urbanSTL

Tax exempt bonds are more valuable to investors, so the interest rate is lower than say a bank loan of the equivalent amount even though the project is paying the principal and interest, not the government issuing entity (LCRA/PIEA). That's good for the project financing, so more profit for the developer. The City will usually hold title to whatever is financed by IR bonds, so that would also mean full tax exemption on that property, unless there are PILOTs. I don't get why this project which should be able to finance itself is in need of so much support? It's ridiculous.

So they received a tax abatement, and now they want the city to hold title, absolving them of any taxes until the bonds are paid back?
This is ridiculous. The bait and switch after the tax abatement was placed in the consent calendar was ridiculous. This whole thing is starting to smell.

"It's better to beg forgiveness, than to ask permission".

framer wrote:"It's better to beg forgiveness, than to ask permission".

They knew what it cost up front. They got the extra tax abatement. They scaled it back, ostensibly saving money on construction. Now they need more money to make it work and further tax breaks?

Why the obfuscation? Tell us what you need and stuck to it, the market isn't that nuts.

andrewarkills wrote:

framer wrote:"It's better to beg forgiveness, than to ask permission".

They knew what it cost up front. They got the extra tax abatement. They scaled it back, ostensibly saving money on construction. Now they need more money to make it work and further tax breaks?

Why the obfuscation? Tell us what you need and stuck to it, the market isn't that nuts.

Right. My quote references people who know their numbers are wrong, but fake their way through anyway, figuring that once it's too late, the other party will have no choice but to grudgingly accept it.

StlToday - Koman Group planning bike route between Cortex and Grove

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... f0d8b.html

Does the increase relate to this? Sounds promising

Great news!

So many questions about this bike/ped project... is Koman paying for all of this or is it asking for subsidies/others to help pay for it? Is it advancing an already adopted plan by GRG and/or City? If not, how much will the public input will there be?

I'm all for good bike/ped efforts, but we have to watch for backdoor appropriation of the public sphere for private benefit.

At this point, I expect the City to beg Koman to take a subsidy considering how freely they seem to be giving out money lately.

Alex Ihnen wrote:

STLrainbow wrote:So many questions about this bike/ped project... is Koman paying for all of this or is it asking for subsidies/others to help pay for it? Is it advancing an already adopted plan by GRG and/or City? If not, how much will the public input will there be?

I'm all for good bike/ped efforts, but we have to watch for backdoor appropriation of the public sphere for private benefit.

Agree. From the language used, I'd bet this isn't going to be an Indy Cultural Trail type amenity. I really do just wish the push would be for quality standard infrastructure. For what's going to be spent on this, probably 3-4 blocks in every direction could have new sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.

Yea I want some more details but it could be a nice connector to Cortex from the Grove and will connect nicely with the first portion of the Chouteau greenway from Boyle to Sarah thus linking very nicely with the new Metrolink station

^ seems like there are similarities there with the Arch project albeit on a smaller scale... shooting the wad on a concentrated area versus getting functional but less slick results over a broader area.

Alex Ihnen wrote:

STLrainbow wrote:So many questions about this bike/ped project... is Koman paying for all of this or is it asking for subsidies/others to help pay for it? Is it advancing an already adopted plan by GRG and/or City? If not, how much will the public input will there be?

I'm all for good bike/ped efforts, but we have to watch for backdoor appropriation of the public sphere for private benefit.

Agree. From the language used, I'd bet this isn't going to be an Indy Cultural Trail type amenity. I really do just wish the push would be for quality standard infrastructure. For what's going to be spent on this, probably 3-4 blocks in every direction could have new sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.

Quality and accessible sidewalks, basic traffic calming, and street trees is really all that's needed to make connections. People can find their way around without fancy guidance, but they won't do it on foot or bike if it can't be done safely and extensively. Like incentives, we need to use our infrastructure resources to maximum benefit.

andrewarkills wrote:They knew what it cost up front. They got the extra tax abatement. They scaled it back, ostensibly saving money on construction. Now they need more money to make it work and further tax breaks?

Why the obfuscation? Tell us what you need and stuck to it, the market isn't that nuts.

I wonder if that's true? There has been an awfully long time from announcement of the project (publicly announced Nov 2014) to the start of construction (not yet), and there are a lot of similar apartment projects that have moved along much faster (partial list below). You can find a reason for each individually moving faster (easier site, prior plans just needing revision, more capital, etc.), but overall it makes me think Green Street didn't have much nailed down when they announced their proposal. They needed multiple major design revisions from the first plan to the current plan, and halfway through they entered a partnership with Koman. I wonder if their estimates at the beginning of the project, in terms of costs, financing, projected rents, etc., were just unrealistic, and they had to do a lot of rethinking and redesigning to make the numbers work, hence all the revisions, needing to partner with Koman, delays, etc. I wonder if they were just not prepared for this project.

Also makes me a little concerned about their Armory plans, which seem much riskier from a lender's perspective, and more complicated from a developer and infrastructure perspective, but maybe I'm just a worrier.

The Everly, publicly announced Nov 2015, ground breaking May 2016
34 N. Euclid, publicly announced August 2015, ground breaking sometime in the spring 2016?
The Encore, publicly announced Nov 2016, ground breaking July 2016
West Pine Lofts, announced Oct 2013, ground breaking spring 2014
Citizen Park, publicly proposed July 2013, then after multiple revisions, ground breaking Jan 2015
4400 Manchester, publicly announced July 2016, ground breaking Nov 2016

The Standard, the Piazza also moved super fast, but are different since they didn't get tax abatement (and the aesthetics and material choices are...controversial). There might be some others that fit the bill, e.g. that 5510 Pershing parking lot, the condo building on Sarah and Laclede, etc.

^Well, always good to at least see the project still has a pulse.

^ was by there yesterday... lots of site work going on.

Progress still moving forward on this one?

Drove by the other day and the elevator shaft was erect.

Sweet!

Drove by this morning. Parking garage looks almost complete

https://flic.kr/p/Wk9x3x

Wedge site still has no activity. This is going up pretty fast.

I encourage people to drive/ walk/ bike through the Grove. I underestimated new single-family construction. It is a battlefield of new foundations. There is so much construction south of Manchester.