Grover wrote:^ Hmmm - how does that work in Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago?
If you look at a map of Boston or Chicago, downtown is still about the center of a 3/4 to pie circle. Seattle is the center of a 1/2 pie, but it is still a young city that may move more inland like St. Louis in another 50 years. San Francisco is a special case -- the center of the metro area is water -- and the views and weather of the peninsula make it a draw no matter where the center is.
St. Louis is the center of a 1/3 pie given the formidable river. Detroit is similar.
Cool game Grover. Would you like me to name all the cities in the U.S. where the downtown is the center of the population? Ok, let's start with the South: Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Jacksonville, Richmond. Northeast: New York, Philly, Baltimore, D.C. Midwest: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, KC. Texas: Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Oklahoma City. West: Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake, Vegas, LA, Portland. And that is missing a lot of intermediate cities and not even accounting for Gary's legitimate points of geographic limitations.
Your examples are all coastal cities (yes I am counting Chicago as on a coastline). Give me an inland or river city (here's one to get you started ... Memphis ... and that's working out real well for them).
I stand by my point. Obviously I am biased to Illinois, but outside of the city/county split, the second most important reason development is happening in Clayton and not downtown is because Clayton is the center of our population. It just makes more sense for companies like Centene and Brown to base their operations in the center of the population where it is convenient to the highest number of people.
Baloney. The only reasons Clayton continues to get so much office development are outdated perceptions of Downtown and the hopelessly suburban mindset of so many of our local business "leaders".
Gone Corporate wrote:Surely, DeWitt wants this built, and to turn his assets into something profitable as opposed to humiliation & loss.
If he wanted to build it badly enough, he could start at least one phase with his own money. Of course, that would probably negate any pitch for incentives, even for subsequent phases. He's sitting on a goldmine, and he's not exactly hurting, so the opportunity cost of sitting on this land for the past three years is negligible at worst. Humiliation and loss probably don't mean much either, not when there will probably be 3,000,000 fans passing through the turnstiles during a recession, and not when the local media is willing to give a free pass since they're much more fixated on the on-field product than Ballpark Village per se.
All of this is strictly my opinion, of course. YMMV.
Come on people, there's only so many times you can watch your opponent fail before you feel real bad for him (unless he's a Cub).
I don't feel bad for DeWitt at all. I feel bad for my community. Even if it was just under construction at the time of the All-Star Game, Ballpark Village could've made such a positive impression of downtown St. Louis. While I like to believe that the rest of downtown will make a positive impression on those that attend the game and see images of the city during the telecasts, I believe a great opportunity was missed, and I believe the temporary "attractions" at the so-called village will be only slightly less embarrassing than Pujols Pond.
Don't get me wrong, I understand Economics 101 enough to know that the downturn of the past year has set the team back more than anything else. However, I find it difficult to overlook the numerous delays and setbacks that occured long before the economy took a turn for the worse, and I cannot help but to be extremely disappointed in the half-assed solution to the hole in the ground that we're going to show the world in a couple of months.
Framer wrote:Baloney. The only reasons Clayton continues to get so much office development are outdated perceptions of Downtown and the hopelessly suburban mindset of so many of our local business "leaders".
There are a lot of reasons for businesses building or moving to Clayton instead of downtown. Just about all of them have been expressed on this forum. Though, I wouldn't say that it is one or the other, as it seems that some of you are arguing.
I do believe that some people are putting the cart before the horse though.
Clayton, may be more along the line of being the center of metro St. Louis (Today), but I wouldn't say that it is the center of St. Louis development. It is my honest opinion that we are lucky to have Clayton in a sense. Geographically, the center of Clayton is 7.75 miles from STL City Hall. Keep this in mind.
Other cities have suburban highrises spread around the city. The truth is that there is a need (rather desire) for that kind of office space in the suburbs (this is where your out of date and obscured ideas of "downtown" arguements come in). Having a large amount of these buildings in Clayton gives STL a second downtown instead of 10 - 20 story buildings lining our highways.
It is true that Clayton is able to attract companies that otherwise would be in downtown, but no one can assume that every building (or even 50-75%) would be downtown.
The main reason why clayton is a center for urban development has little to do with its central location, but rather the fact that it is the county seat. Sure, it being 8 miles closer to the Missouri exurbs is a selling point to businesses, but it is not the driving force. County Government business has provided the foundation for the development of Clayton over the years and it continues today. How can you really blame a Law Office for locating their firm next to the court house.
I like Clayton. I prefer development in Downtown STL, but there is no reason why it can't coexist with Downtown STL, for the most part they cater to a different clientel.
When it comes to urban (downtown) development in Metro St. Louis, there are two options.
Framer wrote:Baloney. The only reasons Clayton continues to get so much office development are outdated perceptions of Downtown and the hopelessly suburban mindset of so many of our local business "leaders".
Ok, well who's fault is that? That's why I've been advocating for a downtown st. louis marketing campaign. Hell, every cardinals game I see at least 10 commercials for either NewTown or Downtown St. Charles. The city of St. Louis needs to do the same. There's much to show off, lets showcase it!
^I have always thought that the city should invest much more in itself. If I had a dollar for everytime I have taken my county friends frm hs places and they have said "holy sh*t, this is awesome. Since when has this been here?" for stuff that has been here for years. I wonder if they'll pull their heads out of the sand if we plaster a gigantic banner across the street in from of city hall...
I wonde what the Legislative impact involving Missouri's Economic Bill will have on the project? Anybody with a good understanding? They stated some of the conditions in a Stl Beacon article, including a soft cap on what Missouri Developmental Finance Board can do. I believe the Finance Board decision is the last step before bonds will be put out for sale.
Also, not sure where to put post. But, the article discusses the final outcome of state historic tax credits
The No. 1 thing I wanted to get done, got done,'' Nixon said, referring to the economic development bill.
Among other things, the version of the bill headed to his desk would:
- Raise the cap on the "Quality Jobs" tax credit up to $80 million. That credit provides incentives to companies that provide ertain wages and benefits.
- Eliminate the state's franchise tax for about 16,000 small businesses in the state, a tax cut of almost $15 million a year.
- Impose a $10 million "soft" cap on tax credits divvied out by the Missouri Development Finance Board. That cap can be boosted up to $25 million with the consent of the directors of the Department of Revenue, the Department of Economic Development and the Office of Administration.
- Expand a program providing pre-employment job training.
Framer wrote:Baloney. The only reasons Clayton continues to get so much office development are outdated perceptions of Downtown and the hopelessly suburban mindset of so many of our local business "leaders".
Ok, well who's fault is that? That's why I've been advocating for a downtown st. louis marketing campaign. Hell, every cardinals game I see at least 10 commercials for either NewTown or Downtown St. Charles. The city of St. Louis needs to do the same. There's much to show off, lets showcase it!
I am 100% with you on this. I'm not quite how the tourism industry works here, so who would be the force behind this?
If anyone sees this, I'd be happy to do pro-bono creative for the campaign.
Ballpark Village is not on the agenda for this week’s Missouri Development Finance Board, putting state approval for a subsidy package at least another month away.
This guy is certainly not helping the process along...
4/1/09 - "Our department continues to gather information and learn more about the project," said John Fougere, spokesman for Linda Martinez, state economic development director and chairwoman of the MDFB. "Certainly legislators will have opinions about the project as well. The department will look closely at this project as well as others to make sure Missouri is doing all we can to identify and encourage development that will create jobs and turn our economy around."
5/19/09 - “The process of review for complex projects such as Ballpark Village takes multiple meetings,” said Department of Economic Development spokesman John Fougere. “We also feel that it is very important to make sure that the finance board’s newest members have all the information they need to make an informed decision on projects under consideration. Further, we must be sure that all due diligence steps are complete before the board takes official action.”
John Fougere is only a spokesman. The person who is hiding behind him is Linda Martinez from St. Louis and has been shown to be a disappointment to the region to date in my mind. Why is the project being stalled by the state when legislators were more then willing to hand Paul McKee an additional $10 million a year on the economic development bill?
Furthermore, I can't understand why the Missouri state economic development board and the city alderman are throwing cold water on developments with a good possibility of going forward and succeeding when Illinois legislators are stumbling ove themselves to hand out Star bonds or major subsidies to some megaprojects that have been proposed within the last six months.
Meanwhile, they are hard at work on the Centene building in Clayton.
Also, I was accidentally watching the local news a couple of days ago and they were asking people what they thought of the parking lot on BPV as they were heading into the Cards game. One rather youngish girl said she "loved" it because you park real close to the stadium and stuff.
Dredger wrote:John Fougere is only a spokesman. The person who is hiding behind him is Linda Martinez from St. Louis and has been shown to be a disappointment to the region to date in my mind. Why is the project being stalled by the state when legislators were more then willing to hand Paul McKee an additional $10 million a year on the economic development bill?
Furthermore, I can't understand why the Missouri state economic development board and the city alderman are throwing cold water on developments with a good possibility of going forward and succeeding when Illinois legislators are stumbling ove themselves to hand out Star bonds or major subsidies to some megaprojects that have been proposed within the last six months.
I think Ms. Martinez more than had her hands full trying to save Missouri's various tax credits programs from a few dim-witted legislators. Very poor timing that the MDFB meeting coincided with the end of the legislative session. State approval will come eventually, but until there's actually a market for the bonds, there's no need to rush.
I see your point. While I got political in my statement when I shouldn't have the city has reviewed and given their approval on this project back in January if I'm not mistaken. Information on the new agreement/structure has been on the street to speak for six months. I believe their is some significant politicals going on at the state level for which few leaders, Linda being one of them, are not commenting on. That is hurting downtown's chances of getting Class A office space built in time for an economic turnaround.
Is it the bonding situation, could very likely be. At the same time, Centene is being built as noted because the office space has a lease agreement. BPV advertised a preleased agreement with both a large law firm that wanted to consolidated its two offices and a successful and expanding financial investment firm. This should be a favorable situation for selling bonds.
Dredger wrote:I see your point. While I got political in my statement when I shouldn't have the city has reviewed and given their approval on this project back in January if I'm not mistaken. Information on the new agreement/structure has been on the street to speak for six months. I believe their is some significant politicals going on at the state level for which few leaders, Linda being one of them, are not commenting on. That is hurting downtown's chances of getting Class A office space built in time for an economic turnaround.
Is it the bonding situation, could very likely be. At the same time, Centene is being built as noted because the office space has a lease agreement. BPV advertised a preleased agreement with both a large law firm that wanted to consolidated its two offices and a successful and expanding financial investment firm. This should be a favorable situation for selling bonds.
Remember that a good chunk of the bonds will be paid for from sales tax revenues. In order to sell the bonds, they're going to have to convince investors that BPV is going to succeed where St. Louis Centre and Union Station failed miserably. One big office tenant isn't going to sell $100million+ of bonds at a reasonable interest rate by itself.
Dredger wrote:Information on the new agreement/structure has been on the street to speak for six months. I believe their is some significant politicals going on at the state level for which few leaders, Linda being one of them, are not commenting on. That is hurting downtown's chances of getting Class A office space built in time for an economic turnaround.
I agree with you. Aside from the legitimate delays associated with the bond market, I don't understand why the MFDB keeps kicking this down the road.
Maybe it's not realistic given current economic conditions, but I'm really in the "crap or get off the pot" mood when I think of this development proposal. Ballpark Village was proposed nearly a decade ago, state financing for Busch Stadium was approved nearly six years ago, an agreement with the city and state was reached almost three years ago, and all we have to show for it is a stupid softball field and parking lot that probably won't be as elaborate as Heine Meine Field in Lemay.
So I'd like to see the MDFB have their say ASAP- one way or another. Even if bond markets aren't favorable right now, it would sure be nice to be ready to move forward once they are, or, find another use for this land if the city and state eventually decide this project is no longer feasible.
I don't know what to think at this point. I know that waiting might not doing us any favors. I would imagine that the tax incentives and subsidies behind this project would make it much more favorable to pitch this to the bond market (throw in the revenue of parking garages). What gets my goat and why my rants, It is my understanding that MFDB has to vote on this before any bonds will be put out for sale. Do I got that correct?
I had a chance to tour KC's Power and Light District this weekend with a friend and very knowledgeable tour guide.
Here are my random/rambling thoughts...
The Good:
- The district seemed to be seamlessly integrated into downtown.
- Tons of people out and about.
- The Sprint Center is spectacular. A bold architectural statement for a sports arena - very cool.
- HR Block's HQ also included a small performing arts venue, which looked very nice.
- There is an upscale grocery store called Cosentino's Market, which we went into - looked like Straub's on steroids. I'm not sure who's shopping at this market, but there were a lot of people there on Saturday night.
- The area felt very safe, due in part to all the people, but also because of good lighting and other features.
- College Basketball museum looked cool.
- Parking seemed to be well-hidden and was cheap - $2.
- My friend pointed out a few locally-owned restaurants.
- AMC renovated a (formerly vacant) historic vaudeville theater as a movie house, and it is SPECTACULAR - absolutely beautiful. Prices are higher, since there's wait service, but that keeps the riff-raff out.
- I noticed another theater - the Midland - but I'm not sure if that was part of the P&L district or not.
- Architecturally speaking, the buildings Cordish built looked pretty good. All of the trees were lit up, helping make the district feel a little more festive.
- There is a huge central courtyard with a canopy and heaters, so the open area can be used all year long. Cordish apparently books a lot of programming, and there were some DJs spinning to a large crowd on Sat.
- Tons of outdoor eating/dining space, and many of the bars/restaurants had huge windows that opened up to the outside.
- They allow you to take your drinks outside of the bars, which is cool. Apparently, KC's Westport is trying to get the same license and Cordish is pitching a fit about it.
The Not-So-Good:
- Very little retail. All I saw was a Jos. A. Bank and a Sprint Store.
- No residential (yet)
- Few local establishments, but the ones that were there looked very nice.
- Still quite a few vacant storefronts, but in this economy, that's certainly to be expected.
The Bad
- Most of the bars/restaurants were cheesy theme/concept joints and kind of sleezy (Shark Bar, Angels Bar, etc). It had the feel of the worst of Laclede's Landing, but at least on the Landing, most places are local. Went to a manufactured Irish pub that was nice, but didn't feel terribly authentic. Seems to be the popular spot for bachelorette parties and for people who like to yell "Woooooooo!!!!!"
We've described BPV as a "Bar Mall," and that's kind of what P&L felt like. If Cordish builds something similar here, the Landing is likely going to take a huge hit. If BPV brings in the same dueling piano bar that P&L has, for instance, the Landing's piano bar will suffer. If BPV brings in a Lucky Strike (which P&L has), Joe Edwards' Flamingo Bowl could be negatively affected.
Anyway, P&L has really livened up downtown KC. On the positive side, if BPV were to have a similar effect here, that would be huge. I think P&L has probably done a good job of luring visitors who would not normally come to downtown KC, and we need more things that will bring suburbanites to downtown STL. Overall, I really liked it, but was just not crazy about several of the tenants.
At BPV, I would prefer to see a housing component and more retail shops. Of course, if Cordish could lure a major company (particularly one from outside of downtown) like they did with H&R Block in KC, that would be huge as well. The Centene deal still stings.
For all the positives, hasn't P&L left KC in debt? Isn't the city paying for the gap in expected v. real tax revenue? I guess the deal is different here, but that has to THE negative for P&L.
