So where exactly is the area of Forest Park that the BJC complex is going to occupy? I have been reading east of Kingshighway, but I thought the park ended at Kingshighway.
- 119
^ It's just south of the main Barnes buildings. Currently there is a BJC parking garage UNDER the park land and racquetball courts (or something) on the surface. It's a little plot sandwiched between Barnes, Kingshighway and Highway 40 (link to view on Google Local). I'm certain most people don't know it's even there, since you don't really even see it unless you turn on to Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza.
By the way, here is an article from the Post-Dispatch about the Forest Park/BJC issue Doug is talking about.
By the way, here is an article from the Post-Dispatch about the Forest Park/BJC issue Doug is talking about.
I knew the park was there but for the past 16 years, assumed it was private and for BJC employees only. I had no idea it was part of Forest Park.
- 10K
^
I thought the same thing, which is why I really don't have a problem with this.
I thought the same thing, which is why I really don't have a problem with this.
I also had no idea that area south of BJC was part of Forest Park. I really don't have a problem as long as they don't develop on the park west of King's Hwy. If this is the only land they are talking about there really seems to be no opportunity for a slippery slope.
Someone, on stltoday made a point that the 2mil/yr is good rent now but 2mil/yr in future year dollars starts to become really cheap for the last 70, or so, years of the term. Perhaps, the city can do betting just selling the property for a larger lump sum.
Someone, on stltoday made a point that the 2mil/yr is good rent now but 2mil/yr in future year dollars starts to become really cheap for the last 70, or so, years of the term. Perhaps, the city can do betting just selling the property for a larger lump sum.
^Yeah, I thought it belonged to BJC, too. It's an odd little parcel to be part of Forest Park, being across Kingshighway from the rest of the park. It's really a surprise to me to have learned that it is part of it. When I first heard about the proposal, I was thinking it was something like with Children's Hospital back in the mid 70's (they wanted to build across Kingshighway IN the park). Thank goodness that didn't happen, but I have no problem with this latest BJC proposal. In fact, it makes sense to me, especially since this little parcel is so underutilized.
^ Well remember the parcel was better connected to the park before Kingshighway was realined. It once travled east next to Barnes and then back South again along Euclid. But then the road was realigned to take out the kinks and allow traffic to move smoother and the parcel became really cut off from the park.
- 1,282
Area marked in red.
Part of an old map from the 1930s shows how Kingshighway used to wrap around this part of Forest Park. Kingshighway was rerouted to build the interchange with 40/I64 the portion of Euclid shown along with Barnes-Jewish hospital on the first image is the old Kingshighway.
I used to work out at Wash U. medical/BJC complex and from what I saw this was a very underutilized piece of ground, I really don't see the problem in letting BJC, one of our biggest civic assets, expand onto this piece of property. A new building means more jobs and tax revenue, as well as more money for the upkeep of Forest Park. It's not as if they're proposing an Arby's for the site or something.
It seems as if most people on this forum support the leasing of this land to BJC, but I've heard a strong current of criticism in the general public. It seems people are afraid this will be the proverbial camel?s nose in the tent as far as developing Forest Park land. But I think we?re perfectly capable of turning over this land and saying ?no? to development west of Kingshighway. I for one would love to see a new building bordering the park, providing it with even more users.
It seems as if most people on this forum support the leasing of this land to BJC, but I've heard a strong current of criticism in the general public. It seems people are afraid this will be the proverbial camel?s nose in the tent as far as developing Forest Park land. But I think we?re perfectly capable of turning over this land and saying ?no? to development west of Kingshighway. I for one would love to see a new building bordering the park, providing it with even more users.
^Exactly. We can lament on what used to be, but the fact is we have to deal with what is the current reality, and that reality is this piece of land has been severed from the rest of Forest Park and really serves no practical purpose. Had Kingshighway not been reconfigured, I might feel differently. (Why wasn't there a big outcry when this was done in the first place, or was there?)
stl555 wrote:but I've heard a strong current of criticism in the general public. It seems people are afraid this will be the proverbial camel?s nose in the tent as far as developing Forest Park land.
I didn't like the idea at first too, since I could only then assume that they meant Forest Park "Proper". I guess that many against it are still assuming that the development would occur west of King's Hwy.
- 154
That little square of Forest Park has been such a part of Barnes for so many years that its hard to even think of it as park anymore. If the hospital had wanted any other section of the park I would be dead-set against it.
But I think this is a major exception (others are bound to disagree). I'm for letting BJC build there. However, since this is an exceptional piece of property BJC should build an Exceptional building there; something better than the last three stumpy, uninspired boxes they put up. This spot should command something really grand for the West End skyline.
And there's the money BJC will contribute to Forest Park Forever.
But I think this is a major exception (others are bound to disagree). I'm for letting BJC build there. However, since this is an exceptional piece of property BJC should build an Exceptional building there; something better than the last three stumpy, uninspired boxes they put up. This spot should command something really grand for the West End skyline.
And there's the money BJC will contribute to Forest Park Forever.
Jeff Vanderlou wrote:And there's the money BJC will contribute to Forest Park Forever.
I agree with UrbanReviewSTL.com - "BJC to cover nearly half of the maintenance of Forest Park. Sounds like a good deal. But what will the maintenance costs be in 20 years? Or fifty years? Ninety years is a very long commitment. Citizens of St. Louis that are not even born yet will have to deal with the end of this lease. Does it renew automatically? I say the lease payments need to keep pace with inflation or the cost of park maintenance. In 2096 $2 million will probably just buy you a starter home"
Have the $2M keep pace with inflation - sound reasonable? I think so!!
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (which is highly possible), but...
$2 million per year for 90 years at 2% inflation
Present Worth = $83,173,858.32 = less than $1 million per year
An annual payment of $4,328,300 would be needed to equal a present worth of $180 million.
IMHO, I don't think it's worth it. The precedent it could set is just too dangerous a path to start down.
$2 million per year for 90 years at 2% inflation
Present Worth = $83,173,858.32 = less than $1 million per year
An annual payment of $4,328,300 would be needed to equal a present worth of $180 million.
IMHO, I don't think it's worth it. The precedent it could set is just too dangerous a path to start down.
From MayorSlay.com:
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Forest Park
"Parks ? creating them, maintaining them, and changing them ? are often contentious.
I love Forest Park. Whether it is walking past the Grand Basin at dusk, riding bikes on the trail, or skating at Steinberg Rink on a frigid Saturday night, Forest Park has something for everyone.
Over the last few years, we have transformed Forest Park into the best urban park in America. In order to keep it that way, we ? City taxpayers ? have to raise a little more than $4 million per year to maintain what has been built.
That is the main reason I support extending a lease with BJC for land across Kingshighway to the east of Forest Park.
Right now, BJC has a lease with 45 years left on it for land adjacent to its campus. BJC uses the land for a parking garage with a tennis court on top. For the term of that lease, the City will receive $150,000 per year.
While almost no one associates the garage with Forest Park, it is, in fact, a piece of the park.
BJC has been negotiating with the City to change the lease and extend its term. They propose to increase the size of the parcel by three acres ? all east of Kingshighway. They propose to increase the payment to $2.2 million a year. And they ask for the right to expand their campus if they choose to do so.
I support BJC because of the important medical research it does, the nationally recognized patient care it provides, the people it employs, and the contributions it has made to two neighborhoods: Forest Park Southeast and the Central West End.
But, that?s not why I am supporting the extension of the lease. I am supporting the extension of the lease because it is good for Forest Park and good for other City parks.
It will be written into the contract that all of the money from the BJC lease will go into the Forest Park Fund to be used to maintain the Park. We are asking Forest Park Forever, a private group, to match the $2 million. Taken together ? new revenue and private match ? that amount will be close to the amount needed to maintain Forest Park.
This dedicated source of revenue is important for two reasons.
First, over the years, Forest Park has had to compete with other important City needs like police protection, neighborhood improvements, and the maintenance of other City parks. The result, as most readers recall, was an aging park whose important needs had been deferred for years. A dedicated stream of revenue takes Forest Park out of that competition.
Second, this dedicated source of revenue will free up the $1.6 million in General Revenue the City invested in Forest Park in recent years. I am going to propose that money be dedicated to maintenance and capital improvements in other City parks. Parks like O?Fallon, Fairground, Carondelet, Penrose, Tower Grove, and Willmore are as important to the people who use them as Forest Park.
Not everyone else likes the proposal.
Some people believe we should not touch a blade of grass that has the name Forest Park attached to it ? even if that blade of grass sits across a busy street atop a parking garage next to a medical complex. To those people I say this: I also love the park. And I would strongly oppose this lease ? if it were inside the major confines of the park. It is not.
My bottom line/s: I support an extension of the BJC lease because the new terms make Forest Park better. And I support the extension because it will make it easier to maintain and improve other City parks."
I still say the $2M should be in today's dollars and prorated to keep up with inflation.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Forest Park
"Parks ? creating them, maintaining them, and changing them ? are often contentious.
I love Forest Park. Whether it is walking past the Grand Basin at dusk, riding bikes on the trail, or skating at Steinberg Rink on a frigid Saturday night, Forest Park has something for everyone.
Over the last few years, we have transformed Forest Park into the best urban park in America. In order to keep it that way, we ? City taxpayers ? have to raise a little more than $4 million per year to maintain what has been built.
That is the main reason I support extending a lease with BJC for land across Kingshighway to the east of Forest Park.
Right now, BJC has a lease with 45 years left on it for land adjacent to its campus. BJC uses the land for a parking garage with a tennis court on top. For the term of that lease, the City will receive $150,000 per year.
While almost no one associates the garage with Forest Park, it is, in fact, a piece of the park.
BJC has been negotiating with the City to change the lease and extend its term. They propose to increase the size of the parcel by three acres ? all east of Kingshighway. They propose to increase the payment to $2.2 million a year. And they ask for the right to expand their campus if they choose to do so.
I support BJC because of the important medical research it does, the nationally recognized patient care it provides, the people it employs, and the contributions it has made to two neighborhoods: Forest Park Southeast and the Central West End.
But, that?s not why I am supporting the extension of the lease. I am supporting the extension of the lease because it is good for Forest Park and good for other City parks.
It will be written into the contract that all of the money from the BJC lease will go into the Forest Park Fund to be used to maintain the Park. We are asking Forest Park Forever, a private group, to match the $2 million. Taken together ? new revenue and private match ? that amount will be close to the amount needed to maintain Forest Park.
This dedicated source of revenue is important for two reasons.
First, over the years, Forest Park has had to compete with other important City needs like police protection, neighborhood improvements, and the maintenance of other City parks. The result, as most readers recall, was an aging park whose important needs had been deferred for years. A dedicated stream of revenue takes Forest Park out of that competition.
Second, this dedicated source of revenue will free up the $1.6 million in General Revenue the City invested in Forest Park in recent years. I am going to propose that money be dedicated to maintenance and capital improvements in other City parks. Parks like O?Fallon, Fairground, Carondelet, Penrose, Tower Grove, and Willmore are as important to the people who use them as Forest Park.
Not everyone else likes the proposal.
Some people believe we should not touch a blade of grass that has the name Forest Park attached to it ? even if that blade of grass sits across a busy street atop a parking garage next to a medical complex. To those people I say this: I also love the park. And I would strongly oppose this lease ? if it were inside the major confines of the park. It is not.
My bottom line/s: I support an extension of the BJC lease because the new terms make Forest Park better. And I support the extension because it will make it easier to maintain and improve other City parks."
I still say the $2M should be in today's dollars and prorated to keep up with inflation.
I agree, loftlover. I support this idea, but with the adjusted inflation. I'm sure when they signed the orginal lease, $150K was a lot of money, now it's nothing more than a starter home. Let's keep the inflation in mind, in 90 years, $2mill won't be a whole lot of money.
Come on, who is opposed to this? Almost EVERY single person thought it wasn't even part of Forest Park. The idea that this "sets a dangerous precedent" is ridiculous. I don't think BJC will be expanding west of Kingshighway, and to think that could be a possibility is ridiculous. I agree that whatever's built there must be tall, quality, etc. Theyshould build taller than the main tower. and this time, put some quality signage on the top. I hate that current sign they put up a few years ago. It looks like colored cardboard.
according to an editorial in the P-D today, the $2.2 million would be indexed to inflation:
This is a major sticking point with most people and this is the first I've heard it mentioned.
I posted this earlier on Urban Review, but I wonder if BJC would consider making a $90 million lump sum payment instead of $180 million over 90 years. In addition to cutting the cost by 50%, it gives the park a nice endowment that generates around $3 million/year in interest.
Deal or no deal?
04/16/2006
There are a thousand complications and codicils, but at its most basic, the great Forest Park-BJC land deal boils down to this: The city of St. Louis, financially strapped as usual, wants to give up a 12-acre chunk of Forest Park for cash.
The money, $2.2 million a year over the span of a 90-year lease and indexed to inflation, would be used to pay for maintenance and upkeep of Forest Park. The $1.6 million a year currently now spent on Forest Park would be freed up -- in theory, at least -- to maintain other city parks.
Read More
This is a major sticking point with most people and this is the first I've heard it mentioned.
I posted this earlier on Urban Review, but I wonder if BJC would consider making a $90 million lump sum payment instead of $180 million over 90 years. In addition to cutting the cost by 50%, it gives the park a nice endowment that generates around $3 million/year in interest.
Marmar wrote:Had Kingshighway not been reconfigured, I might feel differently. (Why wasn't there a big outcry when this was done in the first place, or was there?)
Kingshighway's current configuration was the result of years of changes to try and keep up with increasing traffic counts. As most people know the original route of Kingshighway made a sharp left at Barnes as it headed south and then made a sharp right at Euclid until it caught up with its current alignment around the Lambskin apartments. But there was also a smaller "Kingshighway Dr" that ran inside the park roughly along the current alignment used today. It was similar to Holly Hills Dr in Carondelet Park if you are familiar with that - a winding drive through the park. As traffic counts increased and the old alignment could not keep up the Dr was opened for through traffic first on the weekends, then all the time. As traffic got even worse the original alignment was made southbound only and the Dr was made northbound only. Then when the interstates came rolling through it was decided that the drive was the better location for the interchanges because of the open land and ease of aquisition. There were some protests to the loss of park land for the highway, but I don't think there was anything specific to the new Kingshighway alignment.
I am in favor of this project and I do like the idea of asking for a lump sum so that an endowment can be set up, although I'm not sure of BJC's ability to fork over 90 million dollars even given their financial strength. And for those that are worried that we'll start seeing development inside Forest Park proper there have already been at least 2 attemps to do so already. In the 70's the Blues owners tried to get the city to build a parking garage across 40 from the Arena. It was loudly protested and never happened obviously. And I'm pretty sure it was Children's Hospital that tried to build a parking garage across Kingshighway before they were merged into BJC and again this did not come to fruition. I think and this could just be hopeful thinking that no one is going to try to build in Forest Park again. The public outcry will be too much and the P.R. will be too bad.
I support this plan. Again, this site is simply not really a part of the park. I wonder, though, who came up with the $2.2 million figure. If that was Barne's offer, then couldn't the city counter with a larger request, say $3 million?
Also, don't forget that Barnes still has 45 years left on the current lease. If the city doesn't go along with this deal, then Barnes could just say forget it. The tennis courts and garage would remain, and the city loses out on millions of dollars. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Also, don't forget that Barnes still has 45 years left on the current lease. If the city doesn't go along with this deal, then Barnes could just say forget it. The tennis courts and garage would remain, and the city loses out on millions of dollars. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Can anybody post an image of the "Above Kingshighway" proposal Children's made years ago? I have a rendering of it in my files, but I don't have a scanner, and wouldn't know how to post it anyway. I think a lot of people on this forum would be shocked to see it.
- 119
Forest Park panel OKs land deal to BJC
By Jake Wagman
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
04/20/2006
The Forest Park advisory board, amid objections it was setting a dangerous precedent, endorsed a plan Thursday that will allow Barnes-Jewish Hospital to build on up to 12 acres of park land.
The move was made after hours of discussion, with members of the board weighing both the practical and symbolic consequences of the move. Never in the 130-year history of the park -- a regional treasure that is one of the largest urban parks in the country -- has the city ceded such a large swath of land.
City officials have said that, in the current budget climate, they cannot continue to fund Forest Park maintenance while still taking care of dozens of other smaller city parks. On Thursday, members of Mayor Francis Slay's staff said leasing land to the hospital will help them do both, part of a deal that also includes money from a private park booster group.
...[snip]...
At Thursday's meeting, Forest Park Forever, the private nonprofit group that played a key role in the park's revival, proposed a solution. The group confirmed they would match the annual contribution made from the hospital lease, a step that could go a long way toward filling the estimated $4.5 million needed for yearly park upkeep.
...[snip]...
Read more at stltoday.com>>>
By Jake Wagman
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
04/20/2006
The Forest Park advisory board, amid objections it was setting a dangerous precedent, endorsed a plan Thursday that will allow Barnes-Jewish Hospital to build on up to 12 acres of park land.
The move was made after hours of discussion, with members of the board weighing both the practical and symbolic consequences of the move. Never in the 130-year history of the park -- a regional treasure that is one of the largest urban parks in the country -- has the city ceded such a large swath of land.
City officials have said that, in the current budget climate, they cannot continue to fund Forest Park maintenance while still taking care of dozens of other smaller city parks. On Thursday, members of Mayor Francis Slay's staff said leasing land to the hospital will help them do both, part of a deal that also includes money from a private park booster group.
...[snip]...
At Thursday's meeting, Forest Park Forever, the private nonprofit group that played a key role in the park's revival, proposed a solution. The group confirmed they would match the annual contribution made from the hospital lease, a step that could go a long way toward filling the estimated $4.5 million needed for yearly park upkeep.
...[snip]...
Read more at stltoday.com>>>
Good news. This does not represent, as many contend, a dangerous precedent for development in the park. Small sections have been given up before (for FP Parkway and the original hwy 40 for example) without turning the park into a developer's free-for-all. The most important thing, to me, is that the park west of Kingshighway and north of 40 be protected. I would place the sections south of 40 slightly behind the main park in importance, although still worthy of protection.
It's easy to find anectdotal evidence of people who enjoy the small area Barnes will build on. But it will be equally easy a few years from now to find people who are enjoying the improvements to Forest Park which can now be maintained thanks to this deal, or the people who have good jobs because Barnes was allowed to expand. It's a trade-off, but a good one.
It's easy to find anectdotal evidence of people who enjoy the small area Barnes will build on. But it will be equally easy a few years from now to find people who are enjoying the improvements to Forest Park which can now be maintained thanks to this deal, or the people who have good jobs because Barnes was allowed to expand. It's a trade-off, but a good one.
editorial from P-D today...
Such a deal
04/23/2006
At the rate the Mayor Francis Slay and his administration are moving, pretty soon the city will be paying Barnes-Jewish Hospital to take over 12 acres of Forest Park and build more hospital on it.
A week ago the city was mulling over a deal that would have let BJC lease 12 acres of the park east of Kingshighway for 90 years at $2.1 million a year, plus a cost-of-living escalator. The city would apply the money to maintaining Forest Park and free up other funds for other parks sorely in need of rehabilitation.
On Thursday, the Forest Park Advisory board learned the deal was actually $1.8 million a year -- and endorsed it anyway! That means the 90-year deal got at least $27 million smaller in one week. Hard to believe the city has budget problems. (A reminder: BJC, a non-profit entity, pays its brass stratospheric salaries. It also pays no property taxes. In short, they've got the dough.)
The deal still needs the approval of the city Planning Commission, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and the Board of Aldermen.
If we're Barnes-Jewish, we wait six weeks and see how low can they can go. If we're Mayor Slay, we hire new negotiators before someone gives away the Zoo.
Link
Such a deal
04/23/2006
At the rate the Mayor Francis Slay and his administration are moving, pretty soon the city will be paying Barnes-Jewish Hospital to take over 12 acres of Forest Park and build more hospital on it.
A week ago the city was mulling over a deal that would have let BJC lease 12 acres of the park east of Kingshighway for 90 years at $2.1 million a year, plus a cost-of-living escalator. The city would apply the money to maintaining Forest Park and free up other funds for other parks sorely in need of rehabilitation.
On Thursday, the Forest Park Advisory board learned the deal was actually $1.8 million a year -- and endorsed it anyway! That means the 90-year deal got at least $27 million smaller in one week. Hard to believe the city has budget problems. (A reminder: BJC, a non-profit entity, pays its brass stratospheric salaries. It also pays no property taxes. In short, they've got the dough.)
The deal still needs the approval of the city Planning Commission, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and the Board of Aldermen.
If we're Barnes-Jewish, we wait six weeks and see how low can they can go. If we're Mayor Slay, we hire new negotiators before someone gives away the Zoo.
Link
so typical from the PD... Could you imagine if BJC pulled a "St. Luke's hospital" and floored it to the county? Obviously this would never happen today. But I heard they were considering it in the 70's? Does anyone know if there's any merit to this? The largest employer in st louis, leaving the CWE. The CWE would NOT be what it is today without the hospital(s).