Ballpark Village Towers and Mixed Use Project

bastiat · PostSep 15, 2006#7762006-09-15T23:11+00:00

stlmike wrote:
Whether you are a country music fan or not, you've got to give props to his song - Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American) - that he wrote after the 9/11 attacks. A great song - IMO.

Ehhh... Not my cup of tea.

I love country music. I don't blame people today for giving it the reputation it has, though. The radio friendly country music of the past two and a half decades or so has been pretty souless. Country music is more than just a twangy voice, a guitar, and a cowboy hat. Give me Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Hank Williams, the Carter Family, John Prine, Loretta Lynn, Buck Owens, Patsy Cline and Willie Nelson! Not to mention St. Louis' own Uncle Tupelo (RIP).

I pretty much agree. I don't like mainstream country, but I like the people you listed and ones like Robert Earl Keen. I think Drive-By Truckers, Two Cow Garage, Slobberbone, etc are considered alternative country and I like them as well.

I didn't know Uncle Tupelo was from St. Louis. Are there any other St. Louis country singers? We seem to be pretty well represented in all music genres.

stlmike · PostSep 16, 2006#7772006-09-16T01:24+00:00

Well, Uncle Tupelo is from Bellville Illinois, which is part of the Metropolitan area, but some might say that's iffy. Most of their early gigs were at Ciceros, before it turned into an all Jake's Leg/Jam Band place. Supposedly the drummer would sit on a keg of beer with a huge straw of some kind while playing.

xing · PostSep 16, 2006#7782006-09-16T03:04+00:00

Uncle Tupelo is Alternative Country, and most people I know who like Country Music, have never heard of Uncle Tupelo.

MattnSTL · PostSep 16, 2006#7792006-09-16T03:47+00:00

I zoomed in on those pics on my computer, plus looked back at the renderings I already had on my computer, and I really can't find any above ground garages that look like garages. The buildings that I think you seem to be reffering to are made out to be residential in the renderings.

2taall · PostSep 16, 2006#7802006-09-16T13:32+00:00

It looks awesome! We should all support this development to its fullest extent. This development will totally transform downtown St. Louis.

PostSep 16, 2006#7812006-09-16T13:33+00:00

And BTW, if a garage or two has to get built, so what. Everyone owns a car in this country.

bprop · PostSep 16, 2006#7822006-09-16T13:44+00:00

2taall wrote:This development will totally transform downtown St. Louis.

I thought that was St. Louis Centre's job.

Alex Ihnen · PostSep 16, 2006#7832006-09-16T14:38+00:00

2taall wrote:

This development will totally transform downtown St. Louis.

I thought that was St. Louis Centre's job.

McClellen? Bill, is that you? Seriously. I wish people would stop comparing St. Louis Centre or the Arch or Union Station etc. to BPV. Did any of those have 1,200 condo units? How about a large amount of office space? Were any of then next to a stadium that is sold out 82 times a year? Has $650M been invested in another project? Perhaps none of these guarantee success, but this is a transformative project. It is different in many, many substantive ways than these other projects.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostSep 16, 2006#7842006-09-16T14:45+00:00

Metzgda, I think you should alter this letter slightly and send it to the op-ed section of the Post. With the garbage they put in there today from all of the haters, I doubt anyone would ever let it slide in a final print, but can't win if ya don't play....

metzgda wrote:
My e-mail response...

Mr. McClellan,

What frustrates me and many others in the St. Louis area, mayor's office included, is that you obviously are focused on writing your opinion without taking the time to gather the facts. Equally likely, you are altering and excluding facts to make your position stronger.

I can cite critical factual mistakes in your most recent column. For instance, you state "On the other hand, the city could have something spectacular - three times the size of the original plan - but the taxpayers are going to have to help out again. Maybe $100 million or so worth of help.". Three times the size? Have you actually paid attention to the financial requirements of what the Cardinals owners were to originally build and now the financial cost of the new proposal? Let me do the research for you - the Cardinals owners are required to build out Ballpark Village with a minimal investment of $60 million. Now, they have a much larger project plan and have increased the investment to $650 million. Do the math, 3 x $60 million does not equal $650 million. So your statement of three times the size of the original plan is off by a factor of $470 million, but I guess that's not important. Really, $470 million is just pocket change anyway.

You also state in the same sentence that the taxpayers will have to help again, maybe with an investment of $100 million. Do you really understand how the Cardinals will be getting this $100 million? Apparently not, and now your providing the public with false information again. First of all, the Cardinals have not yet disclosed an amount. The $100 million was an estimated amount based on projects with similar investment. The $X million dollars will come from the tax revenue generated from Ballpark Village, which oh by the way, generates a whopping $0 dollars right now. So really all the Cardinals are doing is what all kinds of other developers in the city have been doing, taking a portion of tax income from their rehabbed or new property, and using that as an investment towards the property itself. So yes, the city will now receive a smaller share of the tax revenues generated from the property, but most likely the smaller share of a $650 million dollar project will be larger than the total share of a smaller $60 million dollar project. Additionally, the development would most likely draw more people into the city, perhaps boost convention and tourist business, and provide a jumpstart for other downtown development. Boy, sure sounds like a bum deal to me, especially when you consider it might actually generate MORE taxpayer money!

What really frustrates me is how you continually quote Jeff Rainford, the mayor's top aide. This exact quote came from an AP article that the THE POST DISPATCH picked up detailing the project details. These are the same details I outlined above and you falsified. Please see my references below. This obviously tells me that you read the AP article, and still didn't detail the facts that were in that article.

Your job working for a major publication is to provide the public with the facts, and then provide your opinion based on these facts. Please stop providing the public with false facts, it is not good for the Post or the city.

Dave Metzger

References

The Cordish Company - http://www.cordish.com/redir.asp?loc=ht ... illage.asp

The Post Dispatch - http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

KMOV - http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/ ... f1d0d.html

publiceye · PostSep 16, 2006#7852006-09-16T16:22+00:00

There are two pictures of the scale/massing model and a favorable -- albeit cautiously so -- editorial in the Sunday Post-Dispatch.

In one way, the choice for the public comes down to this: The city and the state can have a sure thing: 100 percent of the taxes (sales, property, entertainment, etc.) generated by a two-block project. Or, they can swing for the fences and get half the taxes generated by a $650 million development for 23 years, and all of it after that. It would be nice to think that downtown St. Louis has rebounded to the point where developers don't need subsidies. But in the real world, it's still riskier to build downtown than in the suburbs, and subsidies for development have become the rule even in suburbs.

moorlander · PostSep 16, 2006#7862006-09-16T17:12+00:00

^ sunday?? did you mean saturday?

PostSep 16, 2006#7872006-09-16T17:24+00:00

You all should check this out...Why is it so hard for people to understand how funding works for large projects like these...we all know the Cards aren't getting any special favors... I'm am totally fume'n as I read these comments...people hear public funding and they think that means the developers get a fat check to line their pockets....AHHHHHHHH!!!

Hide sharp objects before you read this..It'll make you wanna stab yourself

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

bprop · PostSep 16, 2006#7882006-09-16T18:26+00:00

Ihnen wrote:
2taall wrote:

This development will totally transform downtown St. Louis.

I thought that was St. Louis Centre's job.

McClellen? Bill, is that you? Seriously. I wish people would stop comparing St. Louis Centre or the Arch or Union Station etc. to BPV. Did any of those have 1,200 condo units? How about a large amount of office space? Were any of then next to a stadium that is sold out 82 times a year? Has $650M been invested in another project? Perhaps none of these guarantee success, but this is a transformative project. It is different in many, many substantive ways than these other projects.

If being "next to a stadium that is sold out 82 times a year" was a harbinger of success, why haven't any of the parking lots or vacant blocks around the stadium been transformed into something more substantial than what they are?

No, I'm not McClellan, but I am wary of those who tell us that public money needs to piggyback on private investment in order for it to be viable. I know you believe this point of view is a frustrating one. But understand what is frustrating to me is that people like those on this forum, IMO, should be demanding better of developers. Granting tax abatement to one of (what should be) the hottest properties in the area is just another way of saying the city alone isn't worth investing in.

bastiat · PostSep 16, 2006#7892006-09-16T18:55+00:00

bprop wrote:
Ihnen wrote:
2taall wrote:

This development will totally transform downtown St. Louis.

I thought that was St. Louis Centre's job.

McClellen? Bill, is that you? Seriously. I wish people would stop comparing St. Louis Centre or the Arch or Union Station etc. to BPV. Did any of those have 1,200 condo units? How about a large amount of office space? Were any of then next to a stadium that is sold out 82 times a year? Has $650M been invested in another project? Perhaps none of these guarantee success, but this is a transformative project. It is different in many, many substantive ways than these other projects.

If being "next to a stadium that is sold out 82 times a year" was a harbinger of success, why haven't any of the parking lots or vacant blocks around the stadium been transformed into something more substantial than what they are?

No, I'm not McClellan, but I am wary of those who tell us that public money needs to piggyback on private investment in order for it to be viable. I know you believe this point of view is a frustrating one. But understand what is frustrating to me is that people like those on this forum, IMO, should be demanding better of developers. Granting tax abatement to one of (what should be) the hottest properties in the area is just another way of saying the city alone isn't worth investing in.

Nobody who owned those lots had the vision or capital that the Ballpark Village owners do now.

Taxpayers are not paying for this development. This is basically giving the developers future tax money back. And the majority of it is going towards infrastructure, and as we all know from another thread, 99% of the people on this forum support publicly owned streets and sidewalks.

jlblues · PostSep 16, 2006#7902006-09-16T19:10+00:00

bprop wrote:No, I'm not McClellan, but I am wary of those who tell us that public money needs to piggyback on private investment in order for it to be viable. I know you believe this point of view is a frustrating one. But understand what is frustrating to me is that people like those on this forum, IMO, should be demanding better of developers. Granting tax abatement to one of (what should be) the hottest properties in the area is just another way of saying the city alone isn't worth investing in.

My sentiments exactly. I wholeheartedly support public assistance, and believe that it is warranted, for public improvement "extras" such as the new streets, streetscape improvements, public plaza, underground parking, etc., and for any cultural institutions that are included in the project. But I have a problem with anything beyond that. Will there be any other cultural institutions besides the Cardinals "museum"? For what exactly will the TIF money be used? Why don't we know?

However, to suggest that only two blocks of the Village will be developed if more assistance isn't granted, as the developers are, is just pure nonsense, and frankly, insulting. If that is all Cordish/Cardinals can achieve without tax assistance, then I say open up the remaining blocks to other developers. Yes downtown has a long way to go, but this area isn't like the rest of downtown. Now that the new stadium is open, there are many developers out there that would salivate over the opportunity to develop the remaining blocks.

I think that most people understand that the money isn't coming out of existing tax revenue, but that is really beside the point. The debate is about opportunity cost. The assistance is coming out of tax revenue that will be generated by Ballpark Village, or whatever it will be called, whether Cordish/Cardinals develop it, or not.

framer · PostSep 17, 2006#7912006-09-17T05:07+00:00

This project looks FANTASTIC! As others have pointed out, they've done a great job mixing-up the architecture so that it looks like a naturally developing neighborhood of a big city. IMO, the scale and massing of the towers is perfect. They'll nicely fill-in the Southern half of the skyline and help balance the "postcard shot" of St. Louis from the Eastside. This project MUST get built!

By the way, how about putting the MW Tower on the site of Mike Shannon's place? I know, I know...they just openned, for crying out loud! But think about it - McGowan does own the site, and realistically it'll take a couple of years to actually get the MW project started. Maybe, just maybe, his father-in-law would be willing to work something out? Shannon's could go in Ballpark Village, and then they tear-down the old place and get started on the tower. Just a thought.

metzgda · PostSep 17, 2006#7922006-09-17T14:48+00:00

bpe235 wrote:You all should check this out...Why is it so hard for people to understand how funding works for large projects like these...we all know the Cards aren't getting any special favors... I'm am totally fume'n as I read these comments...people hear public funding and they think that means the developers get a fat check to line their pockets....AHHHHHHHH!!!

Hide sharp objects before you read this..It'll make you wanna stab yourself

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

Once again, a perfect example of the Post inflicting a one-sided opinion. Many of the replies they received are again totally incorrect - probably because the post doesn't properly explain HOW the money is generated. BTW, where is my response? I guess my opinion doesn't count since it's against the Post's opinion?

Unbelievable.

soulardd · PostSep 17, 2006#7932006-09-17T17:52+00:00

I agree 100%

publiceye · PostSep 17, 2006#7942006-09-17T20:19+00:00

From an inaccurate and incomplete article, inaccurate opinions. GIGO.

gerwitz · PostSep 18, 2006#7952006-09-18T02:29+00:00

2taall wrote:And BTW, if a garage or two has to get built, so what. Everyone owns a car in this country.

You mean, I'm the only one without one?

gary kreie · PostSep 19, 2006#7962006-09-19T17:12+00:00

You would think if taxpayers in tiny Branson can support a TIF for a $600 million dollar development, then St. Louis could do it.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /609150430

mattonarsenal · PostSep 19, 2006#7972006-09-19T20:35+00:00

Also take note of the headline story on the front page of today's Metro Section.

No mention of this project being a huge TIF development out in Eureka.

Here is my letter to the editor...

I am writing to express my outrage about a big bucks out-of-town developer that is asking for tax payer handouts to fund a development with a proposed 1,500 residential units and 350,000 square feet of retail space.

Ballpark Village? No, Eureka Commons in Eureka, Missouri.

I doing this as a favor for Scott Seiler of Eureka who wrote to the PD because he was concerned about the citizens of St. Louis getting steam rolled with another tax-payer-funded project. Perhaps Mr. Seiler should look in his own backyard - as should most of the other letter writers who were published on Saturday. Of the eleven writers who expressed their concern about the Ballpark Village TIF, eight were from outside the city. Ironically, each writer lives in a community with a large TIF project recently completed or in development.

It is also ironic that a week after a major front page story on the Ballpark Village TIF and three days after the page full of letters to the editor were published decrying the use of public money for the project, the Eureka Commons project was highlighted on the front page of the Metro section (Sept. 19), yet not one word of the TIF subsidies was mentioned in the article. Where is the outrage? Where are the letters? Where is Bill McClellan?

The two projects are very similar in scope in regards to the number of residential units and retail space, but the Eureka project uses at least 100 times the land area.

The developer of Eureka Commons was identified as JBA Eureka, whose major partner is the Jones Company, a subsidiary of Centex Homes, a multi-billion dollar company headquartered in Dallas.

The Eureka project used eminent domain, Ballpark Village does not.

Ballpark Village is a development no one could have envisioned 10 years ago. The Eureka project is suburban homes and a big box strip mall.

Mr. Seiler said "I'd much rather use the money to help my neighborhood." You ask an you shall receive. Thanks again for your concern, but I'll gladly take my Ballpark Village and you can have your Eureka Commons.

MattnSTL · PostSep 19, 2006#7982006-09-19T20:42+00:00

Very nice letter. Let's see if they publish it.

metzgda · PostSep 19, 2006#7992006-09-19T21:07+00:00

MattonArsenal wrote:Also take note of the headline story on the front page of today's Metro Section.

No mention of this project being a huge TIF development out in Eureka.

Here is my letter to the editor...

I am writing to express my outrage about a big bucks out-of-town developer that is asking for tax payer handouts to fund a development with a proposed 1,500 residential units and 350,000 square feet of retail space.

Ballpark Village? No, Eureka Commons in Eureka, Missouri.

I doing this as a favor for Scott Seiler of Eureka who wrote to the PD because he was concerned about the citizens of St. Louis getting steam rolled with another tax-payer-funded project. Perhaps Mr. Seiler should look in his own backyard - as should most of the other letter writers who were published on Saturday. Of the eleven writers who expressed their concern about the Ballpark Village TIF, eight were from outside the city. Ironically, each writer lives in a community with a large TIF project recently completed or in development.

It is also ironic that a week after a major front page story on the Ballpark Village TIF and three days after the page full of letters to the editor were published decrying the use of public money for the project, the Eureka Commons project was highlighted on the front page of the Metro section (Sept. 19), yet not one word of the TIF subsidies was mentioned in the article. Where is the outrage? Where are the letters? Where is Bill McClellan?

The two projects are very similar in scope in regards to the number of residential units and retail space, but the Eureka project uses at least 100 times the land area.

The developer of Eureka Commons was identified as JBA Eureka, whose major partner is the Jones Company, a subsidiary of Centex Homes, a multi-billion dollar company headquartered in Dallas.

The Eureka project used eminent domain, Ballpark Village does not.

Ballpark Village is a development no one could have envisioned 10 years ago. The Eureka project is suburban homes and a big box strip mall.

Mr. Seiler said "I'd much rather use the money to help my neighborhood." You ask an you shall receive. Thanks again for your concern, but I'll gladly take my Ballpark Village and you can have your Eureka Commons.

Great post. Maybe we should send some of these comments we've sent to the post over to Mayor Slay's website and see if he'll publish them.

markofucity · PostSep 19, 2006#8002006-09-19T21:19+00:00

Yes - could someone with some computer savvy (and free time) please send that post off to the mayor's site?

and while we're at it - we should really get more vocal about this. Where's STLUP? The Post has essentially poisioned the well by publishing a misleading article. They've already framed the devbate in a way that's innacuurate - and likely to lead to misguided opposition. We need to get loud. Letters to the editor? West End Word articles? Rallies? News Coverage? It worked brilliantly against Patti Tepper.

In my humble opinion I thik we should stress a few main points:

1. The City would not be writing a check or spending any of its current funds. It would only be agreeing to rebate a percentage of the tax recvenue that the project would generate - money that we would NOT HAVE unless the project were built. Thus the city is essentially GAINING 80 - 90 % of a 600 million dollar project that would not be there otherwise. The city MAKES money on thei deal. (this needs to be worded better - any PR people out there)

2. This is different than the Kiel deal. The city would not be obligated to do anything UNLESS the project was built - whereas with the Kiel, the city gave funds in the hope that the project would be built. We're not going to get "stuck" with anything here.

3. Developments everywhere get this type of assistance - including suburban strip malls.

4. This is a damn good deal. We'd be getting a new stadium and a 6 block, 600 million dollar development for approximately 40 - 50 million in land and a percentage of the tax revenue it would generate. Find a better deal anywhere in the United States for a similar development.

anyway - you guys get the point. I'm nervous about this, because I know how St. Louis is. Whenever you paint rich team owners as money grubbers and swindlers it goes a long way in this town (never mind that virtually EVERY corporate relocation or lareg scale development gets such assistance routinely). I could see this debate gettign out of hand. we need to make our opinion felt, because this could be REALLY big for this town ...

Ballpark Village Towers and Mixed Use Project

Choose Display Mode