urbanSTL

jakektu wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:Not new today, but the latest rendering I'm aware of:

How many renderings will there eventually be
Looks like something else may have been shared today...

metzgda wrote:No mention of the "urban plaza".

Is the green area on the screen an urban plaza? or Phase 1?

It's the outfield.

^ It's not the outfield, but it's too blurry to tell what it is.

Ray Hartmann wrote an awesome (and so true!) editorial for St. Louis Magazine:
http://www.stlmag.com/Blogs/SLM-Daily/J ... age-Idiocy

I’m glad to at least see progress here in that it’s moving forward.

Quick thoughts:
- The TIF would be used primarily to rebuild the street grid and the underlying infrastructure. Remembering how it was presented a while back (yes, years ago), there really is no infrastructure for utilities underneath the old Busch Stadium footprint, or nothing sustainable for a full urban block of developments. And that's where any public monies would go.
- The design of the office tower (the new Stifel HQ) as presented shows a little room on the lower floors for the “outside seating” being touted as comparable to the Wrigley buildings. I wouldn’t be surprised to see later renditions, or just the final product, having decks on the outside of the upper floors for game watching. As well, it does look like a modified version of the Centene Tower in Clayton, with the step-back in the façade for increased views into the new Busch. As they said it would be “green”, I could see it going after LEED standards of silver or gold.
- A new HQ for Stifel should better position it to better compete as a brokerage with a full national reach, developing it to better house trading, institutional banking, and operational effectiveness. Of course, the signage opportunities for Stifel on that tower would be invaluable to promoting their business. Then again, would there really be any better views into a stadium from a business’ offices anywhere in the US?
- A success with the first office tower should lead into later developments with higher tower height, and especially if the tower’s signage receives the exposure that we can expect it to.
- I still think foregoing residential development right now is essential to the success of BPV, especially as 2010 was announced yesterday as the worst or second-worst year for housing sales since the end of WWII. When the housing market improves, I see a tower with deck views into the new Busch going up.

I’m still in favor of the development team paying late fines for delayed development, having assumed the risks to the real estate development markets by having chosen to participate in that business. And while I’m pragmatically optimistic on seeing PBV built this time around, I won’t really believe it until I see the site with full construction underway.

Get it built!

7th goes through and 6th kinda does. I give the restoring the street grid claim a B. Hey, that's several grades higher than any of the other BPV claims!

=] I very much enjoy listening to Mr. Hartmann's point of view on Donnybrook (a gem of a show)...He can tend to the histrionic at times tho IMO...Anyone who lays out a serious argument presenting the opposing view as utter lunacy while holding their own as sanctified yet ignored truth, like Mr. Hartmann does in the article on BPV, is likely fighting for issues beyond the scope of the argument; and is likely too entrenched in an ideology to promote practical, governable positions (ideologues of whatever stripe tend to take their own positions too seriously and not fully account for opposing views IMO).

Blah. IOW, BPV, in Mr. Hartmann's article, comes off as a bad idea for St. Louis because rich people are asking for handouts, not because the idea of BPV in and of itself is such a bad idea. Yes, I realize that downtown commercial occupancy rates are too low. But it has been 25 years since new class A construction downtown. Is the gov't supposed to stand idly by and watch new towers go up in Clayton, Indy and Chi-town and do nothing to try and spur new development in the City? Doesn't an aging commercial infrastructure hurt downtown's competiveness, which we all agree is vital for the region?

Is there really no market for expanding the Cardinals fan experience? I'm sorry, but to say that, "Well in 45 years nothing has been built around Busch, so there must not be a market" is not good enough. Are the successful Cordish developments in other cities all scams and mirages? It seems to me the City and Cardinals (like any business) are looking to expand a winning brand and profitable customer experience in serious ways. We're not talking building around a Pirate franchise that needs "buc" nights (tickets, hot dogs, sodas are a buck) to generate fan support.

Given Cordish's past apparent success (correct me if I'm wrong) and the guarantee that is the Cardinal Nation, I'm not sure how BPV is a bad thing. If it's half as successful as promoted, wouldn't the tax revenues over the next 25 years make any initial public investment look paltry?

For me to take Mr. Hartmann's position seriously, I'll need more than pandering to notions of class warfare, economic unfairness and screwing the little guy. Suggest to us where these tax incentives would be better spent. We need real answers provided here, not finger pointing and what can be interpreted as self-aggrandizing.

Are Mayor Slay and the B of A jumping on the Cardinals train because they are mindless automatrons who want to make the rich richer, or do they see real revenues that would not be there if this development goes away and Stifel goes to Clayton?

stlwriterman wrote:

RobbyD wrote:=] If it's half as successful as promoted, wouldn't the tax revenues over the next 25 years make any initial public investment look paltry?

The initial public investment is bonds that will be paid off by much of the tax revenue the project generates over the next 25 years. So, no, not really.

I'm assuming you're aware of the arguments that point out the spinoff effects of a public investment like BPV, such as the income tax generated from jobs "saved or created" and a likely reality that the old Stifel floors downtown will not sit vacant for three decades, so I won't bother to go further.

I personally like the proposal for BPV and believe it will be a net positive for downtown. I also wish billionare businesses didn't need handouts. But today's market seems to require them? If St. Louis doesn't offer incentives, it has been demonstrated before that someone else will?

I seriously wonder what else the City is supposed to do. Leverage decency and moral certitude? Is there another way forward that doesn't require returning tax income to the businesses that profit from and run them? I mean, I'm sure the owners of BPV want police and fire protection, right?