urbanSTL

newstl2020 wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

kinger wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

For what it's worth, the Nashville group that owned 500 S Broadway already flipped it to a parking REIT... So you can scratch that pipe dream from the list of possible options.

We have got to do something to make surface parking an unattractive investment in this city.

In 10 years, if we really allow autonomous cars with no driver, then our car can drop us off at the ballpark and then park cheap in Dupo until the game is over. We won't need local parking lots -- just a few spaces for events shorter than half an hour.

And car ownership may not be able to compete with ride buying. Why have cars sitting in parking lots all day when they could be out earning money? And everyone will turn their unused attached garages into AirBnB rentals or personal micro-breweries.

^LOL

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Dec 20, 2017

^LOL

I assume you're referring to Gary Kreie's quip about garage B&Bs? His timeline might be a little optimistic, but I'd bet it's close. I don't for a moment believe that autonomous cars will completely replace conventional automobiles, and they surely won't in ten years, anymore than automobiles replaced horses in their first ten years of existence. Or even now. There will always be room for enthusiasts, and there will probably always be certain special applications for which the old mode really is more suitable. (Though those might become rather few and far between.) But it seems quite certain that the way we use personal intracity transportation will change dramatically in the not too distant future. What that means is hard to say with any degree of precision, but you can see from the past that it will have a dramatic impact on our built environment. Gary may be speaking humorously where our personal garages are concerned, but I don't doubt that his fundamental point is correct. Or even that the way we use our own space will change.

Here is the follow up PD story on how it would play out with LCRA approving redevelopment plan

I think the political discussion as it relates to this development is pretty ironic when Dems on local level and GOP on fed level are tripping over each other on real estate tax abatements, tax cuts, tax breaks and so on. Simply put, you will get a tax break if you got serious money or a lender with serious money to build or rebuild something more than a single dwelling. Political affiliation doesn't matter in real estate unless some of your financing comes through hazy Russian connections.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... e-latest-3

On Tuesday, the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority approved a redevelopment plan that provides a property tax abatement of 90 percent of the project’s value for the first 10 years, 85 percent for the next five years and 80 percent for the final five years. In addition to the 20-year property tax break, developers also are seeking a sales tax exemption on construction materials.

If approved by aldermen, the redevelopment plan could trump the Preservation Board’s 4-3 decision on Monday to direct the developers to retain a corner of the existing building’s brick facade.

From what it looks like on the assessor's website, the parcel currently does not collect any tax revenue since the college is non-profit (or government?, not sure how community colleges are classified). So the city would be abating 90% of the entire tax base since it is zero right now. That sure seems excessive to me, and I (generally) support abatements. I would also like to know what 212 got. I realize the market rate rents in STL make it tough to justify costs for high rises, but I can't imagine they justify 90% (but of course, I am not a developer).

Does the city breakdown the cost of city services on a per ca pita basis? Like it costs this the "X" amount on average to pay for schools, general revenue, etc.

Yes, the land may not currently produce any tax revenue. But a new building with 100s of residents is going to cost the city money to fund services for those new residents. Why can't the city estimate the average cost of the new residents and say we can abate the taxes to that base value?

212 was originally granted 50% tax abatement for 20 yrs before residents sued and it was reduced to 20%. The developer also agreed to some (ridiculous) concessions for their neighbor to the west.

Read more about it here:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.stltoday ... c.amp.html

MRNHS wrote: ↑

Dec 20, 2017

From what it looks like on the assessor's website, the parcel currently does not collect any tax revenue since the college is non-profit (or government?, not sure how community colleges are classified). So the city would be abating 90% of the entire tax base since it is zero right now. That sure seems excessive to me, and I (generally) support abatements. I would also like to know what 212 got. I realize the market rate rents in STL make it tough to justify costs for high rises, but I can't imagine they justify 90% (but of course, I am not a developer).

When a property is tax-exempt, it still gets an appraisal and assessment amount in case it becomes taxable again. For this property the 2017 assessment is $1,678,400.00. Once the building is sold it will no longer be exempt because it won't have a tax-exempt owner and user. This will become the base amount for the abatement.

MattnSTL wrote: ↑

Dec 20, 2017

MRNHS wrote: ↑

Dec 20, 2017

From what it looks like on the assessor's website, the parcel currently does not collect any tax revenue since the college is non-profit (or government?, not sure how community colleges are classified). So the city would be abating 90% of the entire tax base since it is zero right now. That sure seems excessive to me, and I (generally) support abatements. I would also like to know what 212 got. I realize the market rate rents in STL make it tough to justify costs for high rises, but I can't imagine they justify 90% (but of course, I am not a developer).

When a property is tax-exempt, it still gets an appraisal and assessment amount in case it becomes taxable again. For this property the 2017 assessment is $1,678,400.00. Once the building is sold it will no longer be exempt because it won't have a tax-exempt owner and user. This will become the base amount for the abatement.

This makes a lot of sense; thank you for clarifying. That certainly makes the abatement seem less ridiculous, though it still seems high to me compared to the 212 abatement....though I have not seen the actually numbers (I do understand Clayton commands higher rents and they are basically the same number of apartments with several more floors on 300 but it still seems high).

Should the city eliminate minimum parking regulations all together to make development more attractive? If that were the case would be easier for a parking lot owner to seek a developer or put the lot up for sale to a potential developer also will help make the city become less car centric.
I would think if that were the case then we wouldn't be dealing with a situation such as saying goodbye to an old yet beautiful building however thats not even a done deal yet.

I personally think this project will be good for downtown as downtown needs more residents if we're ever going to achieve that critical mass and begin to get some much needed retail options because downtown admit it or not is very lack luster

Has anyone read the biz journal editorial?
Barriers to real progress which bring up some good points.

So, out of curiosity. What exactly is being requested of the developer? Do they need to retain one corner of the building? I don't really see them walking from this.

^The preservation board would like 3/4 glass exterior of the tower, while keeping a portion of the facade of the existing structure.

Zero of this is necessary to move forward, as the LCRA approved the redevelopment plan for demolition which overrides any directive or decision by the preservation board.


That's my understanding of the proceedings.

I think the PRB is great and should have final say over all demolitions in the city.

That said, what the f*ck is the point of PRB recommendations on projects over which the PRB has no authority. Why waste the time? Developers don't give a f*ck that the PRB recommends this or that.

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Dec 08, 2017

Some regional competitors, KC and Indianapolis, are seeing nowhere as much high rise proposals as STL. I don't believe Indianapolis has any at the moment. KC has a few, but only at P&L.

Indy is just wrapping up a 28 story residential tower with a Whole Foods downtown with crane recently taken down; I believe I saw five cranes downtown last week, but I believe most, if not all, of that current new construction is mid-rise. (I recall Drury proposing a 17 story hotel last year but not sure how far that project is along in development process... not sure what else may be brewing on the Indy high-rise front for the future.) On the larger side, but somewhat typical of downtown Indy mixed-use new construction is this 9 story, 334 unit project opening later this year by the folks behind the "Level on Locust" development here in STL.

http://twgdev.com/properties/the-whit/

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Jan 01, 2018

the question has to be asked why the downtown CBD ceded so much ground to Clayton.

Better/newer infrastructure, less taxes, less crime, shorter commute for many of the affluent, and the mentality that the new happen' place is cooler to hangout at than the old place?

(Just guesses of what might've been some reasons since, say, the 1960s to now)

^I think just the taxes and commute part.

^^ You take Centene out of the equation and has it really ceded much? Remember Centene was trying to anchor BPV first and really put that on/speculate that Cordish/DeWitt getting greedy and Centene realized it had options at end of day by paying some premiums for Clayton CBD real estate but owning their development at end of day. A major law firm followed their client and 212/residential construction to date made a lot of sense with Centene planting its flag.

I think a fair statement is the companies that have expended, from Monsanto, Edward Jones, Express Scripts, RGA, Bunge NA, WWT, Enterprise are all county based and decided to stick with campus feel. Even Enterprise on edge of Clayton CBD wants to keep it suburban feel. At least give WWT some credit for making an acquisition and keeping/expanding that business downtown. Just wish the trigger would have been pulled on Cupples X instead of renting more space in Cupples if I understood correctly what was behind Cupples X in the first place. Maybe Nestle will finally be the one for a major announcement but between WWT, Enterprise IT needs either one could have a much bigger downtown presence

Downtown is seeing some progress, possibility of getting expanding Square presence in RX & Jeff Arms going forward, Nestle building up its IT presence downtown, seem decent hotels, BPV II tower and a legit second tower proposal in 300.

^STLRainbow didn't specify, but I took it upon myself to suspect he meant more with respect to "over decades"

Fair point on the suburban campus movement, that certainly gave major corporations an alternative to building a building in the CBD, but it seems (hopefully) the suburban campus movement is less popular now than it has been in decades.

But even during that movement I believe there still had been demand to be in a CBD, especially for, say, legal and advertising professionals. In my limited experience and knowledge, it seems Clayton has been the favored place-to-be for lawyers for decades now (yes, I understand this is a broad statement and there are plenty exceptions, I'm just speaking generally here).

Why and how this exactly happened? I don't know. I would like to know, though. In my years of digging through St. Louis related books I don't recall seeing a book on this. I think it could make for a great book though. Some of the big players, or at least some of those privy to the inside stories, might still be around.

Anyway, the clearest and simplest way to get the point across of Clayton's uprising (IMHO) would be to show various pictures I've seen and stories I've been told over the years showing/explaining the transformations of both the downtown CBD in St. Louis and downtown Clayton over the last 50 to 60 years. When I see such pictures, they usually do a pretty good job of driving the point home as to what got investment and what didn't.

San Luis Native wrote: Anyway, the clearest and simplest way to get the point across of Clayton's uprising (IMHO) would be to show various pictures I've seen and stories I've been told over the years showing/explaining the transformations of both the downtown CBD in St. Louis and downtown Clayton over the last 50 to 60 years. When I see such pictures, they usually do a pretty good job of driving the point home as to what got investment and what didn't.

Clearest and simplest and perhaps most misleading. Downtown St. Louis has had much more, probably many times more, investment and construction in the last 50-60 years as Downtown Clayton.

Clayton is certainly taking the lead now in both multi-family and office construction (DT still seems to be leading in hotel) - but that's not an accurate reflection of a 50-60 year timeline.

wabash wrote: Downtown St. Louis has had much more, probably many times more, investment and construction in the last 50-60 years as Downtown Clayton.

Sources?

I suppose you mean things like an NFL stadium, Busch II, Busch III, Metropolitan Square, SW Bell, etc? Yes, these are definite investments - not questioning that - but what about the amount of tax revenue generated by big business happening in downtown Clayton that might have been in downtown St. Louis otherwise?

You could be right tho. I'm not sure. I don't have a grasp on what these numbers might be. I'm simply going off the following kind of not-so-easily-measured metrics:

• Foot traffic I've seen on typical downtown St. Louis business days verse Clayton over the last 10-20 years.

• Photos from the 50's, 60's, 70's of what foot traffic used to be like in downtown St. Louis.

• Photos I've seen of Clayton 50-60 years ago compared to now.

• Various stories I've heard about which is the more preferred professional location.

• Various stories I've heard about what downtown St. Louis used to be like.

Unfortunately, if investment has been "many times more" in downtown St. Louis verse Clayton over the last 5-to-6 decades this is even more troubling than simply comparing the two at current face value

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Jan 02, 2018

^STLRainbow didn't specify, but I took it upon myself to suspect he meant more with respect to "over decades"

Fair point as well. I would also qualify the fact that downtown took a beating on consolidation over the last several decades as companies went regional to nationwide. It was better to have companies on the hunt then those preyed upon whether it was Missouri Pacific Railroad, Famous Barr, Post and so on. Would say that in time Southwest Bell, to SBC to ATT wasn't going to stay in St Louis even with a premature departure on the HQ front .

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Jan 02, 2018

^In my limited experience and knowledge, it seems Clayton has been the favored place-to-be for lawyers for decades now (yes, I understand this is a broad statement and there are plenty exceptions, I'm just speaking generally here).

Why and how this exactly happened? I don't know. I would like to know, though.

Mind you, this is strictly a guess based on hearsay and anecdotes. That said, a couple of my close friends are lawyers in other cities, so I've been privy to their conversations on where to locate. In my experience, lawyers like to have their office relatively close to the courthouse where they expect to do the most business. (Ideally within walking distance.) It's a double bonus. It gives you more visibility to potential customers and allows you to get to that courthouse more easily yourself. There are many times more people in the county now than in the city, so there are probably also many times more cases at the county courthouse than county level equivalent cases in the city. (Divorce cases, for instance. Or criminal cases more serious than a traffic offense. Personal injury cases. That sort of thing.) So it makes sense that you'd see continuous growth in the county until just about the present and at least some loss in the city, even given that the city hit above its weight for a while in terms of industry and thus at least the personal injury stuff. (And doubtless still does in criminal defense, though that only really applies to people that can afford a private attorney so, yeah, never mind.)

Anyway, just based on population and demographics it makes sense to me that Clayton increasingly became the professional nexus of the metro area starting in the seventies or eighties. Clayton became both the seat of government for more people and increasingly closer to the center of population for the metro area. If I had to guess, the reason was have a central "corridor" and not a "compact downtown" like Indianapolis or Kansas City is largely that we are butted up against a fairly hard and fast geographic barrier that made growth west quicker and easier, thus slowly but surely dragging everything west. The presence of the government stuff downtown helped for a while. But once more people live in the county than the city it won't buy you as much. Honestly, you can see the same thing in New York on a rather larger scale. Midtown Manhattan long ago surpassed lower Manhattan in terms of altitude (with one or two notable if slightly artificial exceptions) in part because the city couldn't grow south. Period. So the center of things slowly but surely moved north and left a fence down the middle as it drifted.

You can probably model this as vector sums where ease of expansion on a given axis defines the vector. If all vectors are equal your net vector will be zero, which is to say it will be a point. The middle won't move. But if something makes the vectors in any one cardinal direction smaller, like a body of water or a mountain range, then the middle will move as the city grows, making a line of old middles rather like a chain of aging volcanoes drug away from their source by continental drift.

Anyway . . . 300 S. Broadway.