Because you proposed "tax(ing) the snot outta professional athletes" because they make too much money.RobbyD wrote:RobbyD wrote:On a different vein...I am definitely politically right of center, by and large, and do think our gov't regulated capitalist system works pretty well...But, I would tax the snot outta professional athletes...It's very hard for me to understand what the lowest paid professional athletes make let alone the highest paid (the league miniums are way outta line IMO...Pujols might be responsible for putting hinies in seats, but not journeymen outfielders)...
That our society pays athletes who play a game multiple times more than those who provide life saving or life building benefits for all of us is a clear indication that heaven is no where near the face of the earth...And that mama was right, life ain't fair...That makes no sense...lol...why are you talking to me?the central scrutinizer wrote: I'm sure you'll agree that we should tax the snot out of you, if I feel that you make too much money? No? I didn't think so.
- 6,775
Something really troubling just occured to me. Busch Stadium already has the solid beginnings of a Ballpark Village. It's called Cupples Station and it is anchored by two major hotels on either end, two metrolink stations on either end, numerous red brick historic buildings in a similar style as Busch, a mix of offices, apartments, condos and hotel rooms, a major sports related restarant, and a few other bars and restaurants.
While the hole in the ground next to Busch needs to be addressed in some way, the $$$ being poured into it would go much further to complete the redevelopment and build-out of Cupples Station. All of the tax-payer dollars would go much further toward creating a viable mini-neighborhood, and preserving an important part of St. Louis. Why are historic buildings screaming for redevelopment, buildings that already form a cohesive/coherent "village", crumbling while new subsidized out-of-context soulless glass box buildings going up a block away. This is so obvious. And so depressing. It makes absolutely no sense.
While the hole in the ground next to Busch needs to be addressed in some way, the $$$ being poured into it would go much further to complete the redevelopment and build-out of Cupples Station. All of the tax-payer dollars would go much further toward creating a viable mini-neighborhood, and preserving an important part of St. Louis. Why are historic buildings screaming for redevelopment, buildings that already form a cohesive/coherent "village", crumbling while new subsidized out-of-context soulless glass box buildings going up a block away. This is so obvious. And so depressing. It makes absolutely no sense.
- 549
^You have a completely valid point. But the difference in my mind is marketing. BPV is clearly geared towards suburbanites and it is MUCH, MUCH easier to market new development to this demographic. The people who will return to BPV over and over again likely don't care about preservation or autheticity whatsoever; newness trumps all.
Depressing indeed.
Depressing indeed.
- 8,905
I like to see buildings on the lots facing 7th street south of the stadium to gradiot. Especially on the other side of 7th facing Paddy Os
- 284
Along the lines of Cupples, I'd think incentives for Ballpark Village would be a real problem to whoever owns the (completely vacant) GenAmerica Building. A great, if quirky, Class A building that they're actively trying to lease. Subsidizing competition right next door, not to mention crowding out its view, seems like a kick in the face.
I see it quite differently from yours and Wabash perspective. The long term goal should be to do/accomplish all three - Keep Cupples going, new construction at BPV, and find a tenant for the GenAmerica or any other underutilized space. First, they are all three unique in their own right. Second, New class A office space has to be in the mix to be competitive. Losing Stifel Nichols to CBD or West County is not the answer as they could easily take up an offer for Centene's second tower or give life to Brown Shoe's stalled development or pick up Smurfit Stone's lease. Losing them to another metro area would truly be a kick in the face.stlwriterman wrote:Along the lines of Cupples, I'd think incentives for Ballpark Village would be a real problem to whoever owns the (completely vacant) GenAmerica Building. A great, if quirky, Class A building that they're actively trying to lease. Subsidizing competition right next door, not to mention crowding out its view, seems like a kick in the face.
Finally, stopping one of the three from happening because you want one of the other to happen would truly hurt the region as really takes a chance of the status quo remaining in place - an empty GenAmerica building, Cupples stalled to the point that the next step is demolition and BPV remains a softball field
- 712
Renaming Spruce Street as Stadium Street or Sports Street and getting the Cardinals and Blues to jointly spread their statues through the length of it would be nice. Then extending the street though AmShack II all the way to Union Station with a sports museum, bowling alley, or some other sporty anchor would be great. FS Midwest would be happy. If the Rams built a new stadium on top of the 22nd street interchange or behind Union Station, it could really work. Spread the statues a bit further, get retired players to open bars in the space between, and find new life for three relatively underused MetroLink stations. It would also make sense for the future Chouteau Greenway to integrate public sports facilities. There's a lot of unused space. MLS and the NBA could probably fit in too with surface parking to spare.
I generally don't think renaming streets is a good idea, but the tree streets don't do much for us at the moment. Renaming Olive in the city would make Olive in the county a lot less confusing. Pine? Who was this Pine?
I generally don't think renaming streets is a good idea, but the tree streets don't do much for us at the moment. Renaming Olive in the city would make Olive in the county a lot less confusing. Pine? Who was this Pine?
- 284
I've got no quarrel with Ballpark Village. I'm certainly not saying anyone should "stop it from happening." I'm just not sure why we city taxpayers need to subsidize new office buildings that will compete with vacant (Gen America) or soon-to-be-vacant (One Financial Plaza) office buildings elsewhere in downtown, which as of now receive no help.dredger wrote:I see it quite differently from yours and Wabash perspective. The long term goal should be to do/accomplish all three - Keep Cupples going, new construction at BPV, and find a tenant for the GenAmerica or any other underutilized space. First, they are all three unique in their own right. Second, New class A office space has to be in the mix to be competitive. Losing Stifel Nichols to CBD or West County is not the answer as they could easily take up an offer for Centene's second tower or give life to Brown Shoe's stalled development or pick up Smurfit Stone's lease. Losing them to another metro area would truly be a kick in the face.stlwriterman wrote:Along the lines of Cupples, I'd think incentives for Ballpark Village would be a real problem to whoever owns the (completely vacant) GenAmerica Building. A great, if quirky, Class A building that they're actively trying to lease. Subsidizing competition right next door, not to mention crowding out its view, seems like a kick in the face.
Finally, stopping one of the three from happening because you want one of the other to happen would truly hurt the region as really takes a chance of the status quo remaining in place - an empty GenAmerica building, Cupples stalled to the point that the next step is demolition and BPV remains a softball field
As for the argument that an enlivened Ballpark Village will spread its energy to Cupples and GenAmerica: Well, maybe. But if it's one 14-story office building surrounded by parking lots, it's hard to see how.
If the Cardinals and Stifel want to use their own money to build a new tower, God bless them. But if we're going to spend tax money on office space, why not at least use it to fix up the buildings we've already got (as happened with Peabody and the Gateway One Building, for instance) instead of adding new supply to a depressed market?
I understand your point. I do think their is a least one difference to be made. The subsidies are to rebuild an infrastructure at ground and below, essentially streets, sidewalks and utilities as such, on a site that lacks any such infrastructure and is very important to the future of downtown in my opinion. Does GenAmerican Bldg and Cupples warehouses benefit from having an existing street grid, sidewalks and access to downtown space that was built mostly with tax dollars? Yes. In that context I do think it is much more agreeable in how tax dollars and credits are involved.
Which bring you back to the same issue that you had on Wash Ave where a lot of tax subsidies and dollars went into refurbishing an existing office tower and redoing a failed mall into a parking garage, and hopefully with a movie theater, in order to keep a large law firm from leaving downtown. The tenant who lost out is suing. At end of the day its deciding on who you support and they preferences they have with the limited resources available.
Now is it an ideal site design, site plan? I don't think so as part the new street grid has more to do with placating the developers and their percieved notion on what will be built on site then trying to tie in the existing street grid. Nor do I think the players involved in BPV are maximizing their opportunities by limiting their first tower to 14 towers with very little speculative space. Kinda like low balling a player that essentially brings in most of your ticket sales day in and day out.
Which bring you back to the same issue that you had on Wash Ave where a lot of tax subsidies and dollars went into refurbishing an existing office tower and redoing a failed mall into a parking garage, and hopefully with a movie theater, in order to keep a large law firm from leaving downtown. The tenant who lost out is suing. At end of the day its deciding on who you support and they preferences they have with the limited resources available.
Now is it an ideal site design, site plan? I don't think so as part the new street grid has more to do with placating the developers and their percieved notion on what will be built on site then trying to tie in the existing street grid. Nor do I think the players involved in BPV are maximizing their opportunities by limiting their first tower to 14 towers with very little speculative space. Kinda like low balling a player that essentially brings in most of your ticket sales day in and day out.
Which is why the City should not just sign on without requirement....requirements they uphold. I see one street that should be build with city funds, the rest is all for internal circulation. That needs to be on the developer. St. Louis better make sure they have an ARB in place if they want to maintain a quality built environment. The problem is they won't do this. STL is afraid to play hardball. Some of that is for good reason. BUT, a majority of it shows weakness and it promotes sloppy development, which does not help attract the kinds of businesses and developers that we should be looking to attract.dredger wrote:I understand your point. I do think their is a least one difference to be made. The subsidies are to rebuild an infrastructure at ground and below, essentially streets, sidewalks and utilities as such, on a site that lacks any such infrastructure and is very important to the future of downtown in my opinion. Does GenAmerican Bldg and Cupples warehouses benefit from having an existing street grid, sidewalks and access to downtown space that was built mostly with tax dollars? Yes. In that context I do think it is much more agreeable in how tax dollars and credits are involved.
Which bring you back to the same issue that you had on Wash Ave where a lot of tax subsidies and dollars went into refurbishing an existing office tower and redoing a failed mall into a parking garage, and hopefully with a movie theater, in order to keep a large law firm from leaving downtown. The tenant who lost out is suing. At end of the day its deciding on who you support and they preferences they have with the limited resources available.
Now is it an ideal site design, site plan? I don't think so as part the new street grid has more to do with placating the developers and their percieved notion on what will be built on site then trying to tie in the existing street grid. Nor do I think the players involved in BPV are maximizing their opportunities by limiting their first tower to 14 towers with very little speculative space. Kinda like low balling a player that essentially brings in most of your ticket sales day in and day out.
The standard for the built environment should increase when a development gets tax payer support.
Amen. This is exactly my sentiment. There are good arguments for building a new tower and for keeping Stifel Nicholaus downtown. But it seems wasteful and shortsighted to invest in new buildings when we can't take care of the ones we have. Cupples station contains much new Class A office space and has attracted firms to downtown (ie Luxco, Osborn & Barr, and Adamson). Another good example is Unisys leasing 555 Washington and planning to bring 300 employees to that location. These projects have succeeded in attracting new businesses to downtown while redeveloping and updating historic buildings.stlwriterman wrote:If the Cardinals and Stifel want to use their own money to build a new tower, God bless them. But if we're going to spend tax money on office space, why not at least use it to fix up the buildings we've already got (as happened with Peabody and the Gateway One Building, for instance) instead of adding new supply to a depressed market?
An important distinction is that while BPV is leading with the Stifel Nicholaus building, what they are ultimately planning is a retail/entertainment/mixed-use village. My point is that the infrastructure for this already exists 2 blocks away. Why start from scratch when much of the framework and investment is already in place?
I don't agree at all. Does the historic nature of Wash. Ave. or The Landing deter suburbanites? Do the old narrow streets of Soulard keep away the Jeff Co. and Southern Illinois folks at Mardi Gras? Not in the least. People from all over New England and Chicagoland party on Lansdowne Street and Wrigleyville before and after the game. They seem undetered by the older, urban, aging nature of those places. I think it's a generalization to think that when suburbanites come to the city what they are looking for is a transplanted suburban experience. That model certainly didn't work for St. Louis Centre.urbanpioneer wrote: BPV is clearly geared towards suburbanites and it is MUCH, MUCH easier to market new development to this demographic. The people who will return to BPV over and over again likely don't care about preservation or autheticity whatsoever; newness trumps all.
When using Spruce to walk to or from Cardinals games, I often wonder what a vibrant Cupples Station would feel like...And, I have to say, it would probably be very cool and attractive to suburbanites...The Mercury bar, on Spruce, grills out ribs and burgers and opens the outside bar during home games...It's me and my dad's favorite spot before the game......The red brick, historic buildings, the great smelling bbq, the bucket of Bud Lites and Busch Stadium like, right there makes for probably my favorite spot in the City when the Redbirds are in town...And if you're a baseball fan....Throw in Stan's statue and the iconic "Busch Stadium" sign looming over the scene and you have baseball nirvana...
Cupples Station would be an amazing entertainment spot, period...And the street all the way to Scottrade as the potential to be the southern Washington Ave for Downtown...
Cupples Station would be an amazing entertainment spot, period...And the street all the way to Scottrade as the potential to be the southern Washington Ave for Downtown...
- 549
^Perhaps you misunderstood what I was getting at. I'm not saying that a historic urban fabric deters people (it doesn't). I'm saying it doesn't draw certain people in; although of course there are plenty of exceptions to this statement. What I'm referring to is the values exhibited by the collective idea of "suburbs", the values that drive sprawl; newness being part a big part of this formula. There is a reason buildings often have a life expectancy of only 30-40 years nowadays.I don't agree at all. Does the historic nature of Wash. Ave. or The Landing deter suburbanites? Do the old narrow streets of Soulard keep away the Jeff Co. and Southern Illinois folks at Mardi Gras? Not in the least. People from all over New England and Chicagoland party on Lansdowne Street and Wrigleyville before and after the game. They seem undetered by the older, urban, aging nature of those places. I think it's a generalization to think that when suburbanites come to the city what they are looking for is a transplanted suburban experience. That model certainly didn't work for St. Louis Centre.
An example: people I work with from the 'burbs, working IN the architecture industry, don't appreciate our historic fabric. It's mind-boggling and sad, but if these people aren't drawn in by our history, then I think it is safe to say that much of mainstream suburbia isn't either. This is based on my experience and not any solid evidence per se. It's not that people are deterred; it's just that they are indifferent and if given the choice would prefer something brand sparkling new to something old.
I'm not saying this line of thinking is right (I strongly disagree with it), just pointing out a mindset that I've observed since moving to St. Louis. Whether the entire developement should be catered to this close-minded group is a whole different debate. That being said, I really like the idea of using Cupples Station as the site for BPV. Definitely a missed opportunity.
- 8,905
Good idea. Problem is... The Cardinals don't own Cupples, they own an empty lot north of the stadium.urbanpioneer wrote: That being said, I really like the idea of using Cupples Station as the site for BPV. Definitely a missed opportunity.
urbanpioneer wrote:^Perhaps you misunderstood what I was getting at. I'm not saying that a historic urban fabric deters people (it doesn't). I'm saying it doesn't draw certain people in; although of course there are plenty of exceptions to this statement. What I'm referring to is the values exhibited by the collective idea of "suburbs", the values that drive sprawl; newness being part a big part of this formula. There is a reason buildings often have a life expectancy of only 30-40 years nowadays.I don't agree at all. Does the historic nature of Wash. Ave. or The Landing deter suburbanites? Do the old narrow streets of Soulard keep away the Jeff Co. and Southern Illinois folks at Mardi Gras? Not in the least. People from all over New England and Chicagoland party on Lansdowne Street and Wrigleyville before and after the game. They seem undetered by the older, urban, aging nature of those places. I think it's a generalization to think that when suburbanites come to the city what they are looking for is a transplanted suburban experience. That model certainly didn't work for St. Louis Centre.
An example: people I work with from the 'burbs, working IN the architecture industry, don't appreciate our historic fabric. It's mind-boggling and sad, but if these people aren't drawn in by our history, then I think it is safe to say that much of mainstream suburbia isn't either. This is based on my experience and not any solid evidence per se. It's not that people are deterred; it's just that they are indifferent and if given the choice would prefer something brand sparkling new to something old.
I'm not saying this line of thinking is right (I strongly disagree with it), just pointing out a mindset that I've observed since moving to St. Louis. Whether the entire developement should be catered to this close-minded group is a whole different debate. That being said, I really like the idea of using Cupples Station as the site for BPV. Definitely a missed opportunity.
If those people need something new to come and visit downtown, then who cares. Let them stay where they reside. There are more than enough people who appreciate history, culture and the urban experience that we don't have to create something new just to draw those without appreciation downtown. This is especially my stance if they bring in a bunch of national chains that put the unique and locally owned shops and restaurants out of business.
- 11K
I don't think this is true at all. There are not enough people who appreciate history, culture and the urban experience. That's why there are dozens of vacant store fronts downtown, that's why ballpark village is a parking lot and Cupples is not a finished development. In a city that struggles with extreme vacancy, the very point is that there aren't enough people who appreciate history, culture and the urban experience - at least as it currently exists in St. Louis.If those people need something new to come and visit downtown, then who cares. Let them stay where they reside. There are more than enough people who appreciate history, culture and the urban experience that we don't have to create something new just to draw those without appreciation downtown.
Nearly every place I visit downtown is "new". City Garden, Busch Stadium, Washington Avenue, any number of restaurants, the Arch. Should none of that been built because everyone should have just been happy with how it was and no effort should have been made to attract more, new, people? Maybe I'm simply missing something in your argument?
- 2,928
I think that the wants, needs, and desires of the Cardinals fan base in re Ballpark Village are inclusive of pretty much all ideas spread out so far:
1. Cupples Station is a very attractive, wonderfully historic place that I bet will only increase in quality & attractiveness with continued focus as a place where Cardinals fans gather before & after games. It can and does fulfill demand by a portion of Cards fans for what they are seeking in such entertainment options.
2. Aside from the aforementioned advertising companies, Cupples Station is not as big a draw, nor has the potential to be as big a draw, for corporate interests as the Ballpark Village proposals. The only hint of such was the presumption I gave a long time ago that, based on some schematics for Choteau Lake, the MX Tower was looking at being just south of the Westin. That was a guess in itself, it never reached much more than a drawing, and I have heard of nothing new since.
3. Ballpark Village as designed & presented will fulfill demand for new Class A office space, both for corporations currently in the StL Metro Area (yes, including 8 blocks up Broadway) and potentially for those outside of it. While I can only hope that external companies considering corporate relocation are considering StL, I do think that new Class A office space could help. (Caveat: I believe Human Capital is a better draw to an area than a building, hands down)
4. Such Class A office space would be the foundation for funding this whole thing into profitability. As the baseball-related retail would last for only 6-7 months, the rest of the year would be focused on the office segments for revenues, and long-term leases with signage rights can definitely provide such incentive for construction.
5. The retail & entertainment offerings planned for BPV will fulfill a demand segment that Cupples Station by itself couldn’t provide, and could do so at a profitability & sustainability that meets demand of businesses & developers alike. Personally, I’m not a likely member of that demographic which will love the PBV entertainment opportunities, but I have plenty of friends with families that would really enjoy what’s planned.
6. And, I don’t want to ignore these people, typically assigned the title of “suburbanites” on this thread. They’re Cards fans, and they’re Saint Louisains even if they live in Chesterfield. If we are a unified region, then let’s accept all of us. At the very least, let’s accept the monies their visiting dollars will have flowing into the City’s coffers.
7. Such development & attention could actually further opportunities to areas ancillary to both BPV and Cupples Station. With the GenAmerica Building in mind, I see increased attention and visitor activity sparking demand into the area, potentially leading to new demand for that building by a corporation seeking the building for its location and draw as well as the building itself. As well, I see the upcoming work to the Arch Grounds increasing attention to this really remarkable building, custom-built for a specific tenant type that it is already.
8. I see further developments continuing in the planned “Choteau Greenway” mass of parking lots, not necessarily for the “Greenway” concept but in continued development of baseball-themed bars around the area. That’s our true “Wrigleyville” area, and as BPV stalls, this area continues to grow.
Quid pro quo: The holdup of BPV for all this time, again and again, has been the lack of capital necessary for the construction build-out, and the ability to open new businesses within BPV, resulting from the national economic crisis. We’re in the Great Recession, which I honestly believe is a true full-on Depression, founded on the downfall of real estate development & the credit attached to real estate valuations. No one’s lending anyone right now without some huge securitization and fully demonstrable ROI. For all it is, BPV remains a huge and speculative project.
Personally, I’m almost glad this project hadn’t broken ground earlier, because then it would still be a mess of half-finished projects even worse than the Busch II crater, a.k.a. Lake DeWitt, was before it was a stupid softball diamond. I’m also thinking of the failure of the CWE project at the corner of Pine & Euclid, now a giant mosquito pit, and of the leveled buildings formerly at 14th & Washington, the results of the failed Skyhouse project. Imagine if that could’ve included Cupples Station teardowns as well.
This whole BPV project is bad, real bad, but it could have easily been so much worse.
When they can secure the funding, I see it going forward. I’m royally pissed at the mess this is, but I do recognize the very real constraints they face. But that's what you risk when you're a developer & commit to a project.
So Cordish… I wish you all the luck in securing the funding, so you can BUILD THE DAMN THING ALREADY.
1. Cupples Station is a very attractive, wonderfully historic place that I bet will only increase in quality & attractiveness with continued focus as a place where Cardinals fans gather before & after games. It can and does fulfill demand by a portion of Cards fans for what they are seeking in such entertainment options.
2. Aside from the aforementioned advertising companies, Cupples Station is not as big a draw, nor has the potential to be as big a draw, for corporate interests as the Ballpark Village proposals. The only hint of such was the presumption I gave a long time ago that, based on some schematics for Choteau Lake, the MX Tower was looking at being just south of the Westin. That was a guess in itself, it never reached much more than a drawing, and I have heard of nothing new since.
3. Ballpark Village as designed & presented will fulfill demand for new Class A office space, both for corporations currently in the StL Metro Area (yes, including 8 blocks up Broadway) and potentially for those outside of it. While I can only hope that external companies considering corporate relocation are considering StL, I do think that new Class A office space could help. (Caveat: I believe Human Capital is a better draw to an area than a building, hands down)
4. Such Class A office space would be the foundation for funding this whole thing into profitability. As the baseball-related retail would last for only 6-7 months, the rest of the year would be focused on the office segments for revenues, and long-term leases with signage rights can definitely provide such incentive for construction.
5. The retail & entertainment offerings planned for BPV will fulfill a demand segment that Cupples Station by itself couldn’t provide, and could do so at a profitability & sustainability that meets demand of businesses & developers alike. Personally, I’m not a likely member of that demographic which will love the PBV entertainment opportunities, but I have plenty of friends with families that would really enjoy what’s planned.
6. And, I don’t want to ignore these people, typically assigned the title of “suburbanites” on this thread. They’re Cards fans, and they’re Saint Louisains even if they live in Chesterfield. If we are a unified region, then let’s accept all of us. At the very least, let’s accept the monies their visiting dollars will have flowing into the City’s coffers.
7. Such development & attention could actually further opportunities to areas ancillary to both BPV and Cupples Station. With the GenAmerica Building in mind, I see increased attention and visitor activity sparking demand into the area, potentially leading to new demand for that building by a corporation seeking the building for its location and draw as well as the building itself. As well, I see the upcoming work to the Arch Grounds increasing attention to this really remarkable building, custom-built for a specific tenant type that it is already.
8. I see further developments continuing in the planned “Choteau Greenway” mass of parking lots, not necessarily for the “Greenway” concept but in continued development of baseball-themed bars around the area. That’s our true “Wrigleyville” area, and as BPV stalls, this area continues to grow.
Quid pro quo: The holdup of BPV for all this time, again and again, has been the lack of capital necessary for the construction build-out, and the ability to open new businesses within BPV, resulting from the national economic crisis. We’re in the Great Recession, which I honestly believe is a true full-on Depression, founded on the downfall of real estate development & the credit attached to real estate valuations. No one’s lending anyone right now without some huge securitization and fully demonstrable ROI. For all it is, BPV remains a huge and speculative project.
Personally, I’m almost glad this project hadn’t broken ground earlier, because then it would still be a mess of half-finished projects even worse than the Busch II crater, a.k.a. Lake DeWitt, was before it was a stupid softball diamond. I’m also thinking of the failure of the CWE project at the corner of Pine & Euclid, now a giant mosquito pit, and of the leveled buildings formerly at 14th & Washington, the results of the failed Skyhouse project. Imagine if that could’ve included Cupples Station teardowns as well.
This whole BPV project is bad, real bad, but it could have easily been so much worse.
When they can secure the funding, I see it going forward. I’m royally pissed at the mess this is, but I do recognize the very real constraints they face. But that's what you risk when you're a developer & commit to a project.
So Cordish… I wish you all the luck in securing the funding, so you can BUILD THE DAMN THING ALREADY.
- 2,386
We have a pretty interesting argument here.
Please (as a poster above has stated) make the distinction that taxpayer $$ is not going to build a tower, it is going to build streets and utilities. This is the responsibility of the city in any case. I don't believe any money will be used to finance a building.
Has Stifel reached out to any professional development companies? Maybe the city of StL should make a few calls on their behalf. While possibly not IN BPV, there is (I believe) ample land around the stadium to build a tower. Right now, with projects not really moving, I would be willing to bet there would be plenty of real estate companies (Hines, etc.) who would be interested in building something here to house Stifel. Maybe putting some pressure on will get things done. I simply cannot understand why there is only one player in the game right now, I would assume plenty of development companies would jump at the chance to develop a new (likely larger) building with Stifel as the anchor tenant. I know I am going to get the stock response "If there was, someone would be doing it," but what if it really is a matter of the people making the decisions not investigating or possibly even turning down other opportunities for the wrong reasons?
This seems to be a great opportunity for someone else to step in here. As far as I can tell Cordish isn't a very good developer. On the same note, have the Cardinals spoken to anyone else? I don't get why Stifel and the Cards are dead set on one developer that doesn't seem to produce the best results...
Please (as a poster above has stated) make the distinction that taxpayer $$ is not going to build a tower, it is going to build streets and utilities. This is the responsibility of the city in any case. I don't believe any money will be used to finance a building.
Has Stifel reached out to any professional development companies? Maybe the city of StL should make a few calls on their behalf. While possibly not IN BPV, there is (I believe) ample land around the stadium to build a tower. Right now, with projects not really moving, I would be willing to bet there would be plenty of real estate companies (Hines, etc.) who would be interested in building something here to house Stifel. Maybe putting some pressure on will get things done. I simply cannot understand why there is only one player in the game right now, I would assume plenty of development companies would jump at the chance to develop a new (likely larger) building with Stifel as the anchor tenant. I know I am going to get the stock response "If there was, someone would be doing it," but what if it really is a matter of the people making the decisions not investigating or possibly even turning down other opportunities for the wrong reasons?
This seems to be a great opportunity for someone else to step in here. As far as I can tell Cordish isn't a very good developer. On the same note, have the Cardinals spoken to anyone else? I don't get why Stifel and the Cards are dead set on one developer that doesn't seem to produce the best results...
First, let me say I'm really enjoying this conversation. Every post from the last few pages has been great. I agree with it all (which is odd since there are so many different views).
Now my take: as far as Ballpark Village goes, I want them to go big. As big as possible. You're right - 14 floors of new space is not enough. To steal and adapt a quote, "If we don't prepare for success, we're destined for failure." If the past decade of revitalization and the prevailing winds of opinion stay strong, Ballpark Village -if built tall and built confidently - will be, first and foremost, a Grade-A business hub in downtown. And another quote I hate to use but, considering BPV's neighbor, its a bit more apropos: "If you build it, they will come." Now that's not entirely accurate and more often than not a dangerous attitude, but St. Louis needs to take that bold step into its future. And if you play musical chairs with existing companies for awhile, well they've obviously built a strong enough business to make that move and you can only hope that other smaller businesses will fill their vacancies and achieve that same success.
Cupples Station has the makings of a campus for professional communications (PR, Advertising, Marketing, etc.) and design firms. You're already seeing that with Osborne & Barr and Adamson. It's no secret as to why they've moved there...again, they're neighbor. A contract, even a small one, with the Cards is a meal-ticket for an agency and an in-road to more. If space continues to fill up with young, creative professionals, well, Cupples Station will take care of itself just fine. The restaurant/bar industry feeds on the young and the hip and the artistic (not to mention successful and financially set).
Finally, there's Clark Street. With Busch Stadium, ScotTrade Center (go Blues!), and Union Station this stretch should be strong...and yet it isn't. Part of the problem is that existing buildings have their backs to the street and part of the problem is the Post Office and its expansive, ugly lot(s). Clark can be strong, but for it to be, Union Station needs to be stronger - way stronger. It needs to be an anchor.
I agree with others - you need Ballpark Village to succeed as an attraction and a business hub. After that, hopefully the mass will be there to sustain and activate everything else.
Now my take: as far as Ballpark Village goes, I want them to go big. As big as possible. You're right - 14 floors of new space is not enough. To steal and adapt a quote, "If we don't prepare for success, we're destined for failure." If the past decade of revitalization and the prevailing winds of opinion stay strong, Ballpark Village -if built tall and built confidently - will be, first and foremost, a Grade-A business hub in downtown. And another quote I hate to use but, considering BPV's neighbor, its a bit more apropos: "If you build it, they will come." Now that's not entirely accurate and more often than not a dangerous attitude, but St. Louis needs to take that bold step into its future. And if you play musical chairs with existing companies for awhile, well they've obviously built a strong enough business to make that move and you can only hope that other smaller businesses will fill their vacancies and achieve that same success.
Cupples Station has the makings of a campus for professional communications (PR, Advertising, Marketing, etc.) and design firms. You're already seeing that with Osborne & Barr and Adamson. It's no secret as to why they've moved there...again, they're neighbor. A contract, even a small one, with the Cards is a meal-ticket for an agency and an in-road to more. If space continues to fill up with young, creative professionals, well, Cupples Station will take care of itself just fine. The restaurant/bar industry feeds on the young and the hip and the artistic (not to mention successful and financially set).
Finally, there's Clark Street. With Busch Stadium, ScotTrade Center (go Blues!), and Union Station this stretch should be strong...and yet it isn't. Part of the problem is that existing buildings have their backs to the street and part of the problem is the Post Office and its expansive, ugly lot(s). Clark can be strong, but for it to be, Union Station needs to be stronger - way stronger. It needs to be an anchor.
I agree with others - you need Ballpark Village to succeed as an attraction and a business hub. After that, hopefully the mass will be there to sustain and activate everything else.
- 284
This is semantics.newstl2020 wrote:We have a pretty interesting argument here.
Please (as a poster above has stated) make the distinction that taxpayer $$ is not going to build a tower, it is going to build streets and utilities. This is the responsibility of the city in any case. I don't believe any money will be used to finance a building.
The restoring of a street grid is, at best, partial - and, frankly, far from priority #1 of this project. And the utilities? I'll admit I'm not intimate with the below-ground wiring, but this site housed a baseball stadium five years ago, I'm pretty sure it's got sufficient sewer and electric connections.
The money is, at least, subsidizing a tower by saving Cordish & co. the cost of other site improvements. If the point of the subsidy was really to restore infrastructure, then why isn't the city - which owns the infrastructure - taking the lead in designing it? And if the money doesn't finance the building, why do they need it so badly?
Alex, I think what we are describing as new might be different. I don't mean new in relation to the Webster definition. I do agree that we need new things, as you pointed out. Everything that is great was at some point new.Alex Ihnen wrote:I don't think this is true at all. There are not enough people who appreciate history, culture and the urban experience. That's why there are dozens of vacant store fronts downtown, that's why ballpark village is a parking lot and Cupples is not a finished development. In a city that struggles with extreme vacancy, the very point is that there aren't enough people who appreciate history, culture and the urban experience - at least as it currently exists in St. Louis.If those people need something new to come and visit downtown, then who cares. Let them stay where they reside. There are more than enough people who appreciate history, culture and the urban experience that we don't have to create something new just to draw those without appreciation downtown.
Nearly every place I visit downtown is "new". City Garden, Busch Stadium, Washington Avenue, any number of restaurants, the Arch. Should none of that been built because everyone should have just been happy with how it was and no effort should have been made to attract more, new, people? Maybe I'm simply missing something in your argument?
But building something that has enough luster or newness with a trendy feel that brings people downtown a few times is not what we need. We need places. Areas that emerge with St. Louis culture and ingenuity. Places that embody what we want and need....what we love. Cordish designs based on trendy aesthetics and draws national chains. That type of development is new in the flashy, mass marketing sense. I am more interested in new communities and places (too often people do not understand the true definition of this word and its meaning)...those that are authentic, not new, disneyfied spaces.
New trendy development is just pulling the wool over our eyes and pushing us further away from what makes us so profoundly interesting and beautiful. Unfortunately, St. Louis is battling to try to both save that and destroy it. We destroy it by being blindly pro development and growth, when instead we should be cultivating development that speaks to who we are and how we really prefer to live...not how people tell us to live.
Those areas of our city and those of the greatest cities all came from an organic development, one that allowed us to put "us" into the development. These developments help in the creation of places. What we build too often today are spaces. They are flashy and "exciting", but they lack any deeper meaning. These faux places remove us further away from partaking in the culture, history and environment that we love and appreciate.
I have become increasingly aware that many people have lost a sense of what they like, love and want out of their environment. They then settle for what is presented to them, because they either don't know what they want or don't feel they have the power to get it. So, they go with what is new, because it seems their only move. I constantly try to help people see what they want out of their environment. For those who open up and begin to understand usually tell me how they want to live elsewhere in a place rather than some space they have been spoon fed. Granted their preferences are not always in tune with mine, it is a great feeling to know that they have motivation to find what they want rather than what they are essential told to want by developers, designers, planners, realtors and media.
So, after all that, I hope people can understand where I come from with my arguments pertaining to development and I hope people will join me and others lobbying for a higher standard of development.
I agree with everything you said before this quoted portion.gone corporate wrote: 3. Ballpark Village as designed & presented will fulfill demand for new Class A office space, both for corporations currently in the StL Metro Area (yes, including 8 blocks up Broadway) and potentially for those outside of it. While I can only hope that external companies considering corporate relocation are considering StL, I do think that new Class A office space could help. (Caveat: I believe Human Capital is a better draw to an area than a building, hands down)
4. Such Class A office space would be the foundation for funding this whole thing into profitability. As the baseball-related retail would last for only 6-7 months, the rest of the year would be focused on the office segments for revenues, and long-term leases with signage rights can definitely provide such incentive for construction.
5. The retail & entertainment offerings planned for BPV will fulfill a demand segment that Cupples Station by itself couldn’t provide, and could do so at a profitability & sustainability that meets demand of businesses & developers alike. Personally, I’m not a likely member of that demographic which will love the PBV entertainment opportunities, but I have plenty of friends with families that would really enjoy what’s planned.
6. And, I don’t want to ignore these people, typically assigned the title of “suburbanites” on this thread. They’re Cards fans, and they’re Saint Louisains even if they live in Chesterfield. If we are a unified region, then let’s accept all of us. At the very least, let’s accept the monies their visiting dollars will have flowing into the City’s coffers.
My responses to each section...
3. Personally, I believe that many overestimate the potential relocation of tenets just by building an new Class A office tower. Like you said human capital is a crucial element, as is surrounding infrastructure and the local economy. (I could be wrong about this, but I have yet to see evidence suggesting otherwise. If someone can provide that evidence, I would be interested in reassessing my opinion).
4, 5 & 6. I don't think that Class A office as the single base can make this work over the long run. This model has failed our and other's downtowns for far too long. If retail is only getting patrons during game days then they will almost assuredly struggle. Retail needs a steady diet of passersby to work. If there are not enough basic commercial goods and services, these retail areas either fail over time or do not reach their potential. The proposed development model (at least from my understanding) does not promote a mixture of supportive uses, nor does it provide continued foot and vehicular traffic to meet the needs of the retailers.
I think there are some holes in this argument that need filling, but the basic premise seems to be close to that of my stance.stlwriterman wrote:This is semantics.newstl2020 wrote:We have a pretty interesting argument here.
Please (as a poster above has stated) make the distinction that taxpayer $$ is not going to build a tower, it is going to build streets and utilities. This is the responsibility of the city in any case. I don't believe any money will be used to finance a building.
The restoring of a street grid is, at best, partial - and, frankly, far from priority #1 of this project. And the utilities? I'll admit I'm not intimate with the below-ground wiring, but this site housed a baseball stadium five years ago, I'm pretty sure it's got sufficient sewer and electric connections.
The money is, at least, subsidizing a tower by saving Cordish & co. the cost of other site improvements. If the point of the subsidy was really to restore infrastructure, then why isn't the city - which owns the infrastructure - taking the lead in designing it? And if the money doesn't finance the building, why do they need it so badly?
We, as a tax payers should not be paying for anything on the interior of this development. If this development requires interior circulation that does not conform to the urban fabric, then that part is not financed on our behalf. If it is to be financed on our behalf, then there becomes a much higher standard for this project and the funding does not occur if those standards are not met.
Simply put, you suggest that St. Louis should stand the high ground with no compromises to be made. That sounds good position if people are coming to St Louis of significant numbers (like what you see in Texas) instead of leaving St Louis.zun1026 wrote:I think there are some holes in this argument that need filling, but the basic premise seems to be close to that of my stance.stlwriterman wrote:This is semantics.newstl2020 wrote:We have a pretty interesting argument here.
Please (as a poster above has stated) make the distinction that taxpayer $$ is not going to build a tower, it is going to build streets and utilities. This is the responsibility of the city in any case. I don't believe any money will be used to finance a building.
The restoring of a street grid is, at best, partial - and, frankly, far from priority #1 of this project. And the utilities? I'll admit I'm not intimate with the below-ground wiring, but this site housed a baseball stadium five years ago, I'm pretty sure it's got sufficient sewer and electric connections.
The money is, at least, subsidizing a tower by saving Cordish & co. the cost of other site improvements. If the point of the subsidy was really to restore infrastructure, then why isn't the city - which owns the infrastructure - taking the lead in designing it? And if the money doesn't finance the building, why do they need it so badly?
We, as a tax payers should not be paying for anything on the interior of this development. If this development requires interior circulation that does not conform to the urban fabric, then that part is not financed on our behalf. If it is to be financed on our behalf, then there becomes a much higher standard for this project and the funding does not occur if those standards are not met.
However, the reality is that companies like Peabody and Stifel Nichols like any other corporate HQ have immense number of options to choose from where as St Louis doesn't, take it or leave it. But, downtown, the city and the region or urbansim for that matter won't thrive without a significant number of mid to large size employers. In other words, jobs.
I am not advocating that we do not make any compromises. Thats how you have to play the game, compromise is a given. St. Louis does not need to be stingy or strict, but we do need to have some backbone. We do have to stand for quality development. If we don't, then we won't have desirable companies locate here and we will be just as "undesirable" as before.dredger wrote: Simply put, you suggest that St. Louis should stand the high ground with no compromises to be made. That sounds good position if people are coming to St Louis of significant numbers (like what you see in Texas) instead of leaving St Louis.
However, the reality is that companies like Peabody and Stifel Nichols like any other corporate HQ have immense number of options to choose from where as St Louis doesn't, take it or leave it. But, downtown, the city and the region or urbansim for that matter won't thrive without a significant number of mid to large size employers. In other words, jobs.
Just because we are trying to maintain companies like Peabody and Stifel does not mean we need to bend over backwards for them. We simply need to work with them and help them find what they need. I am sure there are more options for STL and Stifel than just BPV. If BPV is their only option, then we should promote a version of BPV that acts in the most beneficial manner to all parties, not just the Cards, Cordish and Stifel.
The Cardinals ownership and Cordish seem like they want to start moving on development soon and they need Stifel as a client in order to proceed. The City needs Stifel, but not necessarily BPV IMO. So, you have the city put pressure on the BPV proponents to make some compromises of their own. They have to be realistic compromises...on both sides. If the City sinks money into this project as it stands w/o some compromises on the private side, then they will likely (IMO) not get a good return on investment... something they cannot afford to do with past, current and future budget shortfalls.