I think it's very telling that Covington dropped the project without much of a fight. To me that shows they weren't very serious about the project.
Most new condo buildings going up in Park Slope and Williamsburg, Brooklyn, possibly two of the most desirable urban neighborhoods nationwide, are given significant tax abatement.
Does there have to be a sunset on such programs? Or would it make sense to view it as an ongoing tool to incentivize development, no matter if the neighborhood has "made it" or not?
Does there have to be a sunset on such programs? Or would it make sense to view it as an ongoing tool to incentivize development, no matter if the neighborhood has "made it" or not?
I would argue that we don't really have any "thriving" areas of the city. And I don't like saying that.
We have a lot of great areas, and the CWE easily has the most momentum. But it's only thriving in comparison to the past and to other areas. It's not thriving in comparison to places outside the city (including outside the region).
Without commenting specifically on the Optimist building, I don't believe the CWE is at a point to limit tax abatement to any great deal just yet. It may be soon. But it would get there quicker with more projects getting built, not less.
We have a lot of great areas, and the CWE easily has the most momentum. But it's only thriving in comparison to the past and to other areas. It's not thriving in comparison to places outside the city (including outside the region).
Without commenting specifically on the Optimist building, I don't believe the CWE is at a point to limit tax abatement to any great deal just yet. It may be soon. But it would get there quicker with more projects getting built, not less.
Personally, I am not exactly sure who will oversee the changes/recommendations to the incentive programs, but I think a single person certainly should not be in charge of implementing the changes or the study.
The city, if not already done, should have a PROFESSIONAL independent firm study and recommend changes to the incentive programs.
The waters get too murky when one person has too much power and influence to make changes.
The city, if not already done, should have a PROFESSIONAL independent firm study and recommend changes to the incentive programs.
The waters get too murky when one person has too much power and influence to make changes.
^ Arch, I definitely have to agree and can't dispute from what I understand of a process that is heavily skewed towards the alderman for that Ward. That doesn't make much sense for the city as a whole when it comes tax policy and revenues. Maybe it should be the other way around, apply to the city controller's office and appeal to the alderman if you don't get approval.
It almost like the St Louis county TIF policy where a county TIF board has to approves it but is pointless because the muni for which the TIF is applied for, whether it be Maplewood, Brentwood, etc simply can overturn creating 90 little taxing and economic fiefdoms competing on the localized level while other Metro areas compete on a national level first and foremost.
Which gets another question with someone who has a lot more knowledge than me, will the process to reduce the number of alderman change anything other then one alderman has a bigger area and more constituents? does less aldermen really resolve anthything until a citywide professional process is establish. I also understand that changes are coming as Roddy outlined. I Just don't know if I understand those changes
It almost like the St Louis county TIF policy where a county TIF board has to approves it but is pointless because the muni for which the TIF is applied for, whether it be Maplewood, Brentwood, etc simply can overturn creating 90 little taxing and economic fiefdoms competing on the localized level while other Metro areas compete on a national level first and foremost.
Which gets another question with someone who has a lot more knowledge than me, will the process to reduce the number of alderman change anything other then one alderman has a bigger area and more constituents? does less aldermen really resolve anthything until a citywide professional process is establish. I also understand that changes are coming as Roddy outlined. I Just don't know if I understand those changes
Not sure this would be apartments (though I would love that). JR tweeted about new jobs so probably offices.
- 8,155
^ I wonder if they have any tenants already in play for the office building..... also it would be great if the Optimists would relocate to downtown.
This is great; I can really see a large office market developing in the CWE.
- 8,155
And the proposed alterations:
![]()
However, going back to downtown I really think they need to get something going down there with new construction or it'll be vulnerable to further relocations from firms looking for the most modern spaces.
Midtown/CWE has the highest occupancy rate of all the office submarkets in the region I believe and I can certainly see it growing; what's cool about it, too, is its more spread out nature and being interwoven into a true mixed-use neighborhood. (And I think office should be given a good look for the Midtown Station site.)framer wrote:This is great; I can really see a large office market developing in the CWE.
However, going back to downtown I really think they need to get something going down there with new construction or it'll be vulnerable to further relocations from firms looking for the most modern spaces.
I still wish this was a new 14 story apartment building. But the updates look thoughtful and deferential to the building's strong MCM character.
- 8,155
^ I agree... actually what I'd like to have seen is an office/apartment mix with maybe even a little retail space. I think it is pretty cool Core10 architecture is in a Lindell residential tower (and a relocation success from the burbs) and something like that would be great for this address.
But I agree this looks nice and I doubt Koman will have trouble leasing it up.... it appears just 35 optimists are in there now and I'm pretty sure there is much more capacity than that.
But I agree this looks nice and I doubt Koman will have trouble leasing it up.... it appears just 35 optimists are in there now and I'm pretty sure there is much more capacity than that.
^ The city would do well for itself if it could at least get ground broken for at least the first building up on US Metals/Wexford/Cortex site and a BPV tower. Those two alone would probably added 500k of class A square feet not being built by BJC/Wash U medical and put the city back in the competitive ball game. The small pickups with projects by Koman, Lawrence group are great but as noted. Class A is still a desireable commodity that a market needs.
I don't know if it bodes well or not that outgoing Downtown STL director stated that discussions are underway with Cordish/DeWitt on his way to his new job with Wexford because I don't their has been anything of substance reported as of late.
I don't know if it bodes well or not that outgoing Downtown STL director stated that discussions are underway with Cordish/DeWitt on his way to his new job with Wexford because I don't their has been anything of substance reported as of late.
- 8,155
Looks like their work on this is rocking... who know, maybe we'll hear an announcement soon on an anchor retail tenant.
Park Central @ParkCentralSTL
The Koman Group received approval from the City's Preservation Board tonight for their renovation proposal at 4490-94 Lindell.
The Koman Group received approval from the City's Preservation Board tonight for their renovation proposal at 4490-94 Lindell.
Roger -- What makes you think there will retail here? Thought it was for office use. I could be wrong.
- 8,155
^ oops. there are too many damn projects in the CWE to keep straight! I meant to post that on the OPUS project on Lindell thread.
nextstl says this is dead.
This one’s back on the market. Broker says it’s a prime spot for a new tower.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... e=facebook
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... e=facebook
- 3,762
^ i liked that design. i like the optimist, too, but would happily part with it for something of equal or better height and design.