urbanSTL

He seems to be saying that it's possible for it to fail. No Duh.

Hello....If I recall correctly, the plan includes approximately 2000 parking spots for residents and shoppers to park (save for Cardinal gamedays.) I really don't understand your arguments. Are you a part of the anti-downtown movement?



http://www.cordish.com/redir.asp?loc=ht ... illage.asp

Doug wrote:If I am wrong, and people would move Downtown for PF Changs and other stores which exist in the County, then where will they park? Are we going to demolish more historical buildings for ugly garages?

I agree.

tbspqr wrote:On the end of "resturant row" facing the "park" would be an awesome place for a huge 'times square' style video board...

JMedwick wrote:I am not saying that both parks can't be used. I mean heck, if both are/were surounded by solid density (offices on the Kiener garage site, a tower on Mike Shannons and on the GenAm building site) having both parks would be fine. Even without all of that, both parks maybe fine, as both can work well as good random lunch places in the summer. I mean the new BV park will be good for Cardinal games and as a gathering spot for the new development in the area and Kiener will likely continue to serve its current purposes, sans Cardinal pep rallys.



But you can't have all of this parkland downtown. There is already too much, most without any clear purpose. Untill the Mayor and others realise the harmful effects of too much green space, we will never see St. Louis reach its true potential. Desnity drives the need for green space. Green space should not drive the need for density...

Perhaps what will happen is that the BPV park and gateway mall combo will just further marginalize that pointless park in front of the Eagleton Courthouse.

Cards were listed as the third most popular franchise in baseball three years ago. 1. Yankees, 2. Braves, 3. Cardinals.



The Yanks have the history on their side. The Braves were the only team remotely covering the entire southland for years, and the Cards had KMOX who reached the netherregions of the country. The popularity of the Cards go well beyond the STL metro area. The Cubs dominate Chicago, but the southside does have a lot of loyal Sox fans. And the Cubs hold onto the northern half of IL before the Cards take over. The vast majority of Missouri are Cards fans. Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee (sat next to a guy from TN at Game 3), Kentucky, Kansas, Oklahoma. The Mets don't have much of a following outside of NY, unlike the Yankees. The Dodgers are in LA where loyalty is passe.



Just some stuff to chew on.



I'm excited for Ballpark Village. But one thing I noticed, in the Jaco report, there looked to be a really tall dark building behind BPV in the rendering they flashed up. It towered over the rest of the Village. It may have been my imagination, but I swear it was there. Does anyone know what rendering they used (it was in last nights broadcast, I think)? And did anyone else notice that?

The economy is slowing and the condo market is tanking. I don’t see Ballpark Village being built in the foreseeable future. The best thing to do with the land right now is to pave it over for parking.



Comment by jtg61 — October 27, 2006 @ 9:03 am

This si a quote from the Post Dispatch Talk of the Day forum. And here is another:

That reminds me, did anyone ever buy or move into all those new loft condo’s downtown? Or are they still big empty buildings. Where do those people buy their groceries?



Comment by Your mom — October 27, 2006 @ 10:34 am

And no, there were no sarcasm smileys. This may be totally off subject and tacky adn agaisnt teh rules to quote from a different site, but I just ahd to.

ChrisInDownTown wrote:

The economy is slowing and the condo market is tanking. I don’t see Ballpark Village being built in the foreseeable future. The best thing to do with the land right now is to pave it over for parking.



Comment by jtg61 — October 27, 2006 @ 9:03 am

This si a quote from the Post Dispatch Talk of the Day forum. And here is another:

That reminds me, did anyone ever buy or move into all those new loft condo’s downtown? Or are they still big empty buildings. Where do those people buy their groceries?



Comment by Your mom — October 27, 2006 @ 10:34 am

And no, there were no sarcasm smileys. This may be totally off subject and tacky adn agaisnt teh rules to quote from a different site, but I just ahd to.

Those Talk of the Day blog comments generally infuriate me, which is why I stopped reading them a while back. It's amazing how people who supposedly read the newspaper (through STLToday) can be so misinformed.

Some people will never be happy. Slay played hardball with Cordish and the Cards, ending up with an agreement which places less stress on public funding than was planned initially. This is pure win-win-win. Read here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument



Slay is quick to point out that city funds are not being used for Ballpark Village. "Everything for the project will come from the project," Slay said in a statement. "Not one dime of anyone's tax dollars will be used to build phase one of Ballpark Village unless they are a user or consumer of the shops, restaurants, retail stores, office space, or the condo tower." - Post Dispatch



This will be a jewel for St. Louis redevelopment and it will succeed. Why? Because it's bringing residents and vitality back to the city and is in alliance with the beloved Cardinals.



The hippy, anti-downtown movement can whine all they want, but it's a waste of breath as the jewel is being built. So I could really care less about how TIF was originally used 200 years ago or how the money should be given to people who destroy what is theirs and ask for handouts. The key aspect that many seem to miss is that the public funding will be paid by tax money generated by the BPV, whereas giving handouts to people doesn't generate any tax money in the first place.



Let's win game 5 and clinch this thing!

Doug wrote:What I am saying is that there be proof that this project will be a success! Where is the research showing villages such as these will actually attract residents all other things equal?



Justification for the tax incentives! This entire event was a classic tug of war between the developer and the City. Other areas of Downtown could be developed with the subsidy issued for this project and the Stadium. Did Cordish release their budget for the project showing a direct financial need for subsidy?



I find it hard to believe that the Cardinals and Cordish needed subsidy. There are smaller developers which really would need it.

I'm a little concerned about the "mid-rise" towers that are in the renderings on the west side of the development. If you look closely, some of the buildings have balconies - which means that they would be residential. So if phase 1 only has 250 units in 1 tower, then that means these "mid-rise" buildings would either have to be completely office space (doubtful), or will just become 1 or 2 story retail buildings (probable). I think these are key to the density of the development.



I hope I'm wrong - any one else notice this?

What I am saying is that there be proof that this project will be a success!

I'm just glad that August Chouteau didn't utter these words circa 1764.

Another angle from the St. Louis Cardinals Web site:

You can't prove or disprove something will succeed. If you could, no one would do anything that would fail.

I find it hard to believe that the Cardinals and Cordish needed subsidy. There are smaller developers which really would need it.

How many times do we have to say that the subsidies are generated from the project itself, so it will not be taking away any money from the city, or the city's ability to offer subsidies to smaller developers. If anything it will increase their abilities.



Have you heard of Pyramid and McGowan? One started rehabbing individual houses and now is the biggest private land owner in downtown, the other bought a couple of vacant brick buildings no one wanted and now wants to build an 81-story tower. These small developers have gotten pretty big and invested a lot in downtown with the help of subsidies.



Almost every new store or restaurant in downtown has received some type of subsidy from the city or a city backed organization.



Please tell us what smaller developers are not getting subsidies.

All these people who are against the tax incentives and public funding....just tell them to pretend BPV is being built in the county!

Serously, it's surprising how many people think this means tax monies that have already been collected through current taxes (property, etc.) will go to funding this. When I explain it, most seem to change their minds about being against the TIF.

What really strikes me when looking at this project is just how big it really is (even if it isn't 6 blocks has everyone seems to insist reporting). Take a look at the next two photos: the park and surrounding retail is just one of several hubs of activity within the development . . .











This project is big enough that different parts will evolve or develop differently. The park/courtyard may not prove to be the biggest draw for restaurants, but maybe Clark St. will - the covered section may not be accessible enough, but a Whole Foods facing Walnut could be wildly successful . . . you get the idea. I think a decent analogy would be the relative variety around 40/170. Maybe the Galleria fails one day, maybe the promenade, but not both and the Boulevard AND the WalMart/Lowes AND the Borders/Whole Foods . . . I recognize there are differences, but this is what came to mind.



The point? This development won't fail like a single mall, St. Louis Centre, or a Union Station could. No to mention the residential that will hopefully end up being 2,000+ residents . . .

Can't you just see all the homeless camped out in that park!

This would be a private development and the homeless would get their asses kicked off the park in a heartbeat. Rightfully so too. Lucas Park, near the library, is an embarassment with homless people littering and pissing all over the place.

Very Nice!

Very Exciting!







Nice Video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-MS5l-S8yc



Cards, city and developer gush over Ballpark Village plan

By Aisha Sultan

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

10/28/2006







ST. LOUIS — The Cardinals owners, their developer partner and city officials capitalized on the World Series euphoria Friday as they unveiled a model of the Ballpark Village project they hope will change the face of downtown.



Local business and civic leaders gushed during the announcement, describing the deal with Baltimore-based Cordish Co. as historic and one that could become the most significant economic development in the city in the past 25 years.



"It is much bigger and better than what was originally talked about," St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay said at a news conference Friday afternoon. The $387 million development would rely on more than $100 million in public funds to finance the project.



Cardinals Chairman Bill DeWitt Jr. said the mixed-use residential, retail and entertainment complex would change the way residents in the area shop and play. Advertisement



"This is about a life experience," DeWitt said. Boosters say the project will raise the city's profile, generate millions in tax revenue and draw additional development to the area.



"We didn't just get a ballpark, we literally have gotten an urban village," said Richard Fleming, president of St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association.



Yet, those critical of using public tax incentives for private development were quick to recall the promises made when the Cardinals and the city lobbied for tax subsidies for the new stadium.



"Ballpark Village was supposed to be something Cardinals owners were going to do out of civic pride," said Fred Lindecke, spokesman for the Coalition against Public Funding for Stadiums. "Nobody said back then, oh by the way, it's going to cost another $100 million in taxpayer money."



In 2002, the city agreed to waive its 5 percent ticket tax for the Cardinals in exchange for the team promising to spend a minimum of $60 million to develop at least two blocks of Ballpark Village adjacent to the new stadium.



Even with subsidies, Slay says, the expanded project, which is to cover six blocks, should generate twice as much tax revenue as a smaller, non-subsidized project. City officials estimate Ballpark Village will generate $291 million in new taxes over 40 years.



Moreover, Slay said that no existing tax dollars would be used for the project. The $116 million public portion of the funding would be raised upfront by issuing government bonds, which would be paid back by taxes generated by the project.



Slay stressed that he doesn't believe the project could happen without the tax incentives.



Lindecke countered that a project being billed as such an economic gem shouldn't need public assistance.



"The real reason they want it is because they know they can get it," he said.



Rosy predictions



At the gathering Friday, officials offered rosy economic forecasts. Fleming said the project would create 3,040 permanent new jobs, along with 3,000 more construction jobs.



Chairman David Cordish wore a red Cardinals jacket and described the endeavor as "life changing" for the city.



"You need a critical mass in one area that gives a sense of place that then spirals out and has ramifications beyond that area," Cordish said. The village model showcased bleachers on condominium towers, a Cardinals museum, boutique shops and anchor restaurants.



Cordish said the company hopes to break ground in the spring and have the first phase completed by the start of baseball season in 2009. The first phase of the project includes ground-level retail and entertainment venues, 250 condos and 100,000 square feet of office space. The company said it plans to hold many free events, such as concerts, fairs and movies, to generate traffic to the Village, especially during the offseason.



The project still must pass several rounds of state and local approval before the deal is final.



St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Jim Shrewsbury said he did not think the proposal would have much trouble getting the numerous approvals the project needs from the board.



"At the end of the day, we're going to have a Ballpark Village," Shrewsbury said. "I don't get the sense that there is any overwhelming political opposition to it."



The Cordish Co. will provide $271.2 million in private debt and equity. The rest of the financing breaks down as: $26 million from sales taxes charged at Ballpark Village venues; $5 million raised by the sale of bonds to Cordish Co. and its partners; $56 million from tax increment financing from the city; $29 million from the Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Act tax.



Skeptical public?



James A. Cloar, president of the Downtown St. Louis Partnership, said he realized that supporters faced a skeptical public perception about the funding. Despite the relatively lower tax subsidy for Busch Stadium compared to stadiums elsewhere, "the public still seems to think they paid for the ballpark."



He said the tax incentives offered to Cordish for Ballpark Village are an investment rather than a subsidy.



"This site is probably the premier redevelopment site in the country because of its location and cleared land,'' he said. "It really takes St. Louis to another level."



Jake Wagman of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument