this corner will have three surface lots is insane and does NOTHING to help the progress of development downtown. The building is CLEARLY structurally sound as well.
- 11K
"As for taxing parking downtown, that is a terrible idea. Parking downtown is almost double what it costs to park in Clayton, which makes leasing space downtown even more expensive."
Is that true? I park both places regularly and think they're very close to the same. Leasing space downtown is much, much cheaper than Clayton. If parking is a little more expensive, then it's still much cheaper. And many offices/buildings have dedicated parking that goes with a lease. Cheap, or free parking isn't the route to a better, more dense, downtown.
Is that true? I park both places regularly and think they're very close to the same. Leasing space downtown is much, much cheaper than Clayton. If parking is a little more expensive, then it's still much cheaper. And many offices/buildings have dedicated parking that goes with a lease. Cheap, or free parking isn't the route to a better, more dense, downtown.
trust me on this. Downtown rates are anywhere from $80 on the very low end to $153 for reserved in the immediate CBD. Clayton rates are $60-85. Yes, downtown leasing rates are cheaper, but it averages out with the earnings tax. People use high parking costs as way or excuse really, to move to a more suburban or clayton location. if anything, i think the rates downtown are way to high and don't match the rental rates. surface lots should be illegal downtown. certainly, more people should take mass transit too, but unfortunately, this region is still too autocentric.
Thats accurate in my experience. No idea what Clayton's rates are.trust me on this. Downtown rates are anywhere from $80 on the very low end to $153 for reserved in the immediate CBD.