Share
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 13, 2006#651

I would agree. I thought the Post article was fine.



Umm, I would actually like to see this "really ambitious project" before I answer that question, but I guess we won't get to see it until it is a done deal. Ridiculous. My definition of a "really ambitious project" and the Cardinals/Cordish definition is probably different. And, no, I do not trust the powers-what-be to make the right decision.



What irks me is that, through the years, those renderings of the complete BPV were trotted out many, many times and it was repeatedly stated that if the new stadium was built then ALL OF THIS WILL SOON BE YOURS and don't worry that we are only committed to two blocks, we are going to develop that and then some! Not once did the Cardinals say, well, if you want anything besides a Cardinals museum and a public plaza, you are going to have to kick in some more money.




I don't know if this is a fair way to think about the deal. I mean the BV proposal has changed alot in the past 10 years, from a collection of 4-8 story red brick buildings that looked like nothing more than an extension of the cupples warehouses to a collection of small buildings with one central tower to the most recent renderings with 3 20-30 story towers. And on top of all that we here rummors now of underground parking.



I agree with most sentiments that say get the figure as low as possible, but there is nothing wrong with public monies for this project if it brings in design features (such as underground parking) and retail, office, and residental masses that the market wouldn't create by itself.
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostSep 13, 2006#652

basically what mayor slay said on the radio program this morning is...



-Public financing would be made available to the cardinals in the form of a TIF (tax increment financing).

-No existing moneys would be given to the developers, no checks would be made to them. This public financing would be in the form of a percentage of new tax revenue generated from the BPV. (not guaranteed by the city)

-since Mayor slay has been in office, roughly 80 projects have used public/private monies. The Cardinals and Cordish would recieve no special treatment.



see

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/
1,026
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,026

PostSep 13, 2006#653

they had the post repoprter who wrote the story on afterwards - he's seen the design and - as most of you know - he said he was "blown away." But he said something else that really caught my ear - he said that the development had towers soaring ABOVE the arch. He probably just mispoke (he is, afterall, a writer for the post) but how big would that be ... highly doubt it though
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostSep 13, 2006#654

that is right...there will be at least one tower in BPV taller than the arch...how could there not be
752
Super MemberSuper Member
752

PostSep 13, 2006#655

easy -- if the cards/coordish did only what they had to do... the buildings would hardly eclipse the stadium, much less the profile. I think the appropriate question would be - why wouldn't they - and I think the answer is risk. They are in the business baseball.. and they already have a nice new stadium. With mega projects like CL and TBD already in motion, they could fear any-more "mega" would over saturate the market. I think they should make is awesome, make it so you can eat in a resturant at the top of one of those buildings and watch a cards game from inside... but I can also see thier point. And dont say "typical St. Louis Pessismissm" I am from texas, go to school in rural missouri, the cards owners are from Cincy and Cordish is from Baltimore. BTW the Cordish website now says 1,200 residential units... i thin i used to say 1000....
459
Full MemberFull Member
459

PostSep 13, 2006#656

markofucity wrote:they had the post repoprter who wrote the story on afterwards - he's seen the design and - as most of you know - he said he was "blown away." But he said something else that really caught my ear - he said that the development had towers soaring ABOVE the arch. He probably just mispoke (he is, afterall, a writer for the post) but how big would that be ... highly doubt it though


^ you probably heard right...Bernie had the same reporter on his sports show (1380) yesterday and he said the same thing about the towers soaring above the arch!
1,448
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,448

PostSep 13, 2006#657

Maybe the Arch was included in the model? That may explain the "it's bigger than the Arch" remark.
145
Junior MemberJunior Member
145

PostSep 13, 2006#658

STL_Rising wrote:On the highrises, he mentioned that retail will be in the lower levels, offices in the middle levels, and residential units in the top floors. I'm assuming this means these buildings will have quite a bit of height considering they are going to have 1,000 units, but I could be wrong.


Boy, that sure sounds like descriptions of the MW Tower... and MW's rendering of "someone else's" 71 story tower. Perhaps that "someone else" is Cordish and there are two tower's.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 13, 2006#659

Enough is enough. There are too many rumors going around. I think all we can do is wait a month or 60 days and hope some good news comes out, because all these rummors and theorys are just too much...



:-#
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostSep 13, 2006#660

^ Exactly. I'm excited about the possibilities, but my head is starting to spin from all the rumors. :wink:
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostSep 13, 2006#661

The Mayor's take on this seems to make a lot of sense. It looks like one of the key areas is projecting tax revenue generated from the BPV. Since he states this revenue won't be guaranteed by the city, the risk would rest with the Cardinals. Is this a correct assumption?



To that end, the Cards better have generated some amazing plans with Cordish. If they're as great as Dewitt and others say, the BPV should generate some nice revenue and thus lessen the risk for the Cards... Otherwise, the Cards lineups may be looking a bit sparse in the future ;)



Slowly but surely....
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostSep 13, 2006#662

^ Well, if the Cardinals are okay with the city NOT guaranteeing sales tax revenue from the development, then it looks like we're past the main sticking point for this deal to go forward, and it looks like it really is down to the haggling/negotiating phase at this point.



So, in other words, we'll just have to wait a few weeks and see what happens. I'm cautiously optimistic that this will go through soon without any major hiccups, and it's encouraging to see that everyone is still talking about the best/highest use of the land, i.e., the proposed $650 million development.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostSep 14, 2006#663

No renderings from Channel 2, but the big news from the story was the parking. There will be 1200 underground spaces and every one of them will be free except for on game days. I would assume there will also be more parking that is reserved for tenants themselves. Everything is else is what we already knew.
1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostSep 14, 2006#664

MattnSTL wrote:No renderings from Channel 2, but the big news from the story was the parking. There will be 1200 underground spaces and every one of them will be free except for on game days. I would assume there will also be more parking that is reserved for tenants themselves. Everything is else is what we already knew.
It's stellar that the parking is underground, and I guess that it is OK that it is free. Maybe if they charged a little then it would encourage more transit use in STL, but that's just me and my urban dream, not the reality of STL. Being underground at least is the "best of both worlds" for everyone.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostSep 14, 2006#665

What they were saying is that none of the people coming in to the shops and restaurants that are driving will not come if they have to pay to park. They used Union Station as an example of why paying to park will not work. They also seem to be very serious about a real grocery store because that was the main example they used for BPV.
1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostSep 14, 2006#666

MattnSTL wrote:What they were saying is that none of the people coming in to the shops and restaurants that are driving will not come if they have to pay to park. They used Union Station as an example of why paying to park will not work. They also seem to be very serious about a real grocery store because that was the main example they used for BPV.
Sigh. Guess I can't expect to have STL's penchant for excessive parking to dissapear overnight. I'd better just count my blessings that at least it is underground. I'd be ready to strangle Cordish if they proposed massive above ground garages.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostSep 14, 2006#667

The Mayor even made it a point to point out St. Louisans (and the country's) love of their cars and that St. Louis is built for cars.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostSep 14, 2006#668

Urban Elitist wrote:Guess I can't expect to have STL's penchant for excessive parking to dissapear overnight. I'd better just count my blessings that at least it is underground. I'd be ready to strangle Cordish if they proposed massive above ground garages.


Don't put away your Cordish stranglin' gloves just yet. Assuming Cordish/Cardinals get everything they want from the city, we are told there will be 1200 residential units, several hundred square feet of office space, at least one major theme restaurant, a grocery store, some smaller restaurants/bars, and several other retail stores, plus a Cardinals museum, possibly a new Bowlling Hall of Fame, and possibly another cultural attraction of some sort. On top of that, apparently (according to the Fox report) there will also be gameday parking available, which would have to be at least partially segregated from the office, residential, and retail parking (what if someone wants to visit a client, or visit grandma in her penthouse, or buy some free-range soyburgers at Whole Foods...during a Cards game?)



I would imagine they are going to provide at least one parking space per residential unit, plus close to 1000 spots for everything else...that's well over the 1200 underground parking spaces that the report said would be built. Cordish's own website says that Ballpark Village will contain 2000 parking spaces. So, if they ain't going underground, there is only one other direction to go.
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostSep 14, 2006#669

^There are several garages already around the ballpark.... are those current stadium garages in full use durring non game days? I don't think they are. I would assume, seeing that they are less than a block or two away, that they could be used by BPV and incorporated into the 2000 spots (800 additional).
1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostSep 14, 2006#670

^^And also I'm holding out hope that parking for the residential units will be inside the towers themselves. As long as Cordish does not waste one square foot of land building another dedicated parking garage, then they have avoided my wrath. And none of that garages with only ground space retail crap.
687
Senior MemberSenior Member
687

PostSep 14, 2006#671

Urban Elitist wrote:^^And also I'm holding out hope that parking for the residential units will be inside the towers themselves. As long as Cordish does not waste one square foot of land building another dedicated parking garage, then they have avoided my wrath. And none of that garages with only ground space retail crap.


Doesn't Moon Brothers have a dedicated parking garage they built?

Why did Loftworks avoid your wrath???



Seriously, we are still an auto-centric society and businesses and developers know that and will definitely make sure there is enough parking. I'd guess they'll have at lease one garage. And I don't think you can really say it's excessive parking. I'd bet when they build a parking garage (maybe we'll get lucky and it will have ground floor retail) they'll sell the spots for 15-30k a space to the residents so there's obviously demand for it.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 14, 2006#672

A few points on this recent news...





1. Not sure I like the free parking idea, but I can see how the Mayor is looking at something like the failure of St. Louis Center and thinking that if the parking is free and the enviroment is cool, county folks may come downtown. Besides, if done right those folks who live downtown don't be using the parking anyway. I think I would rather see you pay to park but have your parking ticket validated if you shop at the BV stores or eat at the BV resturants, then it is free for users.



2. Not sure how long those spaces will stay free... I mean with a rush of crowds, you know the cards could charge $1 and at least earn some money.



3. I can assume that while 1,200 might be under ground, there will need to be another 1,000 above ground, as others have pointed out. Looking at the numbers it seems clear that with no ramps, walls or support collums, you could probably excavate the whole site and get over 1,400 spaces on a level, so the real question is how the parking will be designed and if it will go more than 1 level underground, because they might be able to get the spaces underground.



4. The real downside I don't think they Mayor in all of his looking at history for guidance realizes is the inherent problem with underground parking. A robbery/ murder/ rape will paint an underground parking garage as an unsafe place and few will be eagar to use it outside of big events (like Cardinal game days) and we all have seen with the decline of places like St. Louis Center or Northwest Plaza, preception is a huge factor. Therefore putting all of your parking eggs in the underground basket might not be the best long term choice because the preception of the BV could change quickly if something went wrong. I would rather see the bulk of spaces above ground, with condos or offices wraping the parking in the center.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostSep 14, 2006#673

I really like the free parking idea. Not only is it probably a necessity in St. Louis since every major shopping center has free parking, it's simply about convenience. I recognize the 'if you build it they will come' thinking surrounding parking, highways, etc., but I would say the opposite is true as well - if you don't build it, they won't come. My hope is for a vibrant, active downtown. To accomplish this, people must be accomodated. Some will use metro - some will walk/ride bikes/scooters, but downtown StL is not going to become the Upper East Side. As several have pointed out, there's a right way and wrong way to do this - at the minimum parking must be hidden within the complex, but I'm hoping it's underground. I think street parking is a necessity as well- it brings the street to life and connects it with surrounding blocks. Otherwise BPV will be an introverted complex.
1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostSep 14, 2006#674

buckethead wrote:
Urban Elitist wrote:^^And also I'm holding out hope that parking for the residential units will be inside the towers themselves. As long as Cordish does not waste one square foot of land building another dedicated parking garage, then they have avoided my wrath. And none of that garages with only ground space retail crap.


Doesn't Moon Brothers have a dedicated parking garage they built?

Why did Loftworks avoid your wrath???
Because Moon Brothers:

1. Has only ~50 spaces built and is build on land that will not be needed for anything else

2. Is not being built directly next to the stadium, in the heart of downtown, and being billed as the savior of DT STL.

3. An urban villege in the heart of DT needs to be transit oriented and built on a pedestrian scale and 2000 above ground parking spaces would kill that effect.



I know you can see the difference and your post was purely intended to start trouble/be snappy, so I'm going to drop it there.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostSep 14, 2006#675

^

And Moon is an existing building - it's not like they're starting from scratch.



Anywho...



I think that free parking is a good idea. Having to pay for parking is one of suburbanites' favorite things to complain about. Removing that barrier will be a positive as far as "oustiders'" opinions of BPV go.
Read more posts (4085 remaining)
Share