urbanSTL

RobbyD wrote:=] 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?

I used to be a big fan of the Cordish company, but after seeing the faults of power and light and the failures to retain tenets over the long haul, while putting out entrepreneurs in other cities, I will not continue to blindly believe that they are somehow masters at this type of development. Blind faith without doing the research just leads to problems. Giving tax money to this type of development is suspect at best.

If thats not enough then consider that the development calls for nearly a third of the costs to come at the expense of the tax payer. The design has continually become more watered down overtime and leave much to be desired. Should the government hand over money for a project lacking in many areas?

Next consider the critical mass of downtown. Should this development be successful for a few years after opening, there is a strong deal of potential that as the luster of something new wears off fewer people will be willing to make a longer distance trip to go there. This will make it ever important that the downtown be able to have a mass of people able to support these businesses. The problem with new development is that the overhead costs so much. This means tenets will most likely be larger chains that can afford the start up costs. Now should more people frequent these new places, the older businesses can and likely will suffer. Is that really what we want?

Next consider the critical mass of downtown. Should this development be successful for a few years after opening, there is a strong deal of potential that as the luster of something new wears off fewer people will be willing to make a longer distance trip to go there. This will make it ever important that the downtown be able to have a mass of people able to support these businesses. The problem with new development is that the overhead costs so much. This means tenets will most likely be larger chains that can afford the start up costs. Now should more people frequent these new places, the older businesses can and likely will suffer. Is that really what we want?

I'm also concerned with how BPV will affect what's already going on downtown. We're still playing musical chairs with downtown office space, we're emptying one building to fill another. Yes, we'll have a new class A office building, but we'll have another that's half empty, that can't be a winning scenario. Until DT can attract businesses from the county and other parts of the country, I don't know how creating more vacant office space is good for downtown. Are city leaders relying on the "build it and they'll come" philosophy?

I don't have any answers, but there seems to be a glut of retail space that will hit the market within the next few years and I'm wondering how it will all stay open once the newness wears off.

Agree, Being competitive locally, nationally let alone globally requires a way to build out new office space. Especially for a hometown homegrown HQ. BPV is the best option and location on the table. Not too mention that a phased approach (even though I would love to see some more stories on their first building) is also a much better approach as it gives room to adjust plans and meet demand accordingly.

Unfortunately, we get PD columnists like Dave who can't take a big picture look. Instead, they focus on vacancy rate. He should be writing about possibilities when you have a group of Chinese representatives coming to town.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 3963e.html

Remember, Stifel just purchased a West Coast financial firm that is just down the street from Silicone Valley in a region with a strong Asian/Chinese community. To bad no one at PD can't articulate how important these successful home based firms are to the future of the region and the opportuniites they provide.

Second, I do believe this proposal would get much more support if Stifel would make a definite statement on its future intentions. Heck, just saying that they want to able give their present and future clients a view of the Busch infield from their conference room would do wonders.

All I know is if there is going to be any TIF handout the city better require a higher standard and a development plan that is highly sensitive to existing development. If investments made elsewhere both public and private collapse as a result of this development then shame on all parties involved. Local entrepreneurs are what make a unique environment and a more diversified and stable economy.

Zun1026, The problem is that local entrepeneurs haven't built new class A office space/tower downtown in decades and unlikely to do it any time soon. I wish the facts were different, but that is the reality. The other reality, is if you can't figure out how to get a local company in a new Class A officer tower how and heck do you think anybody else will want to move to St. Louis let alone downtown.

I'm no fan of Cordish and give Greene a lot of credit for protecting St. Louis a lot more then what KC got out of their deal (their on the hook for some big bond payments). Plus, the receission fortunately prevented the original entertainment mall idea from being built. Not a bad deal as far as I'm concerned. However, As far as TIF's go, I'm a supporter of this move to get things started just as I'm a supporter of McKee's Northside plan because the city has very few options in its ability to build out or even rebuild a lot of its deteriorating infrastructure. Second, St Louis has done a great job in securing Federal Market tax credits the last couple of years and should put them to use at BPV if it means keeping Stifel downtown. In other words, I think the trade off is worth it.

dredger wrote:Zun1026, The problem is that local entrepeneurs haven't built new class A office space/tower downtown in decades and unlikely to do it any time soon. I wish the facts were different, but that is the reality. The other reality, is if you can't figure out how to get a local company in a new Class A officer tower how and heck do you think anybody else will want to move to St. Louis let alone downtown.

I'm no fan of Cordish and give Greene a lot of credit for protecting St. Louis a lot more then what KC got out of their deal (their on the hook for some big bond payments). Plus, the receission fortunately prevented the original entertainment mall idea from being built. Not a bad deal as far as I'm concerned. However, As far as TIF's go, I'm a supporter of this move to get things started just as I'm a supporter of McKee's Northside plan because the city has very few options in its ability to build out or even rebuild a lot of its deteriorating infrastructure. Second, St Louis has done a great job in securing Federal Market tax credits the last couple of years and should put them to use at BPV if it means keeping Stifel downtown. In other words, I think the trade off is worth it.

So a new Class A office tower is the answer to bringing in new business? ... Even if the development is at the expense of local entrepreneurs and tax payer dollars?

I am not sure if that is what you meant, but that how I read it. So, I ask simply to clarify, not to be snide.

As for the whole McKee thing, if we allow and support such efforts, even when they were contentious, we sponsor this type of activity. This paves the road for similar approaches. Personally, I would like to see the city do things right for a change and hold the higher standard. If this were to happen it does not have to mean that no progress is made.

Actually, yes. To bring in or even maintain an employer who can offer the size, number of employees and the potential for growth has and will require ways to finance infrastructure, new class A office or even refurbishing existing space through tax incentives.

Look at the projects downtown in the last ten years and almost all have had some form of tax incentive; from tax abatements to historic tax credits to New Markets tax credits to brownfield tax credits. From loft construction, to Unisys, to Peabody (Including Peabody Opera house), to Schnucks, and the list goes on. I haven't heard one gripe on this form about historic tax credits but they also give a developer or employer a clear advantage over someone else. Why do you think Park Pacific is being developed (financed partly with a govt supported HUD loan as well as some tax credits) and the next Cupples Warehouse doesn't go forward?. Heck the only people who didn't take a tax incentive where the Roberts brothers and Pinnacle. Even then, Roberts Brothers have taken a number of tax incentives on a number of projects in the city and a casino is a cash generator that everybody else dreams about.

To draw a line about tax incentives for BPV and prevent the possibility of the first new class A officer tower from being built in decades seems like a big mistake in my opinion considering what it has taken to bring downtown back.

dredger wrote:Actually, yes. To bring in or even maintain an employer who can offer the size, number of employees and the potential for growth has and will require ways to finance infrastructure, new class A office or even refurbishing existing space through tax incentives.

Look at the projects downtown in the last ten years and almost all have had some form of tax incentive; from tax abatements to historic tax credits to New Markets tax credits to brownfield tax credits. From loft construction, to Unisys, to Peabody (Including Peabody Opera house), to Schnucks, and the list goes on. I haven't heard one gripe on this form about historic tax credits but they also give a developer or employer a clear advantage over someone else. Why do you think Park Pacific is being developed (financed partly with a govt supported HUD loan as well as some tax credits) and the next Cupples Warehouse doesn't go forward?. Heck the only people who didn't take a tax incentive where the Roberts brothers and Pinnacle. Even then, Roberts Brothers have taken a number of tax incentives on a number of projects in the city and a casino is a cash generator that everybody else dreams about.

To draw a line about tax incentives for BPV and prevent the possibility of the first new class A officer tower from being built in decades seems like a big mistake in my opinion considering what it has taken to bring downtown back.

Personally, I don't mind the historic tax credits, because they do multiple things. They make reuse of a building, they preserve history, culture and architecture, while providing, at least in a majority of the cases in downtown STL, somewhat affordable space for both residents and local business owners. Those credits are contingent on the developer/rehabber adhering to a higher standard. Unfortunately, TIFs are frequently used improperly IMO. They are mostly pro-growth fund, regardless of the cost. They are also given out, without a higher standard, as opposed to the historic tax credit. As for tax abatements, most of the ones I am familiar with last from 5-10 years, so return starts relatively quickly...not 25 years (at least I think this is the case) like the TIFs for BPV. With brownfield redevelopment, again, there is a higher standard. It is also taking a site that is uninhabitable/unusable and making it safe. Not only is this good for people, but the environment. Also, I think we are past the point of trying to bring any life back downtown. The trend has started, so do we really need to dump $45 mill toward a development that is so-so and potentially harmful to the surrounding area?

If the economy were better and the need for office space and retail were higher then I would likely have a different view. However, the need for TIF financing, coupled with what we know about vacancy rates downtown in the retail and office spaces, has me feeling that this could be harmful in many ways, because the demand just doesn't seem to be there yet. Its like they are forcing something to happen just because. The city has been pretty pro-growth no matter what the costs for a while now. They also have worked hard to get things moving, but at some point in the redevelopment of downtown they are going to have to start looking for quality not quantity. They are also going to have to push for more critical mass, better schools and better transportation infrastructure (not talking cars here). Thats all going to cost money too, which with current budgets seems to be a big issue.

At this point I should mention that all of this assumes Class A office tenets want to move downtown. While there has been Centene and Stifel interested in doing so, I would be more interested in bringing in new companies, not shuffling others around. Right now, I think STL has to do more than support a Class A tower for that to happen. We have too man other things we need to bolster for companies to want to move here.

Thats just my thoughts.

I hope this doesn't sound like I am opposed to Class A office space, because I am not. Rather, I just think it needs to be done right, which I am not believing to be the case...at least not thus far.

Regardless, I respect your opinion. You have put together some well thought out posts and this discussion has been enjoyable and interesting so far. I really wish we as a community were more hands on in the redevelopment process, we have some smart people who could really contribute IMO.

RobbyD wrote:It seems that Stifel Nicholas is a growing and thriving business and is going to want something newer and bigger to house its people in. This is the kind of tenant downtown needs to not lose. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my layman's perspective it looks as if BPV is the only serious development going on at this time that would meet Stifel's desires.

Overall, I'm not sure that getting stingy with downtown development is the right move at this time, especially given the track record of downtown 2000-2009. How much did the housing bubble of the 2000's inflate the growth of downtown over this period? I don't know. But given the recent growth curve of downtown, the current shoveling developments, the pipelined (see Arch Grounds) projects, the surely forthcoming warming up of America's economic engines, and the credible forcast for downtown's growth over the next decade, now is not the time to take the foot off the gas pedal of downtown investment IMO.

Addtionally, I would think a requirement for successfully attracting new business is readily available space. We would have that. Surely if the RCGA puts a laser on finding tenants for newly available contiguous class A space in an attractive, growing, award-winning downtown St. Louis, they can find them? I would also say that sometimes business can become complacent. Maybe this is the shove the downtown market needs to continue getting its commercial space up to contemporary standards and seriously compete within the larger Midwest region.

A slowly emerging BPV district can (and will IMO) be an additional link making downtown a frequent and desired destination for locals and out-of-towners alike. Downtown has proven for over a decade now that it is capable of attracting new residents and business. I say lets keep the momentum going.

I agree with everything except the bolded. To be honest I appreciate the positive beliefs/feelings toward STL in the bolded statement, but I think it is going to take more than a shiny new office building and the RCGA trying to entice new businesses to get Class A tenets downtown or even in the as far as stl county. There are other cities that have the upper hand IMO. There is the perception of crime, schooling issues, lack of mass transit and the 1% tax to overcome. People on this forum and citizens of St. Louis know we have more to offer, but is what we are offering enough? To me its not as simple as "build it and they will come". Now, I understand that you feel part of the draw will have to come from the RCGA and others trying to draw businesses here, but I am not so optimistic at the present time.

As a way to maybe get more focused on what corportions look for during relocation here is a useful quote....

Thirteen Site-Selection Factors

“When determining the optimal location for the new site, a company is best served by articulating its specific requirements and expectations in 13 basic areas,” says Jim Colson, chief operating officer and president of site selection, AngelouEconomics. Each project is different, so companies will assign a different level of prioritization and weight to each of these factors:

* Labor

* Real Estate

* Utilities (electric, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications)

* Transportation Access



* Vendor/Supplier Impacts

* Educational System

* Overall Operating Costs

* Governmental Factors

* Environmental Considerations



* Business Interruption Risk

* Political Stability

* Quality of Life

* Incentives (to offset start-up costs and reduce operational costs)


Source: AngelouEconomics

RobbyD wrote:^Of course all of the above perceptions are true and factor into the equation. I have seen similar lists before and believe that those are all apart of any business decision. I would find it hard to believe, though, that St. Louis is the only city facing serious negative issues. The Atlanta school system is abysmal, the city has similar crime issues, sketchy mass transit, etc. but has been on a CBD boom for decades. Issses can be overcome.

I am also under no illusion that a majority of newly transplanted downtown employees would actually live in the City (unfortunately). I doubt many would even have to face the "bands of thugs" that roam the City and overall pathetic public school options that the government provides. If the entire region is sold as a place to live and work, St. Louis becomes very attractive. I always remember reading Bob Costas say that one reason he raised his family in St. Louis is the quality of life that the coasts don't afford families. I also believe his wife is from the area, so I'm sure that had a little something to do with it. But I will never forget Costas' take on the area. It's that view that needs to be shared in boardrooms and among the corporate elite who make these decisions.

All I know is this, whatever the perceptions are, sitting and waiting for someone to discover the St. Louis area will net nothing. If we are serious about growing downtown, serious steps to find possible suitors need to be taken and serious campaigns to help these suitors see St. Louis in the fullest light possible need to be mounted.

And I'm not even suggesting that something as big as moving Enterprise into a gleaming new highrise in BPV is teh way forward. But, rather, the many smaller operations who might see the prestige and community of a downtown address as a step up and, if the price is right, would be willing to jump in.

I really don't think we are too far off from agreement. My hang up is that we need to do more than campaign and build a tower. I think there are infrastructural things that need to happen in before/collaboration to get us to the point that marketing ourselves will really matter.

While the musical chairs aspect of Stifel moving is problematic, I think a new tower could give a psychological boost to downtown development. For 10+ years, this has been talked about, so it'd be great to see something there.

However, how about a smarter use of the land? Right now, it looks like Stifel's tower will sit in the middle of the south side, surrounded by parking lots. There's even talk of another parking garage in a future phase. Why not put the tower in a corner, closer to one of the existing Stadium garages? The last thing downtown STL needs is another parking garage.

soulardx wrote:While the musical chairs aspect of Stifel moving is problematic, I think a new tower could give a psychological boost to downtown development. For 10+ years, this has been talked about, so it'd be great to see something there.

However, how about a smarter use of the land? Right now, it looks like Stifel's tower will sit in the middle of the south side, surrounded by parking lots. There's even talk of another parking garage in a future phase. Why not put the tower in a corner, closer to one of the existing Stadium garages? The last thing downtown STL needs is another parking garage.

Yes to all of the above. That was the first thing negatively that jumped out when I saw the plan. I guess theyre going for improved sight lines into and from the stadium? I think one of the big drivers for the retail space will be the ability to watch a game from the new building. IDK, but a tower surrounded by a bunch of parking isn't ideal. Maybe this time they will invest some cash in making the yet to be developed space a bit more aetheically pleasing. Maybe some decent fencing, landscaping, temporary retail, park space with things for kiddos to climb on...anything?

How can the Cardindals afford $300 million for Pujholos and not have money for Ballpark village?
Am I missing something?

I think the news out of Stifel Nichols as per Stl Biz Journal only helps the fact that downtown's first new Class A office space in decades will breakground this year at BPV. As far as I'm concerned, its not problematic that a thriving expanding business will want to move to new class A office even though it is just couple blocks down the street. Every thriving downtown core is able to provide as such.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... rd-q4.html

Stifel sees record Q4
St. Louis Business Journal

Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 7:04am CST

. ..Stifel Financial Corp. said its fourth-quarter revenue rose 26 percent to a record $401.6 million, as net income soared 68 percent to $41.4 million, also a record, the St. Louis Business Journal reports
..

Read more: Stifel sees record Q4 | St. Louis Business Journal

dredger wrote:I think the news out of Stifel Nichols as per Stl Biz Journal only helps the fact that downtown's first new Class A office space in decades will breakground this year at BPV. As far as I'm concerned, its not problematic that a thriving expanding business will want to move to new class A office even though it is just couple blocks down the street. Every thriving downtown core is able to provide as such.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... rd-q4.html

Stifel sees record Q4
St. Louis Business Journal

Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 7:04am CST

. ..Stifel Financial Corp. said its fourth-quarter revenue rose 26 percent to a record $401.6 million, as net income soared 68 percent to $41.4 million, also a record, the St. Louis Business Journal reports
..

Read more: Stifel sees record Q4 | St. Louis Business Journal

Thats good news for the St. Louis. Glad to see a local firm doing well.

^I am just hoping that maybe they will consider their growth targets/current rates and decide to throw some more weight around in this development to ensure space to accomodate high expansion. Aka another 10 floors or so.