Certainly the aughts have been a good decade for the City, but that doesn't mean everything has been great. Heck, one needs to look no further back than the 1980s to see the last time the City was moving toward rebirth. My own pessimistic belief is that when the 2010 census results are released, the City will show a decline in population.
^Especially in North St. Louis where McKee has taken action.
Look we all know St. Louis is doing great. But that does not excuse huge debacles like this.
We didn't need a new stadium and we don't really need BPV.
These projects were only done to financially benefit the Cardinals. What do we get in return? 9 dollar beers and large parking lots only used during games.
If we turn the site into a demolition derby then I might get excited.
Look we all know St. Louis is doing great. But that does not excuse huge debacles like this.
We didn't need a new stadium and we don't really need BPV.
These projects were only done to financially benefit the Cardinals. What do we get in return? 9 dollar beers and large parking lots only used during games.
If we turn the site into a demolition derby then I might get excited.
- 5,433
Although the lack of development at Ballpark Village may not warrant the use of eminent domain, I wish the city would begin exploring alternatives anyway.
Like others here, I am concerned about DeWallet's attitude. He seems perfectly content with a Power & Light East District, which is not what the city needs, and it's downright insulting given the forward-looking scope of the original proposal.
FWIW, my outlook on this proposal has changed not just because of the delays, but also because the plans have changed drastically.
The original proposal, agreed to almost three years ago, would've added over 1,000 residential units to this part of downtown. Thousands of residents and perhaps thousands of workers would've been in this six-block area if Ballpark Village was developed according to the original plans. Fast forward nearly three years after that proposal received final approval, and now we're left with a barmall concept that's failed to live up to expectations elsewhere, and in the absence of additional workers and residents downtown, it may simply be a zero-sum game in which existing downtown businesses will lose.
I commend city officials for not catering to the Cardinals owners' every whim, but it's time to turn the heat up a notch, reject future agreements regarding Ballpark Village that do not represent the best and highest use of the land, and encourage the team to sell the land to developers that can actually get the bloody job done once the economy rebounds.
Like others here, I am concerned about DeWallet's attitude. He seems perfectly content with a Power & Light East District, which is not what the city needs, and it's downright insulting given the forward-looking scope of the original proposal.
FWIW, my outlook on this proposal has changed not just because of the delays, but also because the plans have changed drastically.
The original proposal, agreed to almost three years ago, would've added over 1,000 residential units to this part of downtown. Thousands of residents and perhaps thousands of workers would've been in this six-block area if Ballpark Village was developed according to the original plans. Fast forward nearly three years after that proposal received final approval, and now we're left with a barmall concept that's failed to live up to expectations elsewhere, and in the absence of additional workers and residents downtown, it may simply be a zero-sum game in which existing downtown businesses will lose.
I commend city officials for not catering to the Cardinals owners' every whim, but it's time to turn the heat up a notch, reject future agreements regarding Ballpark Village that do not represent the best and highest use of the land, and encourage the team to sell the land to developers that can actually get the bloody job done once the economy rebounds.
JMedwick wrote:My own pessimistic belief is that when the 2010 census results are released, the City will show a decline in population.
Maybe, but even so, I think it should be less drastic than previous decades. In other words, I think the city has finally bottomed out, and I have to believe the final count will be somewhere in the 340,000-355,000 range.
- 11K
The Power & Light District in KC certainly has its shortcomings, but in my opinion it's still an neat place. The biggest problem BY FAR is that the city of KC is on the hook for millions and millions of dollars. If someone wants to build a P&LD here without substantial public funds I say go ahead.
ThreeOneFour wrote:JMedwick wrote:My own pessimistic belief is that when the 2010 census results are released, the City will show a decline in population.
Maybe, but even so, I think it should be less drastic than previous decades. In other words, I think the city has finally bottomed out, and I have to believe the final count will be somewhere in the 340,000-355,000 range.
Don't forget that we have Democratic Congress and Democratic Administation - this may very well mean additional funding for the Census and possibly a more accurate count - not to mention we may finally use statistical modeling to get a more accurate count. It's certainly arguable, but this method will likely increase the count in large cities where people can go uncounted.
- 5,433
Grover wrote:Don't forget that we have Democratic Congress and Democratic Administation - this may very well mean additional funding for the Census and possibly a more accurate count - not to mention we may finally use statistical modeling to get a more accurate count. It's certainly arguable, but this method will likely increase the count in large cities where people can go uncounted.
Good point. Of course, I fully expect that our mayor (yes, Doug, I think it will be Francis Slay for one more term
) will certainly challenge the Census Bureau's findings if they're anything less than expectations anyway. And FWIW, I think we'll be on the high side of the range I posted previously. While a population of 355,000 represents a small statistical gain, I think it would still be a significant turning point.
You also made an excellent point earlier about the progress that's been made overall in St. Louis this decade. As disappointed as I am about Ballpark Village, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're still in the midst of an impressive urban renaissance. Of course the global economic slowdown has put much of the progress on hold for awhile, but a lot has been accomplished in a few shot years, and I think the city is well-poised for future growth once the economy improves.
- 729
Once again we are thinking way too small. The best we can do is a softball field? A true vision would have been two softball fields.
That's right. Yogi Berra could tell you that four slices of the pie is more than the whole pie. 
yogi berra quotes... As pissed as I am that this isn't happening right now, I do think you have to blame the bond market and current economy more than the Cardinals. Yes, it sucks that they waited so long, and Cordish certainly doesn't seem to be the most impressive firm, but lets face it, no other developers are building new office or retail buildings downtown. Companies don't build buildings as charity. Yes, they did receive a fair amount of tax incentives, etc, but I think people should cool down a bit. the softball field isn't permanent - I hope. I really hated AMSHACK..
- 5,433
JCity wrote:I do think you have to blame the bond market and current economy more than the Cardinals.
I don't think so. If we're going to blame years of inaction and broken promises on an economic meltdown that's just over six months old, we might as well start blaming anyone and everyone but the Cardinals owners, who are apparently beyond reproach in this town.
So who or what else can we blame since the beloved Cardinals are untouchable?
Understand I'm not trying to be flippant, but as I said before, this was their idea and their concept, so ultimately I think it is their responsibility to see it through. They need to be held accountable above all other parties involved.
The significant downscaling of the original plans is downright insulting, and sadly, I think the end result may actually be much less viable in the long term than the grandiose original proposal since it will likely result in the zero-sum relocation of jobs and businesses, and no net gain in downtown residents.
As Joni Mitchell might say, let 'em pave paradise and put up a parking lot. But once this recession is over, I'd like to see the Cardinals acknowledge they never should've gotten into the real estate business in the first place (still can't help but wonder if it was all just a ruse just to get their stadium partially financed by Joe Taxpayer) and sell the damn thing to someone with the expertise to pull off a large scale development (we now know that ain't Cordish) appropriate for this site.
I'm not sure it matters, though, because I wouldn't be surprised to see DeWallet and Company sell the team and Softball Village once the economy rebounds anyway.
Apparently DeWallet III said yesterday that he didn't understand why anyone would be upset with the team's latest plan. I think that speaks volumes.
^BPV was the deal breaker for the 250 million subsidy for the new stadium. Now they have their stadium, and since we didn't put up more for BPV, they could give two shits about our Downtown. They don't live there. They are not a direct stakeholder. Even if Downtown's economy sucked, and crime was rampant, they know that fans will still park in their fenced parking lots with security. They know people will always come to the games so they don't give a damn about BPV or the vitality of Downtown. They are in it to make money and they know they have brand loyalty.
I'm sorry but a more politically adept Administration would have known this from the beginning. Sports stadiums are not drivers of economic development, but rather private enterprises where owners reap large profits in exchange for an emotional attachment on the part of the fans. And that's fine. But the City, the public at large, should not subsidize private enterprise when they don't actually need it and especially when such endeavors only produce parking garages and crowded streets during games, but then a mass exodus a few hours after they end.
We've had a Baseball Stadium downtown since 1964. This has not guaranteed the economic base of St. Louis City as clearly the suburban exodus of businesses and residents continued since then. Rather we've made it easier to visit thus disincentivizing residency by sacrificing our historic buildings that could be residential, turning them into temporary storage facilities for county visitors. We capture some tax dollars during this process, but it's rather meager when compared to having 50,000 residents living Downtown, which could be entirely possible had we began the residential rehab process in the 1970's. Urbanist critics contended that Downtown does not need convention centers or Stadiums but residents. On one particular critic, Mayor Poelker essentially questioned the individual's familiarity with St. Louis. Despite the merits of the argument, the individual was written off as so many where and are today, because the elite business owners already made their decision. Yet these arguments were vindicated in St. Louis.
We receive an economic multiplier affect having residents, while sports visitors only leave trash, empty garages, and empty streets in their wake. BPV might have been a good idea with residential and a few HQ's, but the reality is that the Cardinals are in the business of selling 9 dollar beers, not revitalizing Downtown. The suburban spillover from baseball clearly shows the oppose has occurred.
I'm sorry but a more politically adept Administration would have known this from the beginning. Sports stadiums are not drivers of economic development, but rather private enterprises where owners reap large profits in exchange for an emotional attachment on the part of the fans. And that's fine. But the City, the public at large, should not subsidize private enterprise when they don't actually need it and especially when such endeavors only produce parking garages and crowded streets during games, but then a mass exodus a few hours after they end.
We've had a Baseball Stadium downtown since 1964. This has not guaranteed the economic base of St. Louis City as clearly the suburban exodus of businesses and residents continued since then. Rather we've made it easier to visit thus disincentivizing residency by sacrificing our historic buildings that could be residential, turning them into temporary storage facilities for county visitors. We capture some tax dollars during this process, but it's rather meager when compared to having 50,000 residents living Downtown, which could be entirely possible had we began the residential rehab process in the 1970's. Urbanist critics contended that Downtown does not need convention centers or Stadiums but residents. On one particular critic, Mayor Poelker essentially questioned the individual's familiarity with St. Louis. Despite the merits of the argument, the individual was written off as so many where and are today, because the elite business owners already made their decision. Yet these arguments were vindicated in St. Louis.
We receive an economic multiplier affect having residents, while sports visitors only leave trash, empty garages, and empty streets in their wake. BPV might have been a good idea with residential and a few HQ's, but the reality is that the Cardinals are in the business of selling 9 dollar beers, not revitalizing Downtown. The suburban spillover from baseball clearly shows the oppose has occurred.
- 6,775
Doug wrote:They are in it to make money and they know they have brand loyalty.
Wow, how were you able to figure that out?
- 2,093
Doug wrote:^ They know people will always come to the games so they don't give a damn about BPV or the vitality of Downtown. They are in it to make money and they know they have brand loyalty.
I'm sorry but a more politically adept Administration would have known this from the beginning.
I'd like to know how someone like Irene Smith would have handled this any better.
My guess is it would be a non-issue because she would have told the Cardinals to take a hike and Busch Stadium would be mixed use housing or something.
- 11K
southsidepride wrote:Doug wrote:^ They know people will always come to the games so they don't give a damn about BPV or the vitality of Downtown. They are in it to make money and they know they have brand loyalty.
I'm sorry but a more politically adept Administration would have known this from the beginning.
I'd like to know how someone like Irene Smith would have handled this any better.
My guess is it would be a non-issue because she would have told the Cardinals to take a hike and Busch Stadium would be mixed use housing or something.
Perhaps she'll show up and pee on home plate of the softball stadium - you know, just to make a point.
- 10K
Grover wrote:Perhaps she'll show up and pee on home plate of the softball stadium - you know, just to make a point.
Irene pees for all of us.
- 2,929
I would like to make a couple quick requests regarding this thread’s recent progressions:
1. Quit with the partisan politics. We’re supposed to be talking about BPV primarily, not making its failings a litmus test for City Hall. (This is especially considering how Slay & Green both deserve credit for their not backing the project with the full faith and credit of the City of Saint Louis, preserving StL’s abilities to seek AAA+ bond ratings.)
2. Recognize that StL is not in an economic bubble. Starting in 2007, we have seen the destruction of the mortgage, housing, alternative investment, and investment banking industries. We are currently trying to stabilize banking, credit, private equity, and total employment before we see more industries implode, including airlines, travel & tourism, and commercial real estate, which are essential to things such as BPV being stable.
3. Believe me when I say the bond markets are crazy right now. BPV bonds must be delayed to preserve their impending quality. Yes, once they start selling, they’ll go quickly; FAs at Stifel, et.al. would have a field day selling “Cardinal Bonds” to Saint Louisains and Cardinal Nation; investors who have never invested in municipal revenue bonds would seek out investing in them just to claim involvement with supporting the team. Of course, this would be in normal economic times, something we certainly are not in.
4. Know that BPV will be built if for nothing less than the preexisting liable continencies upon it. This is including tens of millions of dollars allocated to it by various government entities, the goodwill and brand valuations of the Cardinals & Cordish, and that abandonment of the project would most likely lead to criminal filings for whoever made promissory statements to the State (if so, then no BPV = jail).
Focus: The focus of our derision does lie with the Cardinals most than on the other parties mentioned. Sure, the iceberg sank the Titanic, but the Captain was the one who went down with the ship. It was their choice to seek the developments, and they took the risks of market conditions and the state of credit. That’s capitalism.
I can’t say that DeWitt could have reasonably foreseen the toxic credit bubble. None of us can. However, he is the man in charge, and he gets the heat. And just as much as that, they’re the ones smelling like a sewer in front of MLB should the All-Star Game go poorly in relation to BPV.
Think about how many tens of millions they have lost in opportunity costs for the delay. They’re not scammers.
Their tastes may suck (American Idol?), but they’re not scammers.
1. Quit with the partisan politics. We’re supposed to be talking about BPV primarily, not making its failings a litmus test for City Hall. (This is especially considering how Slay & Green both deserve credit for their not backing the project with the full faith and credit of the City of Saint Louis, preserving StL’s abilities to seek AAA+ bond ratings.)
2. Recognize that StL is not in an economic bubble. Starting in 2007, we have seen the destruction of the mortgage, housing, alternative investment, and investment banking industries. We are currently trying to stabilize banking, credit, private equity, and total employment before we see more industries implode, including airlines, travel & tourism, and commercial real estate, which are essential to things such as BPV being stable.
3. Believe me when I say the bond markets are crazy right now. BPV bonds must be delayed to preserve their impending quality. Yes, once they start selling, they’ll go quickly; FAs at Stifel, et.al. would have a field day selling “Cardinal Bonds” to Saint Louisains and Cardinal Nation; investors who have never invested in municipal revenue bonds would seek out investing in them just to claim involvement with supporting the team. Of course, this would be in normal economic times, something we certainly are not in.
4. Know that BPV will be built if for nothing less than the preexisting liable continencies upon it. This is including tens of millions of dollars allocated to it by various government entities, the goodwill and brand valuations of the Cardinals & Cordish, and that abandonment of the project would most likely lead to criminal filings for whoever made promissory statements to the State (if so, then no BPV = jail).
Focus: The focus of our derision does lie with the Cardinals most than on the other parties mentioned. Sure, the iceberg sank the Titanic, but the Captain was the one who went down with the ship. It was their choice to seek the developments, and they took the risks of market conditions and the state of credit. That’s capitalism.
I can’t say that DeWitt could have reasonably foreseen the toxic credit bubble. None of us can. However, he is the man in charge, and he gets the heat. And just as much as that, they’re the ones smelling like a sewer in front of MLB should the All-Star Game go poorly in relation to BPV.
Think about how many tens of millions they have lost in opportunity costs for the delay. They’re not scammers.
Their tastes may suck (American Idol?), but they’re not scammers.
irocktheparty2000 wrote:Once again we are thinking way too small. The best we can do is a softball field? A true vision would have been two softball fields.
But then where would we park?
Doug wrote: ^BPV was the deal breaker for the 250 million subsidy for the new stadium. Now they have their stadium, and since we didn't put up more for BPV, they could give two shits about our Downtown.
Where are you getting that figure from? This is what I can find.
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/stlbpk.htm
Owner: St. Louis Cardinals
Cost: $365 million (original estimate was $344.8 million)
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.
- 11K
Quick blog post and link to interesting stalled development story:
http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... y-and.html
I think we're better off in St. Louis for not having large projects started only to sit in limbo. I'd rather have projects wait and eventually proceed on solid financial footing.
http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... y-and.html
I think we're better off in St. Louis for not having large projects started only to sit in limbo. I'd rather have projects wait and eventually proceed on solid financial footing.
Doug wrote:Sorry. It's 250 through bonds and public financing.
But I thought that all the city of St. Louis did was underwrite the bonds and thus provide cheaper financing to the Cardinals. It's still up to the Cardinals to pay the bonds back: right?
So how much "free" money did the Cardinals get from the city, county and state for Busch III? It sounds very minimal.
The state provided some free infrastructure money. Everything else is borrowed. I believe the bonds were corporate bonds and the city has nothing to do with them, but I could be wrong. The county bonds were basically just a loan to the Cards to take advantage of the County's AAA rating. The Cardinals pay those back with non tax money.
- 2,929
Very Important:MattnSTL wrote:The state provided some free infrastructure money. Everything else is borrowed. I believe the bonds were corporate bonds and the city has nothing to do with them, but I could be wrong. The county bonds were basically just a loan to the Cards to take advantage of the County's AAA rating. The Cardinals pay those back with non tax money.
The only time the City/County touched the construction with any previous debt securities was to help them qualify as AAA+ rated. The majority of funds received by the Cardinals for construction of the stadium was the elimination of an entertainment tax, freeing up $45M in unrecognized taxation (and perhaps other tax benefits, rumored the earnings tax). TIF support, I believe, also was in effect.
There have been no recent municipal revenue / industrial development bonds issued by StL City, County, or MO for the Cardinals or Cordish.
New bonds are planned to be issued, and the final authorization for the underwriting to really begin is part of the holdup in construction, with the State finalizing approval of the issuance after StL City resubmitted the freshly updated plans. When whatever new bonds are issued, they will most likely be municipal bonds in support of private enterprise, namely BPV. For them, neither the City nor the State should be giving full faith & support, but what support is given should increase the final bond ratings. And when these things go out, they will sell, and quickly.
The duties upon the bonds, past and future, are the responsibilities of the Cardinals and Cordish.