Airports are essential to creating jobs and having a thriving business community. The Arch is not.
- 8,155
^ I understand but that wasn't my question.... what concrete results would be achieved through a $100 million taxpayer investment? We roughly know what will be the physical outcome of the Arch funding, I'm just unclear of the specific outcomes that could be expected from putting the investment to the airport instead.
- 11K
Just one quick example: PGH started daily direct flights to Paris with a subsidy. Their business chamber pledged 1/2 the $5M/yr, with 1/2 coming from a state grant. The money was to be paid if the route missed certain revenue measures. $5M was paid the first year. The second year called for a $4M subsidy, but the route is reportedly doing "much better", a possible indicator that only a portion of the subsidy may be needed. The subsidy ends this year and Delta has announced they will continue the flights without subsidy. So $5-7M has resulted in daily service from PGH to Paris. That's one thing we could do here, though perhaps subsidy for cargo flights could have more of an upside. Article on PGH:
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index ... s_par.html
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index ... s_par.html
- 1,320
Went to the annual update tonight. No real news except for updates that had already been disseminated through local media.
- 3,428
- 11K
The initial concept has been designed. The new, different stuff is the museum work.
^^MVVA is still very much involved and essentially the lead on most design elements of all the various projects.
- 3,428
- 11K
^ Right - they're still the lead designers, but they've been a bit quiet.
Not sure if any of these renderings are new or not. But, slide show posted on Biz Journals website
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ge_gallery
From the renderings presented I can only come to the conclusion that the parking garage is going going gone. It would be interesting to know if any back room deals have been made in terms of lost revenue to the NPS?? If so, do they include Prop P monies on a annual basis? Their is certainly a history of annual revenues generated since the garage was built to back up a deal. or is their a new garage somewhere else in the picture?
I don't think it is necessary a bad outcome that the garage and street is going away with the design as shown per the renderings along with the changes to the riverfront. Nor do I see the garage going away as a plus or minus for Lacledes Landing. I don't think Lacledes Landing will ever get to its full potentional until the raised section of I-70 is replaced with a Blvd and some decent on grade street intersections are introduced. To me, rather see some type of street grid put back in place on the north side of Eads Bridge then keeping the side street along the south side of Eads Bridge in place. Another way to look at, Lacledes needs to be tied back to the northside of downtown instead of Arch Grounds for its success. Just really don't think Arch Grounds has been a driving factor for Lacledes Landing in past nor will it be with upcoming changes.
The other take away, their seems to be a desire to remove outside of the lid any changes forthcoming from MoDOT as it pertains to the depressed sections, on and off ramps, streets and Wash Avenue in particular on the plan view presented. Not sure if that is intended, not finalized or reading way too much into the plan view
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog ... ge_gallery
From the renderings presented I can only come to the conclusion that the parking garage is going going gone. It would be interesting to know if any back room deals have been made in terms of lost revenue to the NPS?? If so, do they include Prop P monies on a annual basis? Their is certainly a history of annual revenues generated since the garage was built to back up a deal. or is their a new garage somewhere else in the picture?
I don't think it is necessary a bad outcome that the garage and street is going away with the design as shown per the renderings along with the changes to the riverfront. Nor do I see the garage going away as a plus or minus for Lacledes Landing. I don't think Lacledes Landing will ever get to its full potentional until the raised section of I-70 is replaced with a Blvd and some decent on grade street intersections are introduced. To me, rather see some type of street grid put back in place on the north side of Eads Bridge then keeping the side street along the south side of Eads Bridge in place. Another way to look at, Lacledes needs to be tied back to the northside of downtown instead of Arch Grounds for its success. Just really don't think Arch Grounds has been a driving factor for Lacledes Landing in past nor will it be with upcoming changes.
The other take away, their seems to be a desire to remove outside of the lid any changes forthcoming from MoDOT as it pertains to the depressed sections, on and off ramps, streets and Wash Avenue in particular on the plan view presented. Not sure if that is intended, not finalized or reading way too much into the plan view
- 11K
^ most, if not all, are from July 2012 or before - I hope to find time to write up what's changed, what's new, etc. some day soon
If I'm not mistaken, the parking garage is actually owned and operated by Metro.dredger wrote:From the renderings presented I can only come to the conclusion that the parking garage is going going gone. It would be interesting to know if any back room deals have been made in terms of lost revenue to the NPS??
Thanks, for some reason I have in mind that NPS sees some of these revenues, or maybe it's a lease agreement, or who knows what. Could someone elaborate with better knowledge.mill204 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, the parking garage is actually owned and operated by Metro.dredger wrote:From the renderings presented I can only come to the conclusion that the parking garage is going going gone. It would be interesting to know if any back room deals have been made in terms of lost revenue to the NPS??
Someone loses out on revenues, curious if they a deal has already been struck or simply it goes away, the physical structure as well as revenues. I can see a deal struck with a developer on the other side of Eads Bridge, maybe wishful thinking but it probably wouldn't hurt Drury Inn family if they are seriously looking at a residential tower and see an opportunity for extra revenues to back up financing.
- 1,320
The arch garage is no cash cow.
The National Park Service holds title to the garage. Bi-State/Metro built the garage twenty years ago and still manages it. If the management agreement is severed, everything goes to the Park Service.
The bonds that built and refinanced the garage were just paid off this year. I believe Metro expects to see net cashflow of about $250k/year. Given that repairs will eventually be required on a garage of that size--and reconstruction might cost $20 million -- I think we can say it won't be profitable long-term. Metro might actually save money by getting out before any major renovation is needed.
Tuesday's presenters noted that the 800 visitors who park in the arch garage in a typical day could easily be absorbed by other downtown garages, many of them closer to the museum entrance than is the current arch garage.
The National Park Service holds title to the garage. Bi-State/Metro built the garage twenty years ago and still manages it. If the management agreement is severed, everything goes to the Park Service.
The bonds that built and refinanced the garage were just paid off this year. I believe Metro expects to see net cashflow of about $250k/year. Given that repairs will eventually be required on a garage of that size--and reconstruction might cost $20 million -- I think we can say it won't be profitable long-term. Metro might actually save money by getting out before any major renovation is needed.
Tuesday's presenters noted that the 800 visitors who park in the arch garage in a typical day could easily be absorbed by other downtown garages, many of them closer to the museum entrance than is the current arch garage.
- 8,155
The parking study was not to keen on building another garage, stating that existing lots could absorb the displacement. But it recommended the Drury-owned lot as the location for a new garage if powers to be decide one is needed.
The study noted that some maintenance would be needed, but reconstruction is not needed anytime soon.Presbyterian wrote:The bonds that built and refinanced the garage were just paid off this year. I believe Metro expects to see net cashflow of about $250k/year. Given that repairs will eventually be required on a garage of that size--and reconstruction might cost $20 million -- I think we can say it won't be profitable long-term. Metro might actually save money by getting out before any major renovation is needed.
Redacted for future story...roger wyoming II wrote:The parking study was not to keen on building another garage, stating that existing lots could absorb the displacement. But it recommended the Drury-owned lot as the location for a new garage if powers to be decide one is needed..
Residential Tower? I think it'd be much more attractive to buyers if the elevated lanes went away.
- 1,320
I would like to hear more about that Drury residential tower. I recall mention of it in the arch parking study.
- 8,155
^ yeah, the parking study sure seemed to indicate that the site was percolating with a possible development.... a shared garage or lease of some spaces for park use would make sense.
- 1,792
SO questions.
Why wasn't it feasible without Prop P? The location is still immediately next to an Metrolink stop. The location is still right next to the second best urban national memorial park in the country (National Mall is in after all pretty amazing) Admittedly it currently has a less attractive entryway than the proposal but the residential tower is on the north west corner which means arch visitors would likely cross at 3rd street to get there instead of at 2nd or 1st street were the arch garage is actually a factor. The connection to downtown will still be just as fore boding until or unless the elevated lanes come down so that's a wash.
How is the Arch garage holding up this development? Are none of the other prop P improvements to the arch ground sufficient to make the project "feasible" an improved museum and riverfront, renovation of all the major attractions and lid linking it to CBD no? Its the discovery garden that drives this projects success? Is it because they expect to absorb the lost parking revenues with their parking garages?
I don't believe that the revenues from the arch garage will fail to cover maintenance and if it is to be believed that the other improvements to the Arch grounds will significantly increase tourist visits then theoretically revenues should be even higher than currently. If there is a chart showing revenues were not covering operating expenses I will be the first to say remove the thing, so why has no one shown this chart? That is such a simple argument to make that i find it impossible to believe anyone would not have made it already if it were based in fact.
Don't get me wrong I am really in favor of this project. I do wish there was less of a parking component fronting the 3rd and 2nd streets. And I hope its tastefully respects the historic character of the landing. If the elevated lanes were removed the views would along 3rd would be very attractive. Personally I think they should build out their tower all the way to second and along third with hotel parking in the center of the structure accessed from 3rd since 2nd street is WAY to bumpy for a lot of auto traffic anyway. Then lobby hard for elevated lane removal. It'd be nice to have some corporate backers for that vision for a change.
When they break ground on this project WITHOUT a TIF I may resign myself to the wasteful destruction of the arch garage. But I really can't see how it drives the decision.
Why wasn't it feasible without Prop P? The location is still immediately next to an Metrolink stop. The location is still right next to the second best urban national memorial park in the country (National Mall is in after all pretty amazing) Admittedly it currently has a less attractive entryway than the proposal but the residential tower is on the north west corner which means arch visitors would likely cross at 3rd street to get there instead of at 2nd or 1st street were the arch garage is actually a factor. The connection to downtown will still be just as fore boding until or unless the elevated lanes come down so that's a wash.
How is the Arch garage holding up this development? Are none of the other prop P improvements to the arch ground sufficient to make the project "feasible" an improved museum and riverfront, renovation of all the major attractions and lid linking it to CBD no? Its the discovery garden that drives this projects success? Is it because they expect to absorb the lost parking revenues with their parking garages?
I don't believe that the revenues from the arch garage will fail to cover maintenance and if it is to be believed that the other improvements to the Arch grounds will significantly increase tourist visits then theoretically revenues should be even higher than currently. If there is a chart showing revenues were not covering operating expenses I will be the first to say remove the thing, so why has no one shown this chart? That is such a simple argument to make that i find it impossible to believe anyone would not have made it already if it were based in fact.
Don't get me wrong I am really in favor of this project. I do wish there was less of a parking component fronting the 3rd and 2nd streets. And I hope its tastefully respects the historic character of the landing. If the elevated lanes were removed the views would along 3rd would be very attractive. Personally I think they should build out their tower all the way to second and along third with hotel parking in the center of the structure accessed from 3rd since 2nd street is WAY to bumpy for a lot of auto traffic anyway. Then lobby hard for elevated lane removal. It'd be nice to have some corporate backers for that vision for a change.
When they break ground on this project WITHOUT a TIF I may resign myself to the wasteful destruction of the arch garage. But I really can't see how it drives the decision.
I believe any new garage built on Laclede's Landing is a net loss for the district. I also believe that the all-but-finalized demolition of the Arch garage (and subsequent removal of Washington Avenue) will lead to exactly that outcome.
Yes, it would be great if the Lucas Street connection was returned through the massive (and underutilized) lot. It would be very cool if a new residential mid-rise went up at the southwest corner of the site and buried enough parking to cater to the residents and Arch/Landing visitors.
In reality though, you'll likely end up with a large parking garage directly on 2nd Street that matches or exceeds the total square footage of the residential "tower" just west. Whatever garage is built -- even if it has 2nd Street commercial frontage built in -- can only damage the history and soul of Laclede's Landing.
Of course, the interest groups for Laclede's Landing should be looking to build its residential base (which is now, I believe, all of two people...), but not at the expense of its character. A modern, glass building rising up near I-70 (preferably Memorial Blvd.) would even work, but not a lip-service brick fronted garage.
Again though, the restrictive parking laws in this City make anything better impossible and you'l be stuck with a brick/concrete behemoth. I wonder if Laclede's Landing's ultra-historic pedigree could allow it to make a case for drastically-reduced residential parking requirements. By virtue of its status/location, maybe the district could make a case to have St. Louis' first planned development focused on walkability and alt. transit, not parking ratios.
Yes, it would be great if the Lucas Street connection was returned through the massive (and underutilized) lot. It would be very cool if a new residential mid-rise went up at the southwest corner of the site and buried enough parking to cater to the residents and Arch/Landing visitors.
In reality though, you'll likely end up with a large parking garage directly on 2nd Street that matches or exceeds the total square footage of the residential "tower" just west. Whatever garage is built -- even if it has 2nd Street commercial frontage built in -- can only damage the history and soul of Laclede's Landing.
Of course, the interest groups for Laclede's Landing should be looking to build its residential base (which is now, I believe, all of two people...), but not at the expense of its character. A modern, glass building rising up near I-70 (preferably Memorial Blvd.) would even work, but not a lip-service brick fronted garage.
Again though, the restrictive parking laws in this City make anything better impossible and you'l be stuck with a brick/concrete behemoth. I wonder if Laclede's Landing's ultra-historic pedigree could allow it to make a case for drastically-reduced residential parking requirements. By virtue of its status/location, maybe the district could make a case to have St. Louis' first planned development focused on walkability and alt. transit, not parking ratios.
- 1,320
Fast service around here. That's why I keep coming back to this place...Presbyterian wrote:I would like to hear more about that Drury residential tower. I recall mention of it in the arch parking study.
http://nextstl.com/downtown/drury-lawre ... -s-landing
- 1,792
^^Also according to the renderings I've seen Wash ave. is to be closed so a garage on 2nd is beyond stupidity. The only way to get there is to drive on 2nd street over the cobble stones of the landing. Its actually a worse setup than it is now since at least currently a person could drive under the Eads bridge to get to it. Does this make sense to anyone? Am I missing something?
The development was pinned to Prop P's successful passage because if the Arch Garage would have not been demolished the status quo would be maintained, and thus the developer's finances would have not made sense to proceed further. This is what I was able to find out from meetings when the developer was present.STLEnginerd wrote:Why wasn't it feasible without Prop P?
Though, I have been able to deduce that the City will help pay some of the cost for the new parking structure (this correlates well with before because if the Arch Garage was not demolished than the City would find it hard to help pay for a new one).
Both the First Street and Second Street streetscapes will be re-constructed starting this fall/winter (cobblestones re-laid, re-organized and more functional pedestrian space, and new plant material), so everyones 'bumpy' ride through the Landing will be minimized. As well, Lucas Avenue will be reconstructed through this project site and re-establish the street grid lost to this super block and create an even safer and more friendly pedestrian environment.STLEnginerd wrote:...since 2nd street is WAY to bumpy for a lot of auto traffic anyway....
Yes, you are - Lucas Avenue will be reconstructed through the Drury project site and re-establish the street grid lost to this super block and provide vehicular access from Third Street entering and exiting the parking structures.STLEnginerd wrote:^^Also according to the renderings I've seen Wash ave. is to be closed so a garage on 2nd is beyond stupidity. Am I missing something?