^^Why would they want to maintain views of the courthouse?
Personally, I think views of modern towers surrounding the ballpark would be much more impressive than that of a smallish courthouse dome several blocks away.
I think it adds a little architectural and spatial depth, but that's about it.
- 2,430
^ I was told by LHM that there will not be a BPV tower obstructing the view of 360 into the stadium. I don't know if there is a solid agreement or restriction in place.
- 1,864
I don't know if a solid agreement or restriction is needed to be honest. A tower on the NE corner would have to be taller than Cardinal Way, probably closer to the height of 360 itself, to block views. It's possible that a tower gets built, even a few floors taller than Cardinal Way and they still get their view.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Mar 02, 2018^ I was told by LHM that there will not be a BPV tower obstructing the view of 360 into the stadium. I don't know if there is a solid agreement or restriction in place.
The key take away here is that any development wont obstruct their views, not that it wouldn't be tall.
- 10K
- 9,555
Now that the dust has settled from City Hall/Pres Board approvals, i put this project at 40% chance of happening.
- 8,908
Wait, why so low?dbInSouthCity wrote:Now that the dust has settled from City Hall/Pres Board approvals, i put this project at 40% chance of happening.
I think it is 50/50. I feel like that because maybe the developers and architect don’t want the headache of being blamed forever that they caused the demolition of a historic structure. The other 50 is that they don’t care and want the money from rent.dbInSouthCity wrote:Now that the dust has settled from City Hall/Pres Board approvals, i put this project at 40% chance of happening.
Whether or not this goes forward is entirely dependent on their ability to get it financed. I'd say given their track record in Clayton (not to mention Chicago), it should be no problem; especially if the leasing goes well at Ballpark Village.
- 403
I don't think they'd go through all that mess & drama for a 40% chance @ building something that can be just as significant as One Cardinal Way.. Also stated slightly above they a proven good history of getting things done.. This has more than a 50% chance of happening the only way this isn't happening is if the economy suddenly tanks.. I think its time we all start giving the city some due credit whether we like how some of the projects fit into our picture or not or how they are being financed.. Either way if this falls through the current building stays..
They aren't McKee
They aren't McKee
Applicable: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-do-pun ... 1519662425dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Mar 02, 2018Now that the dust has settled from City Hall/Pres Board approvals, i put this project at 40% chance of happening.
Even with financing in place, is there anything that could allow the developer to pull out after demolition? I'm not saying they would want to do this, but couldn't they just stop the project after demo if they wanted to? Even though data suggests a very low likelihood of recession, if one were to come through (for example) does the developer have an out to stop after demo?
- 1,044
I'm all for this tower however I bet there will be a big hubub about it blocking the Arch if it ever gets built. I remember how everyone complained about the new federal courthouse blocking the view from Hwy 40.
- 2,430
Sure, there is no legal recourse the city would have. I can't recall the exact circumstances, but it could be like that big pit that was at the site before The Orion/Whole Foods mixed-use project moved forward.MRNHS wrote: ↑Mar 03, 2018Even with financing in place, is there anything that could allow the developer to pull out after demolition? I'm not saying they would want to do this, but couldn't they just stop the project after demo if they wanted to? Even though data suggests a very low likelihood of recession, if one were to come through (for example) does the developer have an out to stop after demo?
And the City didn't even follow through on enforcing penalties when Cardinals failed to fulfill its timeline obligations on Ballpark Village even though there was an enforceable redevelopment agreement in place on that project,
The claim that "all cities give subsidies" on market rate needs to be dialed back, at least if we're talking about anything similar to the degree that we gave on the 300 S. Broadway tower, which was 20 years property tax abatement of 10 years 90%, 5 years 85% and 5 years 80% iirc.robertn42 wrote: ↑Feb 28, 20182 things to always remember in these discussions:bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Feb 28, 2018I'm not trying to be a debbie downer here, but are other competing cities throwing down millions in subsidies for privately owned residential towers? I honestly don't know, and that's what I am asking. Because if they're not, it just feels like the slippery slope is remaining -- what stops developers from avoiding investing in Downtown when (well, if) we ever stop the tax breaks and TIF?
Again, not trying to be a downer here. I'm excited for these projects too, but should they even be built if the developers aren't able, or willing, to take their own financial risk? Even on this one, where it is just property tax abatement. And how does our level of subsidizing these developments compare to other neighboring cities? It just feels like an illusion of prosperity.
All cities give subsidies (even ones that are booming)
Most major cities have an earnings tax:
https://taxfoundation.org/local-income- ... inue-wane/
For example Minneapolis pretty much has given up on subsidies for market-rate projects but does offer it for strong affordable housing projects. Detroit gives subsidies but requires projects have an affordable housing component (typically 20% of units reserved for those earning 80% of Area Median Income). Kansas City recently passed an ordinance that caps abatement rates in the hot development zone (I believe to no more than 75%) and more and more projects along the streetcar line are moving ahead without even seeking subsidies. We have some of that here, too, with Brandonview taking that route on its projects.
Anyway, I think for the most part the political debate is not whether some subsidy should be given to market rate projects in our Central Corridor as a rule but rather whether we've been giving out too much, I think we're at the point where we should at least enact reform along the lines of a KC-style ordinance. I'd also like to see us have what Ohio requires; approval of abatement from the local school board. And we desperately need comprehensive planning... with our lack of effective planning I'm not sure any other city has given so much and gotten so little in return over the years.
How about THIS for adaptive re-use/new addition (condos in Boston):
![]()
https://www.architecturalrecord.com/art ... ned-condos
https://www.architecturalrecord.com/art ... ned-condos
- 14
Not sure if this has been posted yet.![]()
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Greg Johnson @PresbyterianStl
5:14PM Mar 20, 2018
$100 million permit application (zoning) received for 300 S. Broadway. Now 268 units. This one is happening.
5:14PM Mar 20, 2018
$100 million permit application (zoning) received for 300 S. Broadway. Now 268 units. This one is happening.
^ Thanks for the updates, happy to see this is moving along so quickly.
I checked out HDA's website and I wish this had been going in at Clayton and Hanley instead of the latest proposal:
![]()
![]()
I checked out HDA's website and I wish this had been going in at Clayton and Hanley instead of the latest proposal:
Thanks for sharing!BuckyO'Hare wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2018Not sure if this has been posted yet.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
- 2,386
^+1. One of the better first posts in memory. Welcome to the forum.
- 9,555
Let me add some meat to this,
When someone applies for zoning only permit it means they just want to get the project approved and not slow down the process with everything else like financing, they're not getting an actual building permit. What this allows is for the project to go through City reviews and for the developer to come back and apply for an actual building permit later if the project moves on.
Probably just a render choice, but there are two building with white facades that currently don't exist. One is in the place of the Westin, the other though looks to be placed right around 11th and Spruce.
Edit: It looks more like it is just the federal building without the detail and tower.
![]()
Edit: It looks more like it is just the federal building without the detail and tower.
Here's a down & dirty rendering based off of Framer's post. Some things are wonky but I've burned enough daylight on it, need to get back to paying jobs...