urbanSTL

Central, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. A straw man argument is "a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." No one is saying that a parking lot isn't a business, or that parking lots don't absorb the holes downtown. We are saying that for all intents and purposes they are holes, seeing as they are undeveloped plots of land that profit on remaining a hole.

FWIW, I agree with Scrutinizer. Maybe a parking lot isn't a building, but it's still a developed piece of land. Not as developed as some would like, but it's developed nonetheless. In the end, owners of the land determine and the market helps to shape what it's best use is.



And it's hard to call CS' argument a straw man when you guys are arguing semantics. He could just as easily describe your argument as straw man too as it's just a matter of perspective. I think you both know what the other means...

Look, read my post above. I was just trying to show that Central was bringing the discussion to whether or not a parking lot was a valid hole, which I don't think was the point. It's clearly a business and it clearly does something. No one contests that. The point was whether or not the "land where ballpark village is supposed to go" is valuable enough that developers would want to develop a "ballpark-village-like" destination without the use of tax help or whether it's only valuable enough for just another parking lot, which some here consider a hole in the urban context. The hole issue isn't the point, the point of the initial question was just how valuable that land is.



Obviously, we all agree with Scrutinizer that a parking lot is worth something and that they are a necessary part of the market at this point.

Maybe the parking lots (holes in an urban sense) are scattered throughout downtown simply because the market couldn't support a better use. Instead of an unused lot, at least it generates some money for the owner and provides a service to the community. And when the time comes that the market can support further development on that piece of land, you can bet it'll see the time of day unless the owner is unscrupulously holding out.



Can we all agree with this?

stlmike wrote:Look, read my post above. I was just trying to show that Central was bringing the discussion to whether or not a parking lot was a valid hole, which I don't think was the point. It's clearly a business and it clearly does something. No one contests that. The point was whether or not the "land where ballpark village is supposed to go" is valuable enough that developers would want to develop a "ballpark-village-like" destination without the use of tax help or whether it's only valuable enough for just another parking lot, which some here consider a hole in the urban context. The hole issue isn't the point, the point of the initial question was just how valuable that land is

Exactally. The original argument's focus was shifted frome "whether or not the "land where ballpark village is supposed to go" is valuable enough that developers would want to develop a "ballpark-village-like" destination without the use of tax help or whether it's only valuable enough for just another parking lot" to "definining a hole". That's a straw man, shifting the arugment's point to an easier position to defeat.

Urban Elitist wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:A parking lot is a strawman? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Yup.

stlmike wrote: But you're pressing a point that is an aside to the point being discussed. Namely, that in the hypothetical event that Ballpark Village didn't get built, something else would, due to its "prime location" and the notion that "holes" don't last downtown. Now, certainly, I wouldn't doubt that a parking lot would get developed if nothing else stepped up to the plate but I think the question that was being asked was whether or not a substantial development is a foregone conclusion to this plot of land. We can debate the term "hole" and whether or not a business can still be a hole or not, but since a parking lot requires little to no investment outside of owning some land and charging people to park on it, I don't think this is the kind of "development" that we are questioning the capacity of our downtown land about.

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



Attempting to shift the argument to the definition of a "hole" instead of debating stlmike's original point is a straw man argument.

Except stlmike's original point came after my statement that a parking lot is not a hole.



Crushed again. Ouch that must hurt.

Of course we can agree. I don't think that downtown has lately had a market that demanded new office as much as it demanded parking for the office it already had. The question that we were trying to get to was whether or not the plot of land north of the stadium NEEDS ballpark village to happen or whether we have gotten to a point where the land is so valuable that something like it would get developed anyway.

innov8ion wrote:Maybe the parking lots (holes in an urban sense) are scattered throughout downtown simply because the market couldn't support a better use. Instead of an unused lot, at least it generates some money for the owner and provides a service to the community. And when the time comes that the market can support further development on that piece of land, you can bet it'll see the time of day unless the owner is unscrupulously holding out.



Can we all agree with this?

My point exactly. So of course I agree.

Except stlmike's original point came after my statement that a parking lot is not a hole.



Crushed again. Ouch that must hurt.

No, he was saying that bringing up whether or not a parking lot is or is not a hole was the straw man. It completely derailed the momentum of the conversation.

stlmike wrote:No, he was saying that bringing up whether or not a parking lot is or is not a hole was the straw man. It completely derailed the momentum of the conversation.

Exactly, I'm glad someone has reading comprehension.

Doug wrote:Lets get back to the main point.



BPV even if it is not developed will be replaced by something of similar style.



With the lofts and pedestrian traffic before and after games, the hole in the ground will be redeveloped into some kind of project. This is why I believe the City should not offer TIF's since someone else will come along if this developer is unwilling.



Parking lots are the minimum level of "development" and definitely do not belong in this location. I would consider them "development" in that they are not simply bare underdeveloped land. Their utility is minimal when compared to a mixed use project. There is plenty parking in this area of downtown. We need residential/commercial/entertainment developments

I agree with most of this, but I wouldn't mind if the city offered some TIFs to cover the costs of infrastructure. It's nice to get back to the original point and off of yet another pointless tangent.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Urban Elitist wrote:

steve wrote:Perhaps you've also conflated "scrutinizer" with "pointless contrarian?"

That just needed repeating.

It's interesting that you failed to note the misuse of the word "conflated".

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Note definition 1:B



Main Entry: con·flate

Pronunciation: k&n-'flAt

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): con·flat·ed; con·flat·ing

Etymology: Latin conflatus, past participle of conflare to blow together, fuse, from com- + flare to blow -- more at BLOW

1 a : to bring together : FUSE b : CONFUSE

2 : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole







Sorry to derail the convo, but. . . .I had to do it. I'm weak.

Although I agree that the land would be developed even without BPV, I'm not sure it will be of the same quality. Without seeing the plans, we can assume that BPV was designed with the entire development in mind. I speculate that in its current design, the open spaces, streetscapes, and buildings will relate to one another in a fairly sympathetic way without being too obvious. I make this assumption by seeing the care that the developers took in the placement and heights of the buildings giving the sense that it was a block that developed over time.



If BPV village does not happen and outside developers take over I do not think this will be the case. Smaller developers will most likely not attempt the entire area at once (not putting all their eggs in one basket), leaving the space open to different developments by different people, all competing for the same market. Some will make the argument that these developers different architectural styles will create much more of a natural downtown feel, and I agree to a point. BPV is a unique entity that no other downtown area can offer by having such a large area under one masterplan that will hopefully be well thought out and accomodating to numerous types of people and walks of life. Not to mention that this would allow those smaller developers to fucus their energies in surronding infill parking lots rather than drain their resources on the initial project i.e. MW tower.



To sum up I believe that BPV is a project rivaled by no other city. The only thing I know of that comes close is the HafenCity development in Hamburg Germany, wich about the size of the entire DT STL area and therefore completely out of our league.

Look, all of you need to quit bickering so I can get back to reading some substantive posts.



All of you trying to define a strawman argument: That's not what CS did. He distracted you from the main point. That's more akin to a "red herring".



Steve: CS is right. You posted a good definition of "conflate" but in the sentence you wrote, perhaps "confused" would have been appropriate.



Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. You all were really starting to annoy me. Carry on.

I agree with you on many accounts UE but can we stop discrediting each other's opinions? (In case you argue that you weren't discrediting anyone's opinions, you did call it a "pointless" tangent.) Whether we like it or not, diversity of thought helps to make the discussion better developed. And wouldn't it be boring if we didn't have a contrarian or tangential viewpoint? My apologies, LaSalle, but I felt it worth mentioning.

Urban Elitist wrote:It's nice to get back to the original point and off of yet another pointless tangent.

So is the TIF argument then: Cordish/Cards asked for TIF money simply because they knew they could get it and not because they need it? I've been known to argue that the rich just keep getting richer with projects like this, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the project itself (and all of us) will benefit as the developer will have more resources to invest. Otherwise we're assuming that Cordish pockets the extra money and all of a sudden is clearing 20% on their investment. No matter what you think of the mayor, I doubt he's been working with the developer to ensure a massive windfall where otherwise there would have simply been a very substantial return. Whether it was the original intent or not (and I understand it wasn't), TIF monies alleviate some risk and allow developers to go bigger, hide parking, install a more attractive streetscape . . .

I've said this many times throughout this thread but I think it bears repeating:



If anything will ever bring a St Louisan downtown, even the most skeptical suburbanite, it is is the St Louis Cardinals. If condos with year-round views into the ballpark couldn't sell out thousands of top dollar units, I don't know what will.



This is sort of a litmus test to me. If we squander this, the most potential for a new batch of high quality real estate this city has had in years, --If we screw this one up-- we really need to step back and do some serious pondering.

The ballpark village land is owned by the Cardinals. They are not going to sell it to some other developer... so if you think we can just have some one else build a ballpark village with out TIF funding, you're headed down a dead end.



Yes, the cardinals have an agreement to build BPV with fines if they do not and ultimately would even have to turn the land over to a public authority if it's not built. Do you really think that will happen??? So obviously that won't matter. What it will come down to is getting approval for the TIFs and building something like the $600 million project, or not giving them TIFs and getting a $60 million dollar half-@ss project.



With the smaller project, they're will also be much less tax revenue generated for the city, probably much less than what we "save" by not providing the TIF. Not sure how we come out ahead that way...

What it will come down to is getting approval for the TIFs and building something like the $600 million project, or not giving them TIFs and getting a $60 million dollar half-@ss project.

Well, I think the point is that the 60 million dollar half @ss project that they are required to build does not require all six blocks. So there is actually a possibility that they would build what their contracted to build and then the rest would be left up to other parties.

LaSalle wrote:Look, all of you need to quit bickering so I can get back to reading some substantive posts.



All of you trying to define a strawman argument: That's not what CS did. He distracted you from the main point. That's more akin to a "red herring".



Steve: CS is right. You posted a good definition of "conflate" but in the sentence you wrote, perhaps "confused" would have been appropriate.



Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. You all were really starting to annoy me. Carry on.

You make a post ordering us to quit bickering because you want to get back to reading substantive posts, then you pour gasoline back on the fire? We had already stopped bickering until you made this pointless post of yours and thus ressurecting the entire debacle. Go back to lurking.

OMG!! The PD has gotten to Doug!

we shouldn't subsidize the project when the SLPS is in trouble

Uh, the 'subsidy' is a percentage of tax produced by this development.

innov8ion wrote:I agree with you on many accounts UE but can we stop discrediting each other's opinions? (In case you argue that you weren't discrediting anyone's opinions, you did call it a "pointless" tangent.) Whether we like it or not, diversity of thought helps to make the discussion better developed. And wouldn't it be boring if we didn't have a contrarian or tangential viewpoint? My apologies, LaSalle, but I felt it worth mentioning.

Urban Elitist wrote:It's nice to get back to the original point and off of yet another pointless tangent.

Fair enough for me.