I believe STL avoided this problem entirely by refusing to insure the bonds for Ballpark Village. In Kansas City, the bonds for the Power and Light district were backed by the city.
"No one ever dreamed the market would do what it did," said Kansas City Finance Director Jeffrey Yates.
Yes they did. People like you didn't want to hear it.
Yeah, I hate it when people start saying stuff like that. Plenty of people saw this coming from a mile away. Even my dad was talking about the credit crisis years ago. And if my dad knew about it, then the Finance Director definitely should have been privy.
It's easier to judge in retrospect but his comment is just plain ignorant. Finance Directors have a responsibility to manage risk. Yet he thinks he can blame it on the economy? Little does he know that actions like his caused the bubble to burst in the first place.
Some people think St. Louis has a problem with TIF abuse. But it really pales in comparison to KC, which backs a large portion of its projects with public money, so the city is on the hook.
St. Louis rarely has backed TIF projects with tax payer money if it fails to perform. They learned their lesson early with St. Louis Marketplace on Manchester which was backed by taxpayer dollars and then failed.
My post is probably suited for another thread. But, the article is a great statement why I'm dead set against the Roger Brothers getting a TIF for a ferris wheel. You need to draw a line. I'm curious on St. Louis Marketplace, so far it has failed for its intended desire. However, I believe they have enough space leased to cover payments without help from the city so far. I'm I correct? As far as KC, at least they were smart enough to put the Walmart where the failing mall was. We tear down houses first.
Bringing this around to BPV. Does the new agreement obligate enough square footage for a downtown/urban location? It was good not sucking into the bond payment ordeal. However, my laymens opinion believe that this land will be underutilized even when something is built. That will also be a failure for the city in lossed opportunities and future tax revenues
MattonArsenal wrote:St. Louis rarely has backed TIF projects with tax payer money if it fails to perform. They learned their lesson early with St. Louis Marketplace on Manchester which was backed by taxpayer dollars and then failed.
Coould you elaborate on this? The Robert E. Lee got TIF, for one thing. For another, are you saying that the city is so darned good at due diligence that it doesn't grant TIFs except to "sure thing" projects? Does anyone have any data on TIFs granted, TIFs outstanding and TIFs paid back?
^Most TIF's are not guaranteed by city taxpayer dollars. Which means that if the project fails to produce enough revenue to cover the bond payments, the developer is on the hook instead of the city. This does not mean they don't grant TIF's for bad projects. The only guaranteed TIF's that I know of are St. Louis Marketplace, which was the city's first, and the purchase of One City Centre by Pyramid Construction.
This is off topic, but even though St. Louis Centre looks vacant, it is almost fully occupied. The whole western portion is occupied by a dance apparel manufacturer. They have a small store, but are largely wholesale. This company is the go to company for dance wear in the country. Not saying it should stay in it's current form, but there is an active and tax producing use. Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.
I live near this craphole as well. It should be repurposed with more dense commercial development, and take the used car dealerships along with it as well. Take that Walgreen's too.
Does St. Louis Market Place hold the last Big K left in the US? At least if we get some snow the parking lot is a great area to do some donuts! Oh wait this is the BPV thread.......oh yeah you could do some great donuts on that piece of property as well, just be sure not to hit any construction vehicles or brand new buildings. LOL.
However, my laymens opinion believe that this land will be underutilized even when something is built. That will also be a failure for the city in lossed opportunities and future tax revenues
For those out there (like me) that want residential to be built in this area, I think this statement will prove to be absolutely true.
They had the option in KC to build several blocks of residential and opted against it. Instead, they built several blocks of one to two story buildings containing bars, restaurants, some retail, and a grocery store. Also, there is the HR Block headquarters, which is several stories tall, but is not a looming presence in the KC skyline.
I presume our BPV will be very similar. A few big office towers will be surrounded by two stories of bar malls.
I just don't think building residential properties is within the bar mall niche they have carved for themselves, so they will avoid it at all costs.
My prediction: they don't build any residential in BPV.
However, my laymens opinion believe that this land will be underutilized even when something is built. That will also be a failure for the city in lossed opportunities and future tax revenues
For those out there (like me) that want residential to be built in this area, I think this statement will prove to be absolutely true.
They had the option in KC to build several blocks of residential and opted against it. Instead, they built several blocks of one to two story buildings containing bars, restaurants, some retail, and a grocery store. Also, there is the HR Block headquarters, which is several stories tall, but is not a looming presence in the KC skyline.
I presume our BPV will be very similar. A few big office towers will be surrounded by two stories of bar malls.
I just don't think building residential properties is within the bar mall niche they have carved for themselves, so they will avoid it at all costs.
My prediction: they don't build any residential in BPV.
I think you're right. As much abuse as there is of eminent domain, this to me would've been the perfect time to use that tool. The Cardinals owners are too busy counting their money to focus on upgrading the team let alone making sure that Ballpark Village is built to its full potential. I wish the city could've at least claimed part of the site to move the Centene development forward, although part of me thinks it was only a bluff, not unlike the Cardinals' empty threat to move to Illinois.
I think we'll be lucky if we see one or two midrises or relatively short highrises on the site, and like you, I don't think residential will be included even though just about anyone but the people at Cordish will tell you it's a no-brainer to include highrise residential across Clark Avenue from the stadium. The rest will look like, as you said, a bar mall. Bleh.
ThreeOneFour wrote:
I think we'll be lucky if we see one or two midrises or relatively short highrises on the site, and like you, I don't think residential will be included even though just about anyone but the people at Cordish will tell you it's a no-brainer to include highrise residential across Clark Avenue from the stadium. The rest will look like, as you said, a bar mall. Bleh.
I think one thing that does bode well for residential was the extremely strong sales for Ballpark Lofts across the street. The one across from the stadium sold out immediately, if I recall? I know I was interested, but didn't have a chance to get in on it.
Ballpark Lofts #8 already has over 40 occupants of the 68 lofts that were available for sale. They sold out in about two hours but some people later jumped to Ballpark Lofts #9 (closest to the stadium) because Blue Urban allowed them to do so.
I have a loft in #8 and would jump at the chance to get residential on Clark Avenue.
stlbaseball wrote:Ballpark Lofts #8 already has over 40 occupants of the 68 lofts that were available for sale. They sold out in about two hours but some people later jumped to Ballpark Lofts #9 (closest to the stadium) because Blue Urban allowed them to do so.
I have a loft in #8 and would jump at the chance to get residential on Clark Avenue.
How's construction coming along on #8 and #9? I was in the Cupples area on Monday and couldn't get much of a feel for how it's progressing.
This arguably the easiest land to develop in the whole region. The fact that Cordish and the Cardinals have not jumped on this opportunity means two things:
1) They are incompetent, which probably means this will end up being a low grade project when developed. Only an idiotic developer would underestimate the Cardinal's fan base (which is among the strongest fan bases in any American sport......period!). Who cant look across the street and realize that the Ballpark Lofts are selling like hotcakes.
2) They have no confidence in the city, downtown, or the region for that matter. So they want the public to subsidize their project! That becomes a win-win situation for Cordish and nobody else. If the project succeeds good for them, if the project fails at least Cordish didn't pick up the tab.
I think all of us know that downtown could sustain the original glamorous plan they proposed, residential towers in all. The condos would sell out before the shovel even hit the ground. There are enough wealthy Cardinal fans from the region and places as far as Indiana, Iowa, and Kentucky that would jump at a chance to buy a condo at Ballpark Village. Cordish is a joke (which is starting to come to light in other cities where they screwed projects up) and if they find a way to sleeze out of building residential in this one, I would rather we find another developer or scratch out the BPV deal and sue the Cards.
