Why is it easier to tear down something than to build on an empty lot? There are empty lots and underutilized places along Lindell. How many residential projects are happening between Kingshighway and SLU right now? 5-6? That tells me that the risks are minimal. Sure the developer wants to maximize profits but the point of tax abatement is to make a risky development feasible and should not be expected with any development. They can look at other properties and make this work.jcity wrote:"They can just build it somewhere else."
Where else in the CWE would a new high-rise make sense?
The Archdiocese site is not an option, nor is Kindred for 8 + years.
Developers aren't looking to build high-rises over 10 stories outside of the heart of the CWE.
It's sad that this project looks DOA.
oh and:
"If the developer is serious then they can work for it a little bit."
Nope, they will focus elsewhere were the development makes sense, which sadly seems to be other cities than STL these days. Let's please remember how Econ 101 works. They are doing this to make money, not because people just like new shiny high-rises.
If they're making their decision based on fairness, then they are making a bad business decision. Businesses should think strategically about short term and long term profit potential against their competitors. I think right now, they're just considering the long term effects of the decision to proceed on this project with or without incentives. If they are the first to do development in the CWE without abatement, then they are setting a new standard upon which giving future development incentives will be based. By holding off now and arguing for the need for incentives, they can try again to get incentives on a re-proposal for this site or for a different project. But once they accept no abatement, that money is off the table for all future negotiations for similar type projects.arch city wrote:It wouldn't be a bad business decision on Covington's part to cancel their proposal due to the fact they could look ALL AROUND them - easily - to see other projects (Mills, Opus, West Pine Lofts) that have received tax incentives/abatements. Even CORTEX will be giving an abatement for a housing development in CORTEX - just blocks away. It's about fairness.
But you are defending him (or at least his actions) – and it’s okay. It really is okay. You are entitled to your opinions.Also, again, I'm not here at all to defend a politician, but it's Roddy himself who has been working in the BoA to put together a comprehensive study of development incentives and their processes in the city. That doesn't make him blameless if this decision blows up in his face, but it at least suggests he favors rational decision-making in using development incentives.
With that said, the comprehensive study isn’t complete (to my knowledge) nor has any new processes been adopted by the powers that be and/or the city. Since there seems to be no solid newly-adopted policy or standard practice firmly in place to draw from at this time, the support against abatement seems arbitrary and irrational.
No one has ever said PCD and Roddy don’t have a grasp on the RE market in the CWE, but the real estate business can be cut-throat.I also don't think an out of context quote from Goedekker saying that he didn't think the city needed to give abatement for another apartment building necessarily negates the reality that Goedekker and the staff at PCD have a better grasp on the position of the real estate market in the CWE than anyone in the city. They're experienced real estate professionals who spend everyday working to improve the neighborhood.
Now to be fair…..since we are concerned about fairness…….Joe Roddy and other alderpersons have done a lot to build up St. Louis. I am sure most, if not all, want the best for St. Louis as a whole. No one can take that away from them, but let’s not pretend there aren’t times when they fumble the football. There's been a lot of fumbles.
Ultimately, as I see it, it’s the principle of it all. Support the damn tax abatement. Then put a solid renewed tax incentive/abatement issuance policy in place.If this small amount of abatement was the only thing that made this project feasible, then it was never feasible. IMO, the developer is simply making an emotionally-based decision to not cave on abatement for this proposal of this project to protect its potential future development interests in the city.
You say apples, I say oranges. Some will ask. Others won’t. If Covington didn’t need the help, I think they wouldn’t have asked for it. If other businesses/developments are helped, I would want help with my business too or I would take my business where I could get the help requested. If I didn't need the help, I wouldn't ask.If they're making their decision based on fairness, then they are making a bad business decision.
There are buildings in CORTEX that could have been saved, but are being torn down - right now - that will be replaced by tax incentivized structures.
Curious Questions:
1. Who paid for or incentivized the demo where Park East Tower stands?
2. Who paid for or incentivized the demo where 4545 stands? Or was it a vacant parcel?
3. Who will pay for or incentivize the demo of the old Heartland Bank building for the Opus project?
4. Who paid for or incentivized the demos where that massive apartment complex on Forest Park @ Euclid is located?
Interesting. So while the study is being completed and the policy is being fine-tuned Covington has to set a new standard until a tangible, on-paper with dried-ink policy in place? Who would want to be the first with those shenanigans?If they are the first to do development in the CWE without abatement, then they are setting a new standard upon which giving future development incentives will be based.
Here I come with my development proposal and you say to me, "Sorry sir, but the game is changing. It is different for you although we are still reevaluating how we will issue future tax incentives and abatements."
It's not a good way to do business.
I'm beginning to think that DannyJ is Roddy himself. For the person that keeps talking about all the options of surface lots on Lindell, NAME THEM. There are NONE that are available, and what other structures would be allowed to be torn down. Too many are far more historic than the optimist site. And if you think, for a second, that the development at Kingshighway and Lindell will happen without tax abatement, let alone any other high-rise in the heart of the CWE, you're truly mistaken.
"negates the reality that Goedekker and the staff at PCD have a better grasp on the position of the real estate market in the CWE than anyone in the city."
Really? I would lean towards a developer taking a $60 million dollar risk over the PCD board. I'm sure they've done their homework. People don't seem to understand that these high-rise developments will NOT happen without abatement. Why Roddy want's to play king and say there's too much "over building" is beyond me. This is what happens in big cities... I guess we see the politics and mindset of why we don't have more construction and overall growth in St. Louis. sad..
"negates the reality that Goedekker and the staff at PCD have a better grasp on the position of the real estate market in the CWE than anyone in the city."
Really? I would lean towards a developer taking a $60 million dollar risk over the PCD board. I'm sure they've done their homework. People don't seem to understand that these high-rise developments will NOT happen without abatement. Why Roddy want's to play king and say there's too much "over building" is beyond me. This is what happens in big cities... I guess we see the politics and mindset of why we don't have more construction and overall growth in St. Louis. sad..
- 1,792
Maybe St. Louis just likes to say no before it says yes... it's kind of what we do apparently.
it seems like a few of you have made up your mind to not like the decision to withhold support for local tax abatement for this project. after hearing Roddy's explanation for why he withheld support for abatement, the decision makes sense to me. let's just agree to disagree. hopefully the developer will decide to go forward without abatement or come up with a new proposal that will be judged to be worth abatement. if it's a good project, it will go forward.
I believe that the Optimists don't currently pay property taxes as a non-profit. So all abatement does is put off any new revenue that would come from this development. Another way to think about it is that each year the property sits undeveloped due to this decision effectively offsets a year of revenue that would have been lost by providing abatement in the first place. So if offering a five or ten year abatement allows the property to be developed five or ten years sooner, then the real cost of the abatement to the city is $0. This seems like a pretty low-risk way to spur development in the city that will attract new residents and grow property tax receipts long term. I can understand if the property was currently generating revenue for the city, but, as far as I know, it isn't.
Since the Optimists are looking to move, it is still possible for the current buildings to be employed for a tax-generating use.
There are already buildings here that are sound and re-usable. As I see it we are not desperate to have something built on this specific corner so Its okay to not dangle a carrot.
Would be a different situation for any number of empty lots in the vicinity.
And, btw, I would completely welcome a tower and increased density at this location if it does end up going through without the tax abatement.
There are already buildings here that are sound and re-usable. As I see it we are not desperate to have something built on this specific corner so Its okay to not dangle a carrot.
Would be a different situation for any number of empty lots in the vicinity.
And, btw, I would completely welcome a tower and increased density at this location if it does end up going through without the tax abatement.
I think it's a mistake not to give the abatement, but I do respect the thinking on the other side and the alderman's willingness to share his thinking. It's a shame he's not engaging more of a discussion (although I do appreciate the offer to attend some sort of get together), but at least it wasn't a total hit and run. He put a good bit of time into writing the post.
Ultimately, to me, it seems a little too idealistic and inconsistent to not give this abatement. I hope it won't be regretted.
Ultimately, to me, it seems a little too idealistic and inconsistent to not give this abatement. I hope it won't be regretted.
ARCHCITY—It’s difficult to have a serious conversation about economics with someone who poses this “Since when do politicians have to worry about apartment gluts? My understanding has always been that potential gluts are for actual real estate developers, investors and/or bankers to worry about and measure”. While daily Washington is still discussing how the housing bubble that created the crash of 2008 is the result of subsidies in the form of federal guarantees to Freddie, Fannie, and to the banks through the FDIC, and everything from Glass Steagall, to further privatizing Fannie and Freddie to regulating credit default swaps is subject to legislative change.
STLENGINERD—of course we are not presently able to calculate elasticities, but it is through those optics that I have made almost all of my decisions for the last 20 years. There are other ways to increase demand beyond just reducing prices which is what providing incentives do. I spend most of my time trying to create demand in other ways. If you can create demand without cutting prices (the heart of price theory) you create value. A $10 million investment in a metro stop will create more demand than $10 million subsidy for an apartment building. It will increase value of the real estate around it and reduce the need of subsidy. The relationship you should focus on is $of public money/unit of demand. The problem is there are so many variables coming up with the right metrics is hard and you will in the end still be left with a subjective decision. If you can create demand without cutting prices the construction projects will come.
ARCHCITY claims that these decision to reduce or cut subsidy are arbitrary, but if every project gets incentives then there is no incentive. The best way to create an incentive is to limit it. The more scarce it is the more it is worth. By limiting incentives we can direct and steer development.
ARCHCITY in the non virtual or real world this is happening everyday all around you. I’ve been using zoning and incentives to leverage developers for years—I do it almost weekly.
Need examples:
I moved the subsidy heavy, relatively low density 6 North Sarah project from where it wanted to be at the Park East site to where it is today. With the amount of subsidy that project had it could have easily outbid anyone else for the Euclid site. I told them to go East of Sarah to find a location or get no city money. We compromised on Sarah retail and they put in live work spaces.
I also rejected a safe project by Bob Sauer that he wanted at the Park East site. He was already doing the Metro Lofts and proposed a 6 to 8 story project. I took a long shot with Opus. If they had failed to make the pre sales, there was enough going on that it would not ruin the momentum of the neighborhood. When Bob didn’t get the site he didn’t go away, he just changed his project and built on Lindell.
CVS wasn’t told no at Lindell and Sarah, they decided there were too many restrictions so they moved down Lindell.
CVS was told no at Hampton and Oakland. I didn’t want a suburban strip near that intersection. After a year of meeting with Imo’s and Hardees, I gave up on consolidating the site for an office building or hotel and compromised with the property owner and agreed to provide incentives to Mercedes if they put their building to the sidewalk.
What should incentives be used for? High on my priority list for the CWE is to strengthen the Euclid and Sarah corridors with retail, connecting SLU to the CWE, and building density on the vacant lots. Doing those things will create more demand than demolishing an economically viable historic buildings which is why this project is not a priority.
We need developers, and over the years I have cultivated and recruited many of them to my ward, but this is our city, our incentives, and our priorities.
Covington is more than welcome to build in the area. It is my understanding Convington is part of the group that is building the West Pine Lofts and I and PCD would welcome a proposal from them for one of the vacant lots on Sarah. If they do retail and provide off street parking as Mills and Opus have done, I believe PCD would try to scale the incentives to both the need of the project and our perceived value to the city and the neighborhood—and yes we look at market conditions of supply and demand and currently would be far more likely to provide a more generous incentive package to condos if they could get financed.
Regarding the complaints about who am I to decide. Currently each Alderman makes decisions for their ward, and there are 28 policies. Some will only provide 5 year abatement, others none, others as much as possible. Some are providing incentives to gas stations. There is no consistency, and there are no brakes on this at City Hall. That is why as Chair of the HUDZ committee I am reviewing the process.
Until/if city hall gets its act together, I voluntarily include PCD in the process to create transparency and some checks and balances. PCD collectively engages dozens and dozens of 17th ward residents and business owners to staff its committees. Additionally it has institutional representatives from SLU, WU, BJC and Cortex. There is no other organization like it in the city--if there were more this would be a better city. I work for the residents of the 17th ward who have the choice to actively participate wit PCD in the reshaping of the most dynamic 3 square miles in the region. I have no intention to overrule PCD’s decision based on some anonymous complaints but I posted on here and offered to meet to provide insight into our process to those who do not live in my ward. I hate to leave a good argument early, but is very time consuming and a horrible medium discuss price theory as it applies redevelopment.
STLENGINERD—of course we are not presently able to calculate elasticities, but it is through those optics that I have made almost all of my decisions for the last 20 years. There are other ways to increase demand beyond just reducing prices which is what providing incentives do. I spend most of my time trying to create demand in other ways. If you can create demand without cutting prices (the heart of price theory) you create value. A $10 million investment in a metro stop will create more demand than $10 million subsidy for an apartment building. It will increase value of the real estate around it and reduce the need of subsidy. The relationship you should focus on is $of public money/unit of demand. The problem is there are so many variables coming up with the right metrics is hard and you will in the end still be left with a subjective decision. If you can create demand without cutting prices the construction projects will come.
ARCHCITY claims that these decision to reduce or cut subsidy are arbitrary, but if every project gets incentives then there is no incentive. The best way to create an incentive is to limit it. The more scarce it is the more it is worth. By limiting incentives we can direct and steer development.
ARCHCITY in the non virtual or real world this is happening everyday all around you. I’ve been using zoning and incentives to leverage developers for years—I do it almost weekly.
Need examples:
I moved the subsidy heavy, relatively low density 6 North Sarah project from where it wanted to be at the Park East site to where it is today. With the amount of subsidy that project had it could have easily outbid anyone else for the Euclid site. I told them to go East of Sarah to find a location or get no city money. We compromised on Sarah retail and they put in live work spaces.
I also rejected a safe project by Bob Sauer that he wanted at the Park East site. He was already doing the Metro Lofts and proposed a 6 to 8 story project. I took a long shot with Opus. If they had failed to make the pre sales, there was enough going on that it would not ruin the momentum of the neighborhood. When Bob didn’t get the site he didn’t go away, he just changed his project and built on Lindell.
CVS wasn’t told no at Lindell and Sarah, they decided there were too many restrictions so they moved down Lindell.
CVS was told no at Hampton and Oakland. I didn’t want a suburban strip near that intersection. After a year of meeting with Imo’s and Hardees, I gave up on consolidating the site for an office building or hotel and compromised with the property owner and agreed to provide incentives to Mercedes if they put their building to the sidewalk.
What should incentives be used for? High on my priority list for the CWE is to strengthen the Euclid and Sarah corridors with retail, connecting SLU to the CWE, and building density on the vacant lots. Doing those things will create more demand than demolishing an economically viable historic buildings which is why this project is not a priority.
We need developers, and over the years I have cultivated and recruited many of them to my ward, but this is our city, our incentives, and our priorities.
Covington is more than welcome to build in the area. It is my understanding Convington is part of the group that is building the West Pine Lofts and I and PCD would welcome a proposal from them for one of the vacant lots on Sarah. If they do retail and provide off street parking as Mills and Opus have done, I believe PCD would try to scale the incentives to both the need of the project and our perceived value to the city and the neighborhood—and yes we look at market conditions of supply and demand and currently would be far more likely to provide a more generous incentive package to condos if they could get financed.
Regarding the complaints about who am I to decide. Currently each Alderman makes decisions for their ward, and there are 28 policies. Some will only provide 5 year abatement, others none, others as much as possible. Some are providing incentives to gas stations. There is no consistency, and there are no brakes on this at City Hall. That is why as Chair of the HUDZ committee I am reviewing the process.
Until/if city hall gets its act together, I voluntarily include PCD in the process to create transparency and some checks and balances. PCD collectively engages dozens and dozens of 17th ward residents and business owners to staff its committees. Additionally it has institutional representatives from SLU, WU, BJC and Cortex. There is no other organization like it in the city--if there were more this would be a better city. I work for the residents of the 17th ward who have the choice to actively participate wit PCD in the reshaping of the most dynamic 3 square miles in the region. I have no intention to overrule PCD’s decision based on some anonymous complaints but I posted on here and offered to meet to provide insight into our process to those who do not live in my ward. I hate to leave a good argument early, but is very time consuming and a horrible medium discuss price theory as it applies redevelopment.
- 1,792
Alderman, thanks for the resonse. Obviously no one agrees with you on everything, but CWE could have far worse aldermen. I applaud you for your efforts in normalizing the process of abatement and hope that happens sooner than later. Many of the decisions you have sited i believe were good ones and even though i question the decision with Covington I don't doubt you made it with the best interests of your ward at heart. Hopefully your pushback will result in an even better proposal for that site.
BTW I hope you will continue to use this site to interface with a valuable constituancy. It can be contentious at times but the ideas that come from members of this forum are often inspired and most of us have a passion for a brighter future for St. Louis.
BTW I hope you will continue to use this site to interface with a valuable constituancy. It can be contentious at times but the ideas that come from members of this forum are often inspired and most of us have a passion for a brighter future for St. Louis.
I also want to think the Alderman for responding again. It's great insight, and I think it puts to rest the notion of anything being arbitrary. We can still debate whether it's inconsistent or the right decision, but it's not made with out a lot of thought, and I appreciate that.
I too hope Alderman Roddy will continue to engage this community. And Alderman Ogilvie, too. It's a great benefit to us to hear their perspectives, and I like to think it's a benefit to them to hear what some of the cities most concerned and proactive citizens are saying.
I too hope Alderman Roddy will continue to engage this community. And Alderman Ogilvie, too. It's a great benefit to us to hear their perspectives, and I like to think it's a benefit to them to hear what some of the cities most concerned and proactive citizens are saying.
First, I really do appreciate your exchange, Joe Roddy.
I like a politician who is willing to share his or her perspectives via cyberspace with strangers because other politicians could care less. I give you a lot of credit for I know you have a tough job. With that said, I must address commentary addressed to me.
But I ask once again……..when has St. Louis EVER had an apartment glut crisis? How many multi-family apartment buildings within the St. Louis region or city – particularly the CWE - have had foreclosures filed on them with Fannie or Freddie taking possession in recent years?
Granted there have been a number of complexes built since, but as recent as the 4th quarter of 2012 and 1st Quarter of 2013, multi-family occupancy in Metro St. Louis was near 93% - the highest in the Midwest according to Colliers. And as recent as last month, Mills Properties reported to the SLBJ that it expects to raise rents this year – a sign that the rental market is either healthy or improving.
![]()
For the record, last year, in 2013, St. Louis was near the bottom in apartment development/permits among major metro areas. Even Detroit, which has had greater population shrinkage percentage-wise than St. Louis in recent years, is currently developing more apartment units by percentage.
Also, the housing bubble, partly, has helped to stimulate the multi-family apartment sector nationally.
I said before and I’ll say it again. St. Louis does not have a history of overbuilding ANYTHING but roads and bridges. It is a risk-adverse region and it is one reason why, I think, it is a slow-growing region. Faster growing regions take a lot more risk in development, plus they have more high and low swings than St. Louis. But even their lows can be better than St. Louis’ highs.
With that said, St. Louis doesn't have to worry about becoming Chicago in regards to apartment building foreclosures. St. Louis DOES NOT – and will not – ever run the risk of being like Chicago, which has foreclosures galore on apartment buildings. There will be no glut crisis in the CWE.
READ:
-The SpareFoot List: America’s Top 15 Apartment Boom Towns (St. Louis is not on the list)
-Apartment building foreclosures plunge in Chicago
-5 lessons from the housing-bubble bust
-Mills, Capstone, Bruce lead apartment boom
You said non-support is about controlling rent prices and preventing a glut (which is unfounded and bogus to me based on researched data because there appears to be major demand), a parking garage, retail etc. Maybe so. Hopefully Covington will hear the list of demands/concerns and will decide to move forward with the project with or without the abatement.
I think many of us feel it would be a complete travesty for what seems to be an exciting transformative project to be canceled and no other exciting proposal replaces it. St. Louis is NOTORIOUS for letting buildings rot and for tearing down buildings for parking. Will this be the ultimate fate of The Optimist structure? Look at the lots on Kingshighway. Look at the Cathedral’s massive, ridiculous parking lot. Look at how long the Citywalk mosquito lot sat before it was finally redeveloped for a dinkier project.
You also said you want to push condos. However, that makes no sense to me when the current national trend is luxury rental apartments. Banks still ARE NOT lending like they used to do for homes and condos – unless you are in high-growth markets like Houston and Dallas. Banks don’t want to go back to 2007/2008. Even refinancing is like giving blood nowadays. Also, look at the massive proposals for downtown Clayton – they are luxury apartments. Catch a clue.
You guys have done awesome work. I think Park East turned out fine. I think the forthcoming Opus project is okay, even though it doesn’t “push the envelope” with design as you suggested the Covington project doesn’t do. I like a lot of the projects that are forthcoming – including The Standard, West Pine Lofts and CityWalk. CORTEX is the best thing to happen in Metro St. Louis since Gateway Commerce Center as for as economic development. I am happy that you have invited developers to your ward and I wish more aldermen and women would do it on the Northside, but nothing changes my mind that you all have potentially dropped the ball by not supporting the Covington project.
With all of that said, I feel you guys need to find a way to make that project work. Just saying no to support is too easy. I hope it is resolved soon and amicably. Covington is doing great work in the region. Try not to leave a bad taste in their mouths with regards to city's bureaucratic red-tape. The development tool processes need to be more transparent, less arbitrary and more consistent ACROSS the city.
I truly wish you the best in your efforts to refine development tool standards in St. Louis.
I like a politician who is willing to share his or her perspectives via cyberspace with strangers because other politicians could care less. I give you a lot of credit for I know you have a tough job. With that said, I must address commentary addressed to me.
Yes. The housing bubble was created largely because of greed and bad loans – including sub-prime mortgage loans (many insured by Fannie and Freddie) - given by banks and lenders to people who typically could not afford the over-sized HOUSES they were buying. I know the housing bubble impacted greatly our nation's economy - and not for the better. I know the mess is still been sorted out despite an improving national economy.While daily Washington is still discussing how the housing bubble that created the crash of 2008 is the result of subsidies in the form of federal guarantees to Freddie, Fannie, and to the banks through the FDIC, and everything from Glass Steagall, to further privatizing Fannie and Freddie to regulating credit default swaps is subject to legislative change.
But I ask once again……..when has St. Louis EVER had an apartment glut crisis? How many multi-family apartment buildings within the St. Louis region or city – particularly the CWE - have had foreclosures filed on them with Fannie or Freddie taking possession in recent years?
Granted there have been a number of complexes built since, but as recent as the 4th quarter of 2012 and 1st Quarter of 2013, multi-family occupancy in Metro St. Louis was near 93% - the highest in the Midwest according to Colliers. And as recent as last month, Mills Properties reported to the SLBJ that it expects to raise rents this year – a sign that the rental market is either healthy or improving.
For the record, last year, in 2013, St. Louis was near the bottom in apartment development/permits among major metro areas. Even Detroit, which has had greater population shrinkage percentage-wise than St. Louis in recent years, is currently developing more apartment units by percentage.
Also, the housing bubble, partly, has helped to stimulate the multi-family apartment sector nationally.
I said before and I’ll say it again. St. Louis does not have a history of overbuilding ANYTHING but roads and bridges. It is a risk-adverse region and it is one reason why, I think, it is a slow-growing region. Faster growing regions take a lot more risk in development, plus they have more high and low swings than St. Louis. But even their lows can be better than St. Louis’ highs.
With that said, St. Louis doesn't have to worry about becoming Chicago in regards to apartment building foreclosures. St. Louis DOES NOT – and will not – ever run the risk of being like Chicago, which has foreclosures galore on apartment buildings. There will be no glut crisis in the CWE.
READ:
-The SpareFoot List: America’s Top 15 Apartment Boom Towns (St. Louis is not on the list)
-Apartment building foreclosures plunge in Chicago
-5 lessons from the housing-bubble bust
-Mills, Capstone, Bruce lead apartment boom
No one has suggested that every project in the city (or the region, for that matter) should get incentives. Where was that written or suggested anywhere? I agree with limiting subsidies. Hell…..I even agree that development should be steered and zoned. However, when you have a project this transformative, I don’t understand the hesitation to support incentives.ARCHCITY claims that these decision to reduce or cut subsidy are arbitrary, but if every project gets incentives then there is no incentive. The best way to create an incentive is to limit it. The more scarce it is the more it is worth. By limiting incentives we can direct and steer development.
ARCHCITY in the non virtual or real world this is happening everyday all around you. I’ve been using zoning and incentives to leverage developers for years—I do it almost weekly.
You said non-support is about controlling rent prices and preventing a glut (which is unfounded and bogus to me based on researched data because there appears to be major demand), a parking garage, retail etc. Maybe so. Hopefully Covington will hear the list of demands/concerns and will decide to move forward with the project with or without the abatement.
I think many of us feel it would be a complete travesty for what seems to be an exciting transformative project to be canceled and no other exciting proposal replaces it. St. Louis is NOTORIOUS for letting buildings rot and for tearing down buildings for parking. Will this be the ultimate fate of The Optimist structure? Look at the lots on Kingshighway. Look at the Cathedral’s massive, ridiculous parking lot. Look at how long the Citywalk mosquito lot sat before it was finally redeveloped for a dinkier project.
You also said you want to push condos. However, that makes no sense to me when the current national trend is luxury rental apartments. Banks still ARE NOT lending like they used to do for homes and condos – unless you are in high-growth markets like Houston and Dallas. Banks don’t want to go back to 2007/2008. Even refinancing is like giving blood nowadays. Also, look at the massive proposals for downtown Clayton – they are luxury apartments. Catch a clue.
You guys have done awesome work. I think Park East turned out fine. I think the forthcoming Opus project is okay, even though it doesn’t “push the envelope” with design as you suggested the Covington project doesn’t do. I like a lot of the projects that are forthcoming – including The Standard, West Pine Lofts and CityWalk. CORTEX is the best thing to happen in Metro St. Louis since Gateway Commerce Center as for as economic development. I am happy that you have invited developers to your ward and I wish more aldermen and women would do it on the Northside, but nothing changes my mind that you all have potentially dropped the ball by not supporting the Covington project.
With all of that said, I feel you guys need to find a way to make that project work. Just saying no to support is too easy. I hope it is resolved soon and amicably. Covington is doing great work in the region. Try not to leave a bad taste in their mouths with regards to city's bureaucratic red-tape. The development tool processes need to be more transparent, less arbitrary and more consistent ACROSS the city.
I truly wish you the best in your efforts to refine development tool standards in St. Louis.
- 284
The one major thing the city should be doing and isn't really doing is advertising its over supply of parking lots. Advertising them for new apartment condos and town home projects could change the face of not only downtown but the CWE and other areas of the city .. That's one of the most progressive things a city such as Saint.Louis should be doing. What do you have to lose? complaining people who don't want to walk the distance because its more exercise they care to deal with? Opening up those parking lots for redevelopment is like saying hey we're open for business ready to fast forward into the future..That alone will get plenty of attention from potential developers...
This is kind of tricky.. Aren't most parking lots privately owned? If so, then the city cannot advertise them for development. Also, lack of advertising/marketing isn't the problem. Like Arch City said, we are a slow growth region and until we take real steps to change that, we will continue to be a slow growth region.TheNewSaintLouis wrote:The one major thing the city should be doing and isn't really doing is advertising its over supply of parking lots. Advertising them for new apartment condos and town home projects could change the face of not only downtown but the CWE and other areas of the city .. That's one of the most progressive things a city such as Saint.Louis should be doing. What do you have to lose? complaining people who don't want to walk the distance because its more exercise they care to deal with? Opening up those parking lots for redevelopment is like saying hey we're open for business ready to fast forward into the future..That alone will get plenty of attention from potential developers...
"we will continue to be a slow growth region"
And that isn't necessarily a negative. Slow growth as long as it is sustained is better than a boom and bust. Plus we've already been there and done that in the last century.
And that isn't necessarily a negative. Slow growth as long as it is sustained is better than a boom and bust. Plus we've already been there and done that in the last century.
Please inform everyone of the surface lots that are available to develop in the CWE. I'd love to know.
- 1,320
There are fewer than people think. The three streets most desirable for residential highrise have little availability of empty space.jcity wrote:Please inform everyone of the surface lots that are available to develop in the CWE. I'd love to know.
The lots along Lindell are universally unavailable west of Newstead. The archdiocese sits on one. Kindred on another. Koplar on another. None will sell under any realistic circumstances. That leaves only one or two very narrow lots... or teardowns.
Along Kingshighway, there are a few lots used by Montclair on the Park and Parc Frontenac. I don't know if they'd sell. There's nothing available along Euclid south of Lindell.
That really leaves a few lots along West Pine and Laclede. And teardowns.
Euclid does have several one and two story buildings of no great architectural or design value between Lindell and Forest Park Pkwy which I'd be happy to see redeveloped for greater density though. Why some of these buildings even exist when I'm sure much more attractive buildings with greater density once stood in their place, I don't know. The SE corner of Euclid and West Pine comes to mind. The best thing I can say for it is that at least it's occupied.
- 1,320
^I suspect the clock is ticking on the TipTop building. But I appreciate it as one of the few original Art Deco storefronts in the Central West End.
![]()
Apparently this thing is dead as a doorknob. I guess Covington wasn't bluffing after all. Maybe they will resurface with a proposal elsewhere in the CWE or an even better proposal for the site....interesting.
Great stuff there.arch city wrote:...But I ask once again……..when has St. Louis EVER had an apartment glut crisis? How many multi-family apartment buildings within the St. Louis region or city – particularly the CWE - have had foreclosures filed on them with Fannie or Freddie taking possession in recent years?
...
For the record, last year, in 2013, St. Louis was near the bottom in apartment development/permits among major metro areas. Even Detroit, which has had greater population shrinkage percentage-wise than St. Louis in recent years, is currently developing more apartment units by percentage.
Also, the housing bubble, partly, has helped to stimulate the multi-family apartment sector nationally.
I said before and I’ll say it again. St. Louis does not have a history of overbuilding ANYTHING but roads and bridges. It is a risk-adverse region and it is one reason why, I think, it is a slow-growing region. Faster growing regions take a lot more risk in development, plus they have more high and low swings than St. Louis. But even their lows can be better than St. Louis’ highs.
With that said, St. Louis doesn't have to worry about becoming Chicago in regards to apartment building foreclosures. St. Louis DOES NOT – and will not – ever run the risk of being like Chicago, which has foreclosures galore on apartment buildings. There will be no glut crisis in the CWE.
Isn't St. Louis like almost at the bottom of the list of major metro areas on rental vs owning?
Yep. I've now heard it's dead too. Sad. Oh well. Next time. Perhaps people that want modern highrise living will go to the new options in downtown clayton. Not saying that this was the best design, but I'd certainly take it over the existing class c building. Not exactly "highest and best use"..
That's what I'm afraid of. Clayton will get even more built out and everyone will be wondering why there's very little to rent in the CWE and nobody will be around to explain "we don't want any risk" and "we don't want that type here".jcity wrote:Yep. I've now heard it's dead too. Sad. Oh well. Next time. Perhaps people that want modern highrise living will go to the new options in downtown clayton. Not saying that this was the best design, but I'd certainly take it over the existing class c building. Not exactly "highest and best use"..