urbanSTL

As long as Downtown as a whole is healthy, I'm not especially concerned about Ballpark Village. Yes, I would like to see something there, but I'm not sure it's a huge embarrassment. I think most people who visit don't really think about it.

I can't be too hard on the Cardinals. Yes, they need to do something there, but they can't if nobody will sign on to lease space there. Aren't many of our Downtown buildings partially vacant anyway? Do we need more office space? Plus, the Cardinals did pay for most of their stadium themselves. That is a rarity in today's world.

I wouldn't compare us to Detroit. I'm not sure of their Downtown situation, but their city is over $300 million in debt and many parts of it are crumbling. I think St. Louis is a healthier city (still has issues of course). I'd take a healthier city over a more ritzy Downtown. I think Downtown Detroit might have more daily workers than Downtown St. Louis, but it's also a bigger city and bigger metro. To me it seems like Detroit's Downtown is more the focus of everything (maybe Corktown as well as Downtown, but they're very close to each other), whereas with St. Louis people go Downtown but they also go to Soulard and Central West End and various places around. As long as the money goes back to the city, I don't think there's anything wrong with having multiple neighborhoods that draw people. I think St. Louis' Downtown is doing okay without Ballpark Village for now.

moorlander wrote:Breaking ground this month?

Bill Dewitt interview from 12/12/12 where he "explains" the delays and would start this month. Feel free to listen yourself. Section 3

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R ... s-One.aspx

^ Didn't the Cardinals finance ~$290 million of the ~$365 million and receive ~$50 loan from StL county? I'd put that in the "most" column.

arch city wrote:

moorlander wrote:

moorlander wrote:Breaking ground this month?

Bill Dewitt interview from 12/12/12 where he "explains" the delays and would start this month. Feel free to listen yourself. Section 3

Thanks for the link. Hopefully, we can trust what he says. I do think ground-breaking is imminent based on the last few minutes of the interview.

It would be nice if a new apartment tower is announced. If not, I am happy to hear that the Bowling Hall of Fame eyesore is coming down in the first phase.

Agree, it would be nice if residential tower would be announced, planned, anything at this point. I think it says something of Twinsville that the first project to break ground by Hines was residential. I believe second tier office markets will do much better with residential developement in the near future, Oklahoma City being the exception. Unfortunately, I think BPV lack of progress is reflection of DeWitt picking the wrong partner

I read that Hines Development is proceeding with speculative 40 story downtown office building in Chicago. Lost the article, believe it was Engineering News Record link. However, the article did a good job of explaining that their is some thawing in new office development but essentially limited to large office markets such Manhatten, San Fran and Chicago.

dredger wrote:Agree, it would be nice if residential tower would be announced, planned, anything at this point. I think it says something of Twinsville that the first project to break ground by Hines was residential. I believe second tier office markets will do much better with residential developement in the near future, Oklahoma City being the exception. Unfortunately, I think BPV lack of progress is reflection of DeWitt picking the wrong partner

I read that Hines Development is proceeding with speculative 40 story downtown office building in Chicago. Lost the article, believe it was Engineering News Record link. However, the article did a good job of explaining that their is some thawing in new office development but essentially limited to large office markets such Manhatten, San Fran and Chicago.

Now that's a company the DeWitt's should partner with. Hines just finished up this 250-rental unit, 15-story beauty in Old Town on Chicago's Near North Side and were able to do so relatively quickly...considering Chicago development hoops, expected push back from this affluent Gold Coast-ish neighborhood, and preservation requirements for an old street-level facade. And yes, it's been reported they'd be working on the multi-phase Wolf Point residential tower and the 44-story 444 W. Lake office building. So they might be a little busy, to say the least...

Alex Ihnen wrote:

stlcardsblues1989 wrote:As long as Downtown as a whole is healthy, I'm not especially concerned about Ballpark Village. Yes, I would like to see something there, but I'm not sure it's a huge embarrassment. I think most people who visit don't really think about it.

I can't be too hard on the Cardinals. Yes, they need to do something there, but they can't if nobody will sign on to lease space there. Aren't many of our Downtown buildings partially vacant anyway? Do we need more office space? Plus, the Cardinals did pay for most of their stadium themselves. That is a rarity in today's world.

A couple issues here: You first seem to imply that downtown is healthy and then say that there's no demand for BPV and many downtown buildings are partially vacant. The Cardinals failure to build here has been detrimental to downtown. Also, the Cardinals absolutely did not pay for most of their stadium - unless you count the tax revenue the city has forgone and given to the Cardinals, which they then spent on the stadium.

I think overall Downtown is much healthier than it was ten years ago. It's a lot more occupied than it used to be. I could be wrong but I have read about Downtown buildings having vacant space. I wonder if new buildings might take businesses away from those buildings. I'm wondering how much of a demand there is. Unless these companies have to have new office buildings. That would be a different story. I'm just questioning how much demand there is, especially in this economy. How can we expect the Cardinals to build these buildings if there is not the demand yet? I understand they promised, but that was before the economy tanked. I'd rather let the land stay vacant for a while than build buildings that will be empty for a while.

I have to give the Cardinals some credit. They have been Downtown since 1966 and didn't leave even when Downtown was a wreck (like in the 1980s). Other teams fled their cities during that time and the Cardinals didn't. So I personally can't be too harsh with them. I'm not saying the city should bend over backwards for the Cardinals, but the Cardinals haven't been leeches, anyway.

moorlander wrote:^ Didn't the Cardinals finance ~$290 million of the ~$365 million and receive ~$50 loan from StL county? I'd put that in the "most" column.

That's what I was referring to.

Let's look just at NL Central Parks
Busch Stadium - 12% public financing
Great American Ballpark - 82% public financing
Miller Park - 66% public financing
Minute Maid Park - 68% public financing
PNC Park - 70% public financing
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/NationalLeague.htm

St. Louis taxpayers got off fairly easy. Yes there are further tax issues, but the initial financing mostly came from the Cardinals and naming rights and bonds.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I don't think you can say that the Cardinals got the new stadium virtually for free. The revenue lost by the city by dropping the ticket tax does not go to the Cardinals owners (although perhaps secondarily they may sell a few more tickets b/c of overall lower ticket costs) but rather remains in the pockets of the ticket payers and the $45M bond still only covered a relatively low percentage of overall building costs. But it certainly is fair to say that the taxpayers made a substantial investment that isn't always appreciated.

I try to appreciate that the city and county gave up some of their tax money. I know the taxpayers are still paying. I understand that. I'm saying from the outset the Cardinals paid for most of the stadium building. Looking at what other cities have paid, St. Louis wasn't fleeced.

As far as DeWitt buying the team for relatively cheap in 1995, that just shows why he is a billionaire, he knows a good deal when he sees one.

Alex Ihnen wrote: That's not true. Did the Cardinals lower ticket prices when the new stadium opened? No. It's very simple: the city is giving back more than $300M in tax revenue to the Cardinals that it would have otherwise collected. That's a $300M public cost.

This may not be an unbiased source, but it shows that the Cardinals and affiliates have paid $175 million in taxes to the city and state from 2006-2011. That's nothing to sneeze at.
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/stl/ba ... ancing.jsp

The Cardinals paid the great majority of the upfront money for the ballpark and likely will bring in more tax money than the city and county lose on the concessions they made to the Cardinals. So it seems well worth it.

So I can't be too harsh on the Cardinals and demand they build if the market doesn't demand it yet. I'm willing to be a little patient. Maybe others aren't, but I am. The Cardinals are an asset that did not demand their entire stadium paid for and stayed in the city when they didn't have to. So I have to give DeWitt and his group some credit.

I'd like to see Ballpark Village built on, but not if the demand is not there yet. Otherwise they'll be empty or mostly empty buildings for a few years.

I still say the city and county got off easy considering what other cities have paid for teams that generate less revenue.

THISCLOSE....maybe

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... n-the.html

Alex Ihnen wrote:Huh, wonder where they learned that... From the nextSTL Twitter account early this AM: "Big news at Ballpark Village: they're set to move dirt, literally. 601 Clark issued $385,000 grading only permit."

At least you know they are following!

Groundbreaking is scheduled for Friday, February 8, 2013.

The new rendering looks better than the old, can someone post it.

Eh, it looks OK, just hope it turns out better than P&L