urbanSTL

I wish cordish would give us some info on the tenants...I feel like this couldn't be more different from that white dinosaur... I really don't see any similarities at all, actually... maybe i'm wrong but I thought the tenant mix was going to be more entertainment/food/bar/grocery/bowling, not clothing stores or anything similar to a mall... Also, again I could be wrong but I don't think there will be 30+ tenants, and surely not 80 or how ever many there were at st. louis center..



I'm looking at this project, not as one development, but the development of several DT blocks...

I'm actually glad that there will be more clothing/traditional retail. DT already has the whole entertainment thing going for it. I'd like to see more activities thrown into the mix to make it a truly dynamic and interesting place to be. And you can bet that the BPV will have its fair share of bars and restaurants.

steve wrote:I'm actually glad that there will be more clothing/traditional retail. DT already has the whole entertainment thing going for it. I'd like to see more activities thrown into the mix to make it a truly dynamic and interesting place to be. And you can bet that the BPV will have its fair share of bars and restaurants.

do we know this? I haven't heard anything to suggest that

The map includes a strip for "boutique retail," I assumed that meant some smaller traditional retail stores.

indeed...I wonder where the whole foods will go?

bpe235 wrote:maybe i'm wrong but I thought the tenant mix was going to be more entertainment/food/bar/grocery/bowling, not clothing stores or anything similar to a mall..

By this statement I thought you were suggesting that there would be more traditional retail.



As another pointed out, the will be "boutique" retail, in addition to a bookstore.

From the PD via the Mayor's blog:



http://www.mayorslay.com/news/display.asp?prID=500



I though it was a reasonable commentary until I got to this:

In its first 40 years of operation, city officials say, the project will generate $300 million in new taxes for the city and $408 million for the state. Said Blake Cordish, the firm’s vice president and point man for the St. Louis project, "Statistically, it’s basically impossible for the city not to make tens of millions more in taxes on this project."

Seems like fodder for anti-BPV'ers. These statements/projections are simply rediculous. On the positive side, it seems that the city understood what some on this forum were saying - in short, the site is so lucrative that the vast majority of risk should be assumed by the developers.

They already do assume ALL of the risk.

Maybe I should have used the term "opportunity cost." There is risk shouldered by multiple parties. Anytime a development is chosen in the city, it is a risk for the city.

Whether we see risk in it or not is irrelevant. If this property was seen as being risk free or a cherry picked development then we would have developers fighting over it bidding it up, and Tif would not even have been an issue. Obviously a developer or any smart business owner is going to get all he can, but the competition was not there; or at least from what I have seen ,so this is what you are left with.

guys - I really can't see how this is a bad deal for the city. I don't have ANY problems with it. Well - I'd like to see it all built at once, but other than that - good God what does this city expect. We're talkign about adding SIX BLOCKS of dense, well designed urban development to downtown. St. Louis should be doing cartwheels over this.

I like the park. It adds a nice element to BPV...that is if it looks like this.

Ihnen wrote:Anyone else think Circle Centre shares some similarities with St. Louis Centre?

Yes. And it's no coincidence. Both malls were developed by Simon (the headquarters is in Indianapolis). You can say with some certainty that Simon learned from mistakes made at Saint Louis Centre when they developed their signature property for their hometown.



Circle Centre is by no means perfect, but Simon righted a couple of wrongs made here in Saint Louis by preserving and/or restoring the facades/front elevations of the original buildings on the mall site, and this created storefronts thereby making the exterior much more inviting IMHO.



(It also helps that Nordstrom and Parisian/Belk are viable anchors with no prior presence in Indy that were attracted to the site, whereas here in St. Louis, Dillard's invested nothing in the downtown store and Famous-Barr's benign neglect of its downtown store had already started as the Centre opened.)



Anyway, I can't say I really see any similarities between this development and St. Louis Centre. I wouldn't be surprised to see a handful of specialty shops mixed in with restaurant and entertainment options, but that's where the similarity ends IMHO. St. Louis Centre was designed with little if any regard to the outside world. Ballpark Village, from what I can see, will create a sense of place all its own without abandoning its ties to the surrounding blocks of downtown.

markofucity wrote:guys - I really can't see how this is a bad deal for the city. I don't have ANY problems with it. Well - I'd like to see it all built at once, but other than that - good God what does this city expect. We're talkign about adding SIX BLOCKS of dense, well designed urban development to downtown. St. Louis should be doing cartwheels over this.

My sentiments exactly. I only wish we had half of the hand-wringing over other projects in the area that have received TIF or other public assistance. Unlike other developments which simply siphon businesses and tax revenue from one suburb to another, this is an opportunity to strengthen the ongoing downtown renaissance and attract quality tenants that are either new to Saint Louis or are committed to putting their local flagship store/restaurant/whatever in Ballpark Village.

Amen!

markofucity wrote:good God what does this city expect. We're talkign about adding SIX BLOCKS of dense, well designed urban development to downtown. St. Louis should be doing cartwheels over this.

Do we have any timelines defined for this project yet? I am sure they are pretty far from publishing any building plans.

Open by Spring 2009.

By the renderings it doesnt appear as if this project connects well enough with is surroundings. The restaurants are in the middle of the project and everything seems closed off. Does anyone else agree?

^ i'm annoyed that they didn't do more to follow the street grid...I mean only 7th and clark are going to thru streets...whats up with that...I wish they would have followed the street grid exactly...!!!

Agreed. Also instead of having the restaurant row in the middle wouldnt it make more sense for them to face the stadium? People can enjoy eating right across the street from the stadium.

Can someone post a link to the rendering?

The Post had a pretty good editorial today (or was it yesterday?) explaining just how the TIF will work. Basically, they said that if you buy a Cardinal's cap at a shop in Ballpark Village, then part of the sales tax from your purchase will go for the Village funding. If you never buy anything at Ballpark Village, then not one cent of your money will ever go to the financing. Hopefully this kind of plain-talk will bring around some of the anti-TIF people.

Framer wrote:The Post had a pretty good editorial today (or was it yesterday?) explaining just how the TIF will work. Basically, they said that if you buy a Cardinal's cap at a shop in Ballpark Village, then part of the sales tax from your purchase will go for the Village funding. If you never buy anything at Ballpark Village, then not one cent of your money will ever go to the financing. Hopefully this kind of plain-talk will bring around some of the anti-TIF people.

I still find it funny, or perhaps a bit sad, that many of the folks frothing at the mouth over this don't bat an eye when suburban developers take advantage of the same incentives to build monstrosities like Gravois Bluffs or Chesterfield Commons (both of which, arguably, have simply siphoned businesses and revenue from other centers in other suburbs).



I didn't see the P-D editorial yet, but I'm glad to see them attempt to clear the air.

I like the renderings, the park and the street layout. It does look like most of the restaurants are in the middle, but on one of the renderings (page 75 last photo), it looks like a 2nd and 3rd level balcony/restaurant type business which would have a view into the ballpark. This is on the southeastern most block. I like the idea of people wander all the different streets before and after the games as opposed to having a majority of people clustered together on a jam-packed Clark Street. Also, why should the streets follow a traditional street grid; to accommodate cars? The layout seems to encourage people to wander the streets on foot and explore the surrounding blocks around the stadium. I especially like the narrow streets around the park and little alleys and pedestrian walkways connecting to the surrounding streets. In total, there are 7 streets or pedestrian walkways leading to the center restaurant row and park. I just don’t see this being closed off. It’s good to see a project bold enough to think outside the typical “street” grid.