urbanSTL

Construction should have started long ago if they have leased 80% of the available space. That just simply cannot be true.

^It is if 75% of it is a parking lot.

STLCardsBlues1989 wrote:Unless you were looking for something else.

Maybe they've improved the search engine since I last used it. I try to avoid STLtoday.com as much as possible- typically I only use it whenever I need to link to a story for one of my posts here. It's almost as if the site designers sit around and say, "What else can we do to make this site slower and more user-unfriendly?".



It won't be long until the grass starts growing at Ballpark Village. Hoo-rah.

^I'm with you. I've completely sworn off their site.



Problem is, even if your development is 80% leased, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to get the financing right now. Things should loosen up in a few months. In the mean time, let's hope Cordish is busy finishing up all the legal details, so they can start digging as soon as the money starts flowing again.

^I'm not a banker, but 80% PRE-leased would qualify for pretty much any large construction loan on the planet.

I think I saw this one coming a long time ago; some generic buildings and a 20 story tower.

newstl2020 wrote:^I'm not a banker, but 80% PRE-leased would qualify for pretty much any large construction loan on the planet.

You are correct. The problem is that they don't want to put the other 20% down, but instead are intent waiting for months (maybe years) while the public financing is approved and provided to pay for it.



Again, the city should have offered to build a street grid and utilities on the land in exchange for the Cardinals putting each parcel up for sale separately. That way developers could have developed each separately as the market dictated, and the city would simply provide the infrastructure for the development.



But what do I know, it's not like I run a major city or own a baseball team.

Call me boring, but I would like to see BPV grow organically over time.

^I agree...How many 'magic bullet' projects have come and gone over the last 60 years.



St. Louis Centre

Union Station

Mansion House

Convention Center... etc.



Look where they got us. Some are marginally successful, most of course were not.



Let the market dictate what goes there...Hell we've lost Husch Blackwell Sanders and Centene already because they couldn't wait for BPV to happen.

metzgda wrote:

newstl2020 wrote:^I'm not a banker, but 80% PRE-leased would qualify for pretty much any large construction loan on the planet.

You are correct. The problem is that they don't want to put the other 20% down, but instead are intent waiting for months (maybe years) while the public financing is approved and provided to pay for it.



Again, the city should have offered to build a street grid and utilities on the land in exchange for the Cardinals putting each parcel up for sale separately. That way developers could have developed each separately as the market dictated, and the city would simply provide the infrastructure for the development.



But what do I know, it's not like I run a major city or own a baseball team.

(apologies for the extensive quote) I know the overall economy has shifted drastically, but Im confused as to why this would have any type of a delay if the project is 80% pre-leased. Skyhouse, while it was still on the table, required 40% pre-sold condos before its loan would have been approved for construction. I understand that the over-leveraging involved before this meltdown was a major problem, but requiring more than double the amount of pre-leasing after the meltdown to give the green-light to a project? I guess what I'm saying is that this statement doesn't make any sense to me and in all probability contains a huge amount of fiction. Thoughts?

There tens if not hundreds of 'things' that need to happen before a project like this can begin. You have site plans, surveys, engineering, financing (public and private), contractors, sub contractors, leasing agreements, contracts, etc etc etc... You are only considering one.

^ come on "economic warming"... melt that iceberg.

Finally something to be proud of!

How come nobody was invited to the groundbreaking?



I need to run over there and stamp it out!

I knew those images would be uploaded at some point today... I can see the actual work from our office window. Priceless.

Did they get a TIF for that?

Funny and sad at the same time.

But it made me smile.

I agree the Cubs suck, but at least they have a genuine ballpark village.

The mention of Wrigley brings up a point. If you were DeWitt and you owned the midrise buildings across the street in the faux village would you build them high enough to get a few roof top bleachers going? Would anybody bother to pay to get on the roof considering that DeWitt & Cordish would be getting the cash. Finally, the more I type the more I realize that I really hate myself for thinking about it since this would only amount to a rip off meant to bleed more money out of Card Fans.

^ I like your idea about the ferris wheel at ballpark village. That would be some cool views from inside the stadium and from the wheel.



Just in case you guys haven't seen it, here's KC P&L, which will mostly likely be the exact same thing we will get (only tailored to a "baseball" theme).



http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164296



Not a bad looking development, but I think St. Louis has the potential to do so much more with condo development than KC can. Most of us agree that a condo looking into Busch would sale before they even got built.

^ I agree with some of the people on that forum. It feels like a mall, and I think it is because they attempted to build an entire district all at once. And is there any residential? I don't see any.

brody wrote:^ I agree with some of the people on that forum. It feels like a mall, and I think it is because they attempted to build an entire district all at once.

Yeah, it has been proven time and time again throughout history: the best cities are created with organic growth, not with big sweeping ideas that (usually) neglect a diversity of experience.



It's been reiterated over and over again by many people on here, but breaking the land up into multiple blocks for various developers to buy is easily the best way to create a cohesive, vibrant neighborhood that can offer some form of continuity with downtown.