Ballpark Village Towers and Mixed Use Project

threeonefour · PostOct 23, 2008#39262008-10-23T19:16+00:00

^ The KMOX website isn't cooperating for me right now, but I can't say this news comes as a surprise.

The present market conditions wouldn't be an issue if the Cardinals had their act together on one of the previous six or seven times they said they'd break ground at Ballpark Village. Granted, filling the retail and office space might be difficult even if there are some tenants committed to the project already, but the economy will turn around eventually, and at least construction would've been underway.

migueltejada · PostOct 23, 2008#39272008-10-23T22:15+00:00

markofucity wrote:Look - I'm skeptical this will get built too but it should be noted that the cardinals owners have NEVER been "just a baseball" company. They own the parking lots - they own radio stations - they own other things.

as for why they would build it if the penalties are lower than the cost of construction - well that's simple isn't it? Because it would make money. Maybe the current market conditions can't support it, but like many have said on this forum before: if you can't sell real estate with a view INTO Busch Stadium then this city should just pack up and go somewhere else. Likewise if you cant sell office space overlooking the stadium (and with walls that get broadcasted to millions of people throughout the year). I mean its a no brainer. Its like owning ocean front property.

Depends on the ocean! Also, if you live in a place where everyone is on the water, then having that view isn't so unique (not that nyone has a view to busch, but you get the idea).

I've said it a thousand times - why take the risk? Yes, they COULD have made money, but why risk it? The city virtually gave them a new stadium WHICH THE CARDS MAKE MONEY OFF OF - and by paying the penalty fees they avoid the risk of losing hundreds of millions in a failed development.

By the way, I know this is hard for people on this forum to realize, but Busch is NOT WRIGLEY. Part of the charm of those rooftop bleachers is that:

A - the majority of the games are played during the day

B - Wrigleyville is a fantastic neighborhood filled with housing, retail, and entertainment options.

The ballpark village, as envisioned, is little more than a stand alone project with little integrating it to the surrounds. Going north you're okish, but east? Nothing. West? Nothing. South? Nothing (besides the stadium).

Also, people think there's glamour in looking into the stadium fine - but what about those below the roofline? They miss out on free baseball, AND have to deal with all the noise and lights AT NIGHT. At Wrigley, at least the majority of those games are during working hours - you'd probably never even notice there was a game by the time you got home most days. I'm not saying a buidling wouldn't sell eventually, but people underestimate the appeal of a quiet night's sleep.

newstl2020 · PostOct 23, 2008#39282008-10-23T22:51+00:00

^Considering anyone above the 5th floor in any of the condos would see the field in any tower built along Clark, I don't really see your last point. Also, if they are smart (which I get the distinct impression they aren't), they would put groud floor retail, parking 5 or 6 stories, and have the first floor of condos have a view into the stadium.

Also, the area to the west of Busch is turning into probably (in addition to the washington loft corridor) one of the focal points of downtown residential with Magowan Walsh's redevelopment. Doesn't compare to wrigley, obviously, just saying.

markofucity · PostOct 24, 2008#39292008-10-24T02:49+00:00

why do people keep saying that the city GAVE them a stadium. Wasn't their request for public financing turned down? If I recall correctly - they ended up financing the stadium with almost all of their own money. I believe they received some tax breaks but those breaks were minimal (3 - 5%) - and FAR - FAR below what virtually every other stadium gets in this country. Am I wrong? please tell me if I am because this is a pet peeve of mine - you here it on sports radio all the time: "they built the stadium on the back of the taxpayers." I really think that false .... I've always understood that the new Busch had one of the highest percentages of private funding in the country. In fact, I could have sworn that HOK used Busch as example number one for their concluion that the era of pubolically financed satdiums was over. ...please tell me if I'm wrong.

PostOct 24, 2008#39302008-10-24T02:56+00:00

hmm .. I just spelled "hear" "here" .... disturbing.

stlcardsblues1989 · PostOct 24, 2008#39312008-10-24T03:36+00:00

Public financing: $45 million long-term loan from St. Louis County.

Private financing: $90.1 million from the Cardinals, $9.2 million in interest earned on the construction fund, and $200.5 million in bonds to be paid over a 22-year period ($15.9 million per year) by the team. Anheuser-Busch agreed to a 20 year naming rights deal (through the 2025 season) which will help offset construction costs.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/stlbpk.htm

Public Financing: 12%: Loan from St. Louis County

Private Financing: 88%: $90.1 from Cardinals, $200.5 million bonds, naming rights agreement

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/nl/BuschStadium.htm

And this ESPN link is interesting.

http://sports.espn.go.com/travel/stadiu ... m=mlb_2787

Compare to this Nationals Ballpark

Cost: $611 Million

Public Financing: 100% general obligation bonds

Private Financing: None

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/nl/NationalsPark.htm

I'm not sure what general obligation bonds are.

south compton · PostOct 24, 2008#39322008-10-24T11:53+00:00

General Obligation Bonds are secured by the full faith and credit of a city's taxing power (i.e., if the City didn't pay, the bondowners could have a court order the City to pay even if it required raising taxes).

In Missouri, you need an election to issue those type of Bonds.

tm8951 · PostOct 24, 2008#39332008-10-24T14:28+00:00

DeWitt gave a preview to the council, showing off the 20-story office building and entertainment district he hopes to build just north of Busch Stadium. The developers have lease agreements on 80 percent of the space in the first phase of Ballpark Village, contingent on March's bond sale, he said.

In the article it also stated they will go before the Missouri Board on Nov. 6 and everything is still progessing as expected......

Link to article

moorlander · PostOct 24, 2008#39342008-10-24T16:06+00:00

For comparison, here is a look at what our sister city built north of Camden Yards. They went a different route with a first class Hilton convention center hotel. The hotel is only 18 stories and the convention space is low rise. However, this scenario seems to really work here.

I think many of us think that this will be a huge bust if all the buildings aren't as tall as the clouds. But the truth is, there are other similarly sized cities with modest projects that really work. Not a bad view from my hotel room either, eh?

trauts · PostOct 24, 2008#39352008-10-24T16:38+00:00

I like the idea of scaling back the development (lower-rise 8-12 stories), but I don't want to see a bunch of faux historic buildings. And, less height in this development may increase the likelihood of office/residential replacing the stadium garages.

dredger · PostOct 24, 2008#39362008-10-24T18:06+00:00

newstl2020, you bring up a point on how do you develop phase I to optimize Phase II? The selling points on condo's as most people would seem to agree is that they have to look into the stadium. At the same time, having parking always pays for the owners/developers in my mind.

So my thought as a armchair developer, you will see the phase I office tower at the corner of Clark & Broadway and the entertainment district as low rise buildings along Clark as expected with future condo towers (with parking on floors 2-6) where Centene was going to locate. Heck, I bet they put in the parking garages in phase I since they will generate revenue without the need for sales or leases and then state that future condo's will go on top of the garages as part of phase II. A Hotel or another office tower will go where the bowling hall fame is currently located as possible phase II or phase III.

MattnSTL · PostNov 03, 2008#39372008-11-03T16:21+00:00

While talking with Don Roe on Saturday, he mentioned to look for news on BPV this week. I would assume this is related to the state incentives. I didn't get to push for more info.

yidnamu · PostNov 03, 2008#39382008-11-03T17:44+00:00

Dredger wrote:...I bet they put in the parking garages in...

So it may be wandering a bit from the topic, but am I think only person that thinks a) we have enough garages downtown and b) the garages we have look awful?

I would love to see all/part of our future parking needs served by putting the lots <u>underground</u>. Like maybe underneath the entire expanse of the Gateway Mall?

newstl2020 · PostNov 03, 2008#39392008-11-03T17:48+00:00

^I'm perfectly fine with above ground parking if they build it into the buildings as I stated on the last page. I think this is cheaper than building underground garages. As long as there are no parking only above ground structures I'm pretty indifferent.

dredger · PostNov 03, 2008#39402008-11-03T18:31+00:00

Is the Ballpark Village development plan suppose to be presented on Thursday, Nov. 6th? I'm I correct on that one? I was hoping a roll out in this weeks Business Journal, but nada.

tm8951 · PostNov 03, 2008#39412008-11-03T19:51+00:00

Dredger wrote:Is the Ballpark Village development plan suppose to be presented on Thursday, Nov. 6th? I'm I correct on that one? I was hoping a roll out in this weeks Business Journal, but nada.

Yes.

From STL Post:

The Cardinals and Cordish are due to present a site plan Nov. 6 to the Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority, one of several agencies that must approve public funding for the project.

Link to article:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument[/b]

jambalaya · PostNov 03, 2008#39422008-11-03T20:03+00:00

newstl2020 wrote:^I'm perfectly fine with above ground parking if they build it into the buildings as I stated on the last page. I think this is cheaper than building underground garages. As long as there are no parking only above ground structures I'm pretty indifferent.

I agree with you, I have seen buildings with an integral design of above ground parking structures - it can be done very successfully. To provide structured parking above grade can typically range between $15,000.00 - $18,000.00 per parking space (the range is driven by the actual spandrel panel material, bay spacing). To go below grade with your structured parking will typically range between $20,000.00 - $25,000.00 per parking space - this range is driven by the subsurface conditions and the proposed depth of the parking structure.

jrathert · PostNov 03, 2008#39432008-11-03T20:23+00:00

tm8951 wrote:
Dredger wrote:Is the Ballpark Village development plan suppose to be presented on Thursday, Nov. 6th? I'm I correct on that one? I was hoping a roll out in this weeks Business Journal, but nada.
Yes.

From STL Post:

The Cardinals and Cordish are due to present a site plan Nov. 6 to the Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority, one of several agencies that must approve public funding for the project.

Link to article:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument[/b]

Feel free to delete this after it's changed, but I figured I'd post the link for those who don't know to remove the closing bold tag:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument

yidnamu · PostNov 03, 2008#39442008-11-03T23:25+00:00

jambalaya wrote:
newstl2020 wrote:As long as there are no parking only above ground structures I'm pretty indifferent.

I agree with you, I have seen buildings with an integral design of above ground parking structures - it can be done very successfully.

Agreed - above ground parking structures *can* be done well / integrated into building design and invisible to the casual observer / visually appealing. And I acknowledge that subterranean construction is going to be more expensive. I guess my beef is with the half-dozen legacy parking structures downtown that *aren't* done well. I hate walking/driving the streets of downtown and passing in some cases multiple blocks of garage space (empty except at peak time): corner of 4th & Clark, 8th & Clark, Broadway & Chestnut, 6th & Chestnut, 6th & Pine, 7th & Lucas, 9th & St. Charles come to mind. 10th & (Poplar?) is a newer example, or the one going up at 12th & Clark. A few garages are an improvement over a downtown full of surface lots, true. And I accept that volume parking for peak hours is necessary. Ours garages, however, are almost universally ugly and more than half are the death of street life, lacking first floor retail. Perhaps there are other more important priorities for repairing the fabric of downtown, but I'd love to see these be renovated/redesigned.

Again, sorry for from wandering from the topic

MattnSTL · PostNov 06, 2008#39452008-11-06T17:13+00:00

MODESA board gives green light to Ballpark Village

A new development agreement was drafted this year with major changes, including the removal of condos at Ballpark Village. Now as many as 250 condos may be built in the project, but in a later phase, said Cardinals President Bill DeWitt III. DeWitt III and Cordish's Project Manager Chase Martin presented a new development plan for the project to the MODESA board Thursday morning.

If the development agreement is approved by the board of aldermen and the Missouri Development Finance Board in the coming months, construction on Ballpark Village is set to begin next spring, with the first phase completed in spring 2011.

The initial phase of the project will have a minimum of 325,000 square feet of office space, 250,000 square feet of retail space, and 1,200 parking spaces. The development cost for the project, which previously ranged between $387 million and more than $600 million, will depend on what gets built on the site, Martin said.

Financial services firm Stifel Finacial Corp. and law firm Polsinelli are in negotiations to be anchor tenants, although developers did not disclose potential tenants at the meeting. "(Demand for) office leasing has truly been something we had hoped for but didn't anticipate," Martin said. "I can say with confidence this project has captured the imagination (of retailers) worldwide and certainly in North America."

DeWitt said a general contractor will be named next spring. "In the spring of 2009, after the bonds are sold, we'll see some initial investment," DeWitt said.

Entire Article

jlblues · PostNov 06, 2008#39462008-11-06T17:42+00:00

The development cost for the project, which previously ranged between $387 million and more than $600 million, will depend on what gets built on the site, Martin said.

Really!?!

newstl2020 · PostNov 06, 2008#39472008-11-06T18:42+00:00

It's going to start next spring! (I'm waiting for the cardinal's "mission accomplished" banner)

MattnSTL · PostNov 06, 2008#39482008-11-06T18:46+00:00

The Mission Accomplished banner went up a long time ago- with the same results.

jlblues · PostNov 06, 2008#39492008-11-06T19:51+00:00

From the BJ article:

If there is a gap in financing next year, the city has pledged to work with the Cardinals and Cordish to help them identify third party allocatees of federal New Markets Tax Credits, which could help cover a funding gap.

If a third-party allocatee cannot be identified, city officials said they will consider committing up to half of the St. Louis Development Fund's New Markets Tax Credits allocation of $45 million that was announced by the U.S. Treasury in October.

An allocation of $22.5 million in New Markets Tax Credits would translate into about $5 million in equity for Ballpark Village in that scenario, said SLDC Executive Director Rodney Crim.

MattnSTL · PostNov 06, 2008#39502008-11-06T19:55+00:00

^That was not originally in the article. If I were the Cardinals I would make sure there is an approximately $5 Million gap in the financing.

Ballpark Village Towers and Mixed Use Project

Choose Display Mode