Ballpark Village

arch city · PostJun 08, 2015#20262015-06-08T16:42+00:00

dredger wrote:Arch City, so what exactly can Mayor do? All the subsidies and incentives are in place outside of outright backing the bonds with general revenues. On top of that, most incentives especially the state are the same where you are located on I64 corridor. The development agreement between Dewitt and Cordish is legally binding. No going back on that one without some hefty buyout I can only assume. You can wine and dine corporate execs all you want but end of the day it is still the CEO who decides not the mayor telling a corporation where they have to be or not.

I just keep hearing the same argument that the mayor needs to do more without saying what exactly what that is.

^Apply more pressure. It's the mayor's job to ENCOURAGE a healthier downtown.

Other than parking garages, it seems to me that Slay WAITS for developers to come to his office.

Gently apply more pressure on the Cardinals and Cordish to fulfill their promise sooner than later.

The downtown organizations (all of them) need to get involved in order to pressure and encourage.

Everyone will be better off as downtown ascends to it maximum potential.

I am encouraged by what I see downtown, but BPV is a thorn in my side.

Even Cupples Station, with century old buildings, was redeveloped faster.

wabash · PostJun 08, 2015#20272015-06-08T19:12+00:00

chaifetz10 wrote:Right now we only hear what gets leaked and have no idea what Cordish and the Cardinals are thinking of and what the city knows timeline wise.

I think until further notice it's safe to assume Cordish and the Cardinals are thinking very little, and the city knows nothing.

I agree that giving the Mayor flack for BPV's shortcomings seems misdirected. Any efforts to bolster Downtown - by the Mayor or otherwise - are going to be better focused on players like Dominium, Lawrence Group, Amos Harris/Spinnaker, Koman Group, Stifel, Laclede Gas, U.S. Bank, Webster University, Brian Hayden, Bob O'Loughlin, Maritz, Wolff & Co., UrbanStreet, and others who have shown a genuine commitment and interest in the vitality of the Downtown neighborhood.

Cordish isn't a good partner for the City or the Cardinals. The mayor could do more to shame and publicly attack them, but to what end? He'd be better off focusing efforts on those who are already interested and committed to pushing Downtown forward.

St.Louis1764 · PostJun 09, 2015#20282015-06-09T00:56+00:00

I thought about the city buying what land that hasn't been developed back from the Cardinals Cordish however when i look at it now i don't think that be a very bright idea at the end this land is in better hands with the Cardinals than the city. All we can do is be patient & hopefully we'll start to get more info about possible phase II

arch city · PostJun 09, 2015#20292015-06-09T12:00+00:00

wabash wrote:I think until further notice it's safe to assume Cordish and the Cardinals are thinking very little, and the city knows nothing.

I agree that giving the Mayor flack for BPV's shortcomings seems misdirected.

Cordish isn't a good partner for the City or the Cardinals. The mayor could do more to shame and publicly attack them, but to what end?

I don't think anyone has suggested "shaming and attacking" Cordish and the Cardinals.

I know what I said is "pressure and encourage". A great example of this happened over in Kansas City with the P&L District.

Although KC had more at stake, putting more pressure on Cordish sped up build out and as a result is aiding peripheral development.

Mayors are supposed to lead. Mayors all across this country get involved in major development opportunities for their cities. To his credit Slay encouraged TIF for Cortex, which was excellent. He (and ward alderpersons) led well in getting Cortex off the ground. However, there's a stark contrast between CORTEX and BPV.

Which one has demonstrated more success thus far?

In fairness, Slay was instrumental in getting the city to approve "some" incentives for BPV, but at the end of the day, BPV IS STILL underwhelming based on its initial promises. NO mayor or city leader should be okay with that monstrosity of a parking lot. The slow development of BPV, despite Phase I, is becoming a laughingstock.

I think DeWitt tosses silly bones and bits to the media and city like he did with the "skinny condo tower" vision. I think he does this - from time-to-time - just to take the heat off.

DeWitt may be wealthy, but he is not a developer and Cordish obviously is in no big hurry.

I think the mayor and ward rep lays off just because the revered Cardinals are involved.

blzhrpmd2 · PostJun 09, 2015#20302015-06-09T13:15+00:00

To try and look at this from another perspective, what incentive is there for the city to push harder? While types like us may look at BPV and shake our heads with disappointment, we are probably the minority. I have heard nothing from national baseball media that didn't talk about BPV positively. Any national broadcast usually mentions it as a plus and a feather in the Cards' cap. It is still a popular place among the masses, and relatively unique among MLB venues. Articles like the one above are not mainstream and likely won't casually make their way into the arena of local popular opinion unless awareness is raised.

We must also remember that what has become a louder voice over the last year is that this development is hurting downtown business. Doesn't Slay have to then tread lightly if encouraging it to expand?

What real pressures are there on Slay/The City to make something that is labeled a relative success better?

roger wyoming II · PostJun 09, 2015#20312015-06-09T13:36+00:00

blzhrpmd2 wrote:We must also remember that what has become a louder voice over the last year is that this development is hurting downtown business. Doesn't Slay have to then tread lightly if encouraging it to expand?

The whole premise of the Village was that it would bring new residents and office workers to downtown and thus would be a boon for all; this added activity would justify the TIF for additional bar/restaurant. Allowing the entertainment portion to move forward without the new office or residential was a missed opportunity to apply pressure for more (as was not applying the penalties for the missed deadlines).

Moving forward, for me the issue is how can we bring more incentives to the table that would spur more downtown development. If we had a fund that could invest say $10 million annually in quality downtown projects that could be a big deal if that would leverage another $100 million+. I wouldn't necessarily target BPV for this (and probably would prioritize historic rehab) but it could help accelerate something there.

Mound City · PostJun 09, 2015#20322015-06-09T13:43+00:00

arch city wrote:
wabash wrote:I think until further notice it's safe to assume Cordish and the Cardinals are thinking very little, and the city knows nothing.

I agree that giving the Mayor flack for BPV's shortcomings seems misdirected.

Cordish isn't a good partner for the City or the Cardinals. The mayor could do more to shame and publicly attack them, but to what end?
I don't think anyone has suggested "shaming and attacking" Cordish and the Cardinals.

I know what I said is "pressure and encourage". A great example of this happened over in Kansas City with the P&L District.

Although KC had more at stake, putting more pressure on Cordish sped up build out and as a result is aiding peripheral development.

Mayors are supposed to lead. Mayors all across this country get involved in major development opportunities for their cities. To his credit Slay encouraged TIF for Cortex, which was excellent. He (and ward alderpersons) led well in getting Cortex off the ground. However, there's a stark contrast between CORTEX and BPV.

Which one has demonstrated more success thus far?

In fairness, Slay was instrumental in getting the city to approve "some" incentives for BPV, but at the end of the day, BPV IS STILL underwhelming based on its initial promises. NO mayor or city leader should be okay with that monstrosity of a parking lot. The slow development of BPV, despite Phase I, is becoming a laughingstock.

I think DeWitt tosses silly bones and bits to the media and city like he did with the "skinny condo tower" vision. I think he does this - from time-to-time - just to take the heat off.

DeWitt may be wealthy, but he is not a developer and Cordish obviously is in no big hurry.

I think the mayor and ward rep lays off just because the revered Cardinals are involved.

I still don't get what the Mayor is supposed to do. Call them more? Leave them more stern voicemails?

You cite what happened in Kansas City; that happened because Kansas City outright backed the bonds to finance the P&L developments underway, and every article I've read for the past five years suggests doing so has been a massive money-loser for the city. Are you suggesting St. Louis should do the same?

It didn't happen because KC's mayor "led more" than Slay is "leading" here.

roger wyoming II · PostJun 09, 2015#20332015-06-09T14:19+00:00

^ One easy thing that can be done if Slay is unhappy with the pace of progress and would like to see something happen sooner than later is to publicly say that he is unhappy with the pace of progress and set the expectation that something should happen sooner than later. If there is progress behind the scenes then that wouldn't be too smart.

MarkHaversham · PostJun 09, 2015#20342015-06-09T14:30+00:00

The bully pulpit has its uses. Corporations do care about their public image, after all.

roger wyoming II · PostJun 09, 2015#20352015-06-09T15:13+00:00

I think another opportunity for the administration and downtown interests is to come up with a damn economic development plan. I'm not sure the exact nature of these various committees that have been recently established after the city got its butt kicked by concerned stakeholders, but hopefully something solid will emerge on residential and office plans.

BPV should be identified as a priority area for infill office/residential and targets/expectations set. I'd also look at setting up a special incentive zone in cooperation with local and state econ. dev. agencies that would target specific areas for new office jobs to the region... market BPV and One AT&T Center, etc. as choice opportunities for companies -- ones either new to the region or existing ones expanding -- seeking large office space.

framer · PostJun 09, 2015#20362015-06-09T16:30+00:00

blzhrpmd2 wrote: I have heard nothing from national baseball media that didn't talk about BPV positively.

Sorry, but Ballpark Village HASN'T BEEN BUILT! All we have is a glorified food court that the Cardinals insist on calling Ballpark Village. In no way, shape, or form does it resemble what the Cardinals agreed to build 15 years ago. They got their stadium, now we want our development. That was the agreement, and it's time the Cardinals live up to their word. The new stadium has added tens of millions, probably HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to the value of the Cardinals. They got theirs, now we want ours.

arch city · PostJun 09, 2015#20372015-06-09T17:55+00:00

Mound City wrote:I still don't get what the Mayor is supposed to do. Call them more? Leave them more stern voicemails?

Lead........that's what Slay is supposed to do in this situation. Do you think this would be happening in Chicago with Rahm Emanuel? No. I don't think so. Bob Clark of Clayco even suggested the length of time it's taking to build-out BPV is too long.

Further, leading doesn't have to involve stern voicemails, threats, attacks or shame.

Slay easily could go to DeWitt and simply say.........."Hey Bill, the public could eventually incentivize (with local and state funds) this project up to $183-million. Since the rest of BPV is going to happen, and you want to maintain the public's trust, how about WE partner to update the public more frequently on the status of BPV? How about quarterly (or bi-annual) progress reports?"

Since the public could get official information in black and white - pressure is applied.

Mound City wrote:You cite what happened in Kansas City; that happened because Kansas City outright backed the bonds to finance the P&L developments underway, and every article I've read for the past five years suggests doing so has been a massive money-loser for the city. Are you suggesting St. Louis should do the same?

It didn't happen because KC's mayor "led more" than Slay is "leading" here.

First of all, I did note KC had more at stake meaning the situation was more dire in KC.

But keep in mind KC guaranteed bonds at a time when the national economy was robust. Then the economy tanked. No matter how you slice it, KC's mayor and leaders did lead in order to stop the bleeding. They went to Cordish, demanded a remedy, came up with a solution TOGETHER - and as a result - more projects are on the table for downtown KC.

No one would ever suggest putting St. Louis' level of risk on par with KC's. Of course not, but in light of a better economy, residential demand in downtown St. Louis, a need for more retail and job creation, St. Louis could potentially rework some incentives.

It takes a real leader to come back to the table.

dredger · PostJun 09, 2015#20382015-06-09T18:08+00:00

^ The SOLUTION you noted was KC handing Cordish a risk free way to build and then you turn around in the next paragraph and state that St. Louis shouldn't go down that route. Sorry, the KC solution is like me giving my kids everything they ask for. That is not a solution together it is strong arm tactics that paid off for Cordish in KC but didn't work out for them in St. Louis. Did KC get results, yes. But their is a very defineable cost at end of day.

The part I don't know is what Cordish/DeWitt and Centene demanding and put on the table between them. In hindsight, it could have well been worth city to back bonds on a Centene Tower but not sure if that is what it came down too as my understanding is that Centene wanted the property to build on and Cordish/DeWitt weren't no going to relinquish or sell a portion of the development outright. So I really don't know

roger wyoming II · PostJun 09, 2015#20392015-06-09T18:31+00:00

dredger wrote: The part I don't know is what Cordish/DeWitt and Centene demanding and put on the table between them. In hindsight, it could have well been worth city to back bonds on a Centene Tower but not sure if that is what it came down too as my understanding is that Centene wanted the property to build on and Cordish/DeWitt weren't no going to relinquish or sell a portion of the development outright. So I really don't know

Right, we don't really know what goes on behind the scenes.... in that Centene situation I hope that the mayor was centrally involved and offered to do what was reasonable to seal the deal. Likewise, I hope the Mayor is apprised of plans/timing on Phase II and open to extending a bit more in incentives if it is warranted and helps get things done. Again, I'm not so sure we hit the sweet spot on proper incentives.... direct bond backing like KC is probably not warranted but bringing more funds to the financing table like Cincy appears to be able to do is something we should be more open to.

arch city · PostJun 09, 2015#20402015-06-09T19:36+00:00

dredger wrote:^ The SOLUTION you noted was KC handing Cordish a risk free way to build and then you turn around in the next paragraph and state that St. Louis shouldn't go down that route. Sorry, the KC solution is like me giving my kids everything they ask for. That is not a solution together it is strong arm tactics that paid off for Cordish in KC but didn't work out for them in St. Louis. Did KC get results, yes. But their is a very defineable cost at end of day.

Not to antagonize, but RE-READ SLOWLY what I wrote. SLOWLY.

With that said, all across the country, cities (both large and small) back bonds - including NYC - in order to get some viable projects done. Yes, sometimes cities get screwed.

But if you had read slowly what I wrote which was, "No one would ever suggest putting St. Louis' level of risk on par with KC's.", you would've understood that I understand the risk of city-backed bonds and the trepidation taxpayers have when it comes to city-backed bonds.

I stand by what I wrote.

And at the time of Cordishes' request for St. Louis to back bonds during the nation's economic crisis, St. Louis would have been foolish to back bonds because the economy was in the tank - and especially in light of what was happening in KC.

At the end of the day, no city backs bonds thinking it is actually going to be left in the lurch. We certainly know that St. Louis is risk adverse.

Nonetheless, it is risk-taking and a chance some cities are willing to take for economic development.

In St. Louis' own backyard, in 2010 the City of St. Charles backed $40-million in bonds for the long stalled Noah's Ark site.

In 2010.........during the recession, mind you.

The Noah's Ark site is now called Streets of St. Charles, and it was a $385-million investment in a long dormant , non-revenue producing site. It's now a suburban version of what BPV is supposed to be complete with apartments, a hotel, retail/restaurants, movie theater, offices, The Art Institute of St. Louis, etc.

Ribbon-cutting for Streets of St. Charles.

dredger wrote:The part I don't know is what Cordish/DeWitt and Centene demanding and put on the table between them. In hindsight, it could have well been worth city to back bonds on a Centene Tower but not sure if that is what it came down too as my understanding is that Centene wanted the property to build on and Cordish/DeWitt weren't no going to relinquish or sell a portion of the development outright. So I really don't know

That's why Slay, Cordish and the Cardinals should consider sharing some details consistently with the public on public record.

Certainly they don't have to, but as it has been suggested, reputation and trust are everything.

I trusted them for a long time. I don't anymore.

moorlander · PostJun 09, 2015#20412015-06-09T19:49+00:00

I spent last weekend with friends who live at the Streets of St. Chuck. It is light years ahead of Carpark Village.

arch city · PostJun 09, 2015#20422015-06-09T20:19+00:00

^And it appears Cullinan Properties and/or Balke-Brown Transwestern is planning a large office development at Streets based on the rendering.

moorlander · PostJun 09, 2015#20432015-06-09T21:00+00:00

Building 300, I think, has already broken ground. Retail signs already up for P.F. Changs.

dredger · PostJun 09, 2015#20442015-06-09T21:44+00:00

^ I don't believe Streets of St. Charles has near the immediate competition from Wash Ave to Union Station to the underutilized office space downtown. However, I think it brings a fair question back to the City in terms of BPV. The question in my mind is in part to Arch City and I's running argument what can be done in a hard, defineable, quantative manner. So looking at KC and Street of St. Charles what is the answer to the following

1) Does city back bonds for BPV Phase II?

An up and end down vote only from the crowd on this thread because I don't know if I can take another "look how great somewhere else is" posting.

americancitizen · PostJun 09, 2015#20452015-06-09T21:54+00:00

That comparison to the St. Charles development in terms of progress and city support is incredible. There is such a lack of leadership in St. Louis City & County.

And honestly Ballpark Village just sucks. The name is beyond gimmicky to the point of being downright stupid and it really has no place in a 21st century downtown. The places to eat would be right at home in 1990s Dallas-Fort Worth and the way the team & FSMW tout & revere the place is comical.

The broadcasts on TV have largely turned into one long informercial for Ballpark Village. Between that and the amateur comedy 3 hours from the broadcast team, its borderline unwatchable.

In fact, I honestly don't believe the Cardinals will every build anything more than what's there. There is too much easy money from parking and guaranteed fans/customers 81 days a year, its basically just a stadium facility, just like the souvenir stands outside the gates or the concession stands inside or like adding another section of seats or luxury boxes. Its for damn sure not a mixed use 24/7 development as touted. Why would they let go of the easy money?

roger wyoming II · PostJun 09, 2015#20462015-06-09T22:23+00:00

dredger wrote: Does city back bonds for BPV Phase II?

Depends on what they bring to the table.... if the project is for significant residential and an anchor corporate tenant new to the city then it would be foolish not to consider various forms of additional assistance.

dredger · PostJun 09, 2015#20472015-06-09T23:22+00:00

^ I believe KC and St. Charles voted on backing bonds without a hard fast tenant list and no doubt some flexibility to build out residential or office. So still looking for a hard yes or no from someone.

I vote NO and accept consequence of another long wait for phase II.

What I think would better use of resources and time

1) Propose streamlining business permitting and how the city earnings tax can go from 1% to 0.75 or even 0.5%. The city needs to find a way and tangible way to the business community that it want jobs, jobs, jobs. Otherwise, every CEO outside of the city core will keep adding jobs outside the city core.

2) Committ x dollars, say $10&15 to rebuild city street infrastructure between propose NGA site and I64 & I70 including a new 21st/22nd interchange/blvd for west downtown. A $1.6 billion dollar federal investment to retain 3000 jobs with the possibility of growing to 5000 is huge and is far more important to the city well being in the near future.

3) Cut a deal for BA direct London flight even if it helps everyone else on the city dime. It will be a huge asset to attract businesses to CORTEX.

4) Make sure NFL team stays in St. Louis. The national perception far outweighs what spotlight the next phase of BPV brings. I can't quantify it. In addition, yes you will be committing city tax revenues but it would bring additional $400 million investment and top line soccer facility for friendlies and maybe even a MLS

5) Heck, I think you can make an argument that committing city dollars without the county's help to make sure CVC expands the ballroom space and improve Edward Dome for conventions would be a better investment at the moment over BPV phase II and might very well convince Drury to go ahead and build a tower on the landing.

arch city · PostJun 09, 2015#20482015-06-09T23:29+00:00

DeWitt/Cordish keeps talking about building residential condos.

But the local condo market still isn't healthy. The condo market is still dragging in bigger markets too.

If they are so adamant about building condos at BPV, why not build condos AND high-end/luxury rentals?

They could easily build a mixed-use hotel/luxury apartment tower with first-floor retail with an attached garage on a corner of that monstrous parking lot. He could get height he desires and have a profitable Phase II.

There's no way it could fail. Apartment rentals are in demand and so are close-by hotel rooms.

He could save a spot for his desired condo building.

goat314 · PostJun 09, 2015#20492015-06-09T23:35+00:00

It goes like this!

Urbanist hate Ballpark Village, but the suburban masses think it is the coolest thing that St. Louis has built since the stadium. Urbanist would like the stadium folks to design the Rams stadium with the historic riverfront in mind, most St. Louisans would love to see the old warehouses on the North and South riverfront leveled. Urbanist think the next Metro extension should be the N-S line, because it would stimulate TOD and the best line from a social justice perspective. Drunken suburban sports fans want to see the Westport line, because then they can get totally wasted at the Cardinals, Blues, or Rams game and not have to worry about totaling their new Range Rover on I-64.

You get the gist yet?

Our urban city is the toy puppet of a largely suburban region.

americancitizen · PostJun 10, 2015#20502015-06-10T00:12+00:00

^No doubt. The urban setting and environment in St. Louis has been degraded so much to placate the automobile and demographics of the past 60 years that why would anyone expect anything else? The power and "tastemaking" in the region lies in West County, for better or worse. Until that changes, very few will buck the trend.

Ballpark Village

Choose Display Mode