Yes, it's the new residence being built along the north side of Laclede, just west of Spring. https://www.slu.edu/news/2021/january/j ... University. It's been SLU controlled for years (probably decades?) and was formerly the site of the Laclede houses.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑May 28, 2021I feel as though we're forgetting that SLU plans to move the residents to a new building, which would presumably also be tax exempt. Do we know where that new building is? Was its site on the tax rolls before? Sure, this is property that's been off the rolls for a long time coming back on, but that doesn't mean it's precisely free money. Genuinely curious as that's a detail I've missed in the previous reporting.
- 991
I don't disagree, but there is no major metro area in the country where development of any scale doesn't run into local bullsh*t. Repeated delays and re-trading are both issues that will kill deals for sure, especially when variables like construction costs are skyrocketing. Every time the mayor and alderwoman delay a project like the Cortex office, the price to build it is going up substantially. Hopefully it normalizes soon, but who knows.urbanitas wrote: ↑May 28, 2021There's a huge difference between local developers and national developers. One of the city's biggest obstacles has always been in attracting national developers to an area that was previously an afterthought for them. The city was finally seeing some progress on that front again after a long drought: Mac Properties, Ventas, Opus, and others, as well as regional developers like Pearl. But they like predictably and have little patience for local bullsh*t, which is a major reason why they avoided St. Louis in the first place...addxb2 wrote: ↑May 27, 2021STLs big projects are typically developers who have already invested millions in the area. Walking away really isn’t an option for them because they’ve invested big $$ in neighborhood level redevelopment strategies. They have to keep investing or the whole thing could collapse.
Green Street for example isn’t going to easily walk away from projects in the grove. Could they eventually? Sure. But a little negotiating over incentives isn’t enough.
All of the local developers you are likely to list, who have only recently gotten into the new mixed-use and multi-family construction game, can always go back to what they were doing pre-Great Recession...
Honestly, the reason most of the national/regional developers have ignored St. Louis is because the growth is so stagnant/non-existent. Tax incentives help bridge that gap to an extent, but even with massive demand, cities like Nashville and even Dallas are still giving them out so it's not a major competitive advantage for STL.
- 2,623
I'm obviously not a TIF or development expert, but I would really like to see a well defined framework for TIFs built around a flexible form based code. TIFs should be allowed anywhere in the region, but only for projects that push the urban envelope for the specific location.
Central corridor lots should have minimum density requirements that if satisfied could make a project eligible for a certain TIF. If projects go beyond the minimum requirements the TIF can be incrementally increased. If an area has been seeing strong demand and increased base density, the density requirement should go up. This could possibly be addressed by revising the citywide form based code every 5-10 years.
South City would be more relaxed, but needs to stop giving any tax breaks to single family construction or conversion. I would focus on getting big ticket apartments built along the major corridors to shore up density and affordability in these gentrifying neighborhoods that are losing residents.
North city would be hard to justify taking away incentives in almost any case at this point. Just make sure that anything incentivized is relatively urban. I would also like to see some focus areas to start building islands of activity north of Delmar that will hopefully build some momentum. Ideally as north city develops, we can stop giving tax breaks to some of the more dynamic areas.
Central corridor lots should have minimum density requirements that if satisfied could make a project eligible for a certain TIF. If projects go beyond the minimum requirements the TIF can be incrementally increased. If an area has been seeing strong demand and increased base density, the density requirement should go up. This could possibly be addressed by revising the citywide form based code every 5-10 years.
South City would be more relaxed, but needs to stop giving any tax breaks to single family construction or conversion. I would focus on getting big ticket apartments built along the major corridors to shore up density and affordability in these gentrifying neighborhoods that are losing residents.
North city would be hard to justify taking away incentives in almost any case at this point. Just make sure that anything incentivized is relatively urban. I would also like to see some focus areas to start building islands of activity north of Delmar that will hopefully build some momentum. Ideally as north city develops, we can stop giving tax breaks to some of the more dynamic areas.
Cortex K is heading to the Plan Commission on June 9th for a rezoning request (from Type J, Industrial to Type H, Area Commercial). Plan Commission agenda specifies support for the rezoning request and advancement to the Board of Aldermen for consideration. TIF Commission hearing, as previously discussed, moved back to July as the Alderwoman reviews the project and a deal is made on the usage of the $14 million in TIF for Cortex K.
Numbers for the project are no different than previously reported right now (162 apartments, 30,000sf of commercial space in the Cortex MX apartment building, 120,000sf of office space, 610 space parking structure, $99 million cost). The Plan Commission document includes better renderings of the buildings. I'm definitely liking the way this all looks.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm still holding out hope that we get development on that parking lot just North of here as a later phase of the overall Cortex K project. These come from the Remiger Design website for unbuilt work.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Numbers for the project are no different than previously reported right now (162 apartments, 30,000sf of commercial space in the Cortex MX apartment building, 120,000sf of office space, 610 space parking structure, $99 million cost). The Plan Commission document includes better renderings of the buildings. I'm definitely liking the way this all looks.
I'm still holding out hope that we get development on that parking lot just North of here as a later phase of the overall Cortex K project. These come from the Remiger Design website for unbuilt work.
- 443
So much gd parking. I get that its "shared" but does that mean future developments will no parking or limited parking? Does Cortex have a parking master plan? They're getting a lot of free money from the City and its annoying to see so much of it go towards non-productive, city-destructive uses like parking garages.
Further, if we are going to have a garage, does its footprint need to be so massive? The garage appears to have more square footage than the two other buildings combined. Why not a taller, narrower garage that opens more of the space for future office, lab or residential space? The whole theory behind cortex is to build a critical mass of creative thinkers in a dense environment to cause a high velocity of exchange in their high tech marketplace of ideas. But its beginning to look more like another office park just with garages instead of lots.
Further, if we are going to have a garage, does its footprint need to be so massive? The garage appears to have more square footage than the two other buildings combined. Why not a taller, narrower garage that opens more of the space for future office, lab or residential space? The whole theory behind cortex is to build a critical mass of creative thinkers in a dense environment to cause a high velocity of exchange in their high tech marketplace of ideas. But its beginning to look more like another office park just with garages instead of lots.
- 340
Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I would love to see an innovation district incorporate solar panels on the roofs of their buildings. I know BJC/WashU put solar panels on one of their parking garages on Duncan, but Cortex itself needs them. That might also attract green startups and businesses to the area.
Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
^ Yep, setaside some space on ground level for commercial uses and solar panels or even a mini pocket park/green space. At least you get some cross utilization of structure itself and mitigate carbon footprint of building(s)
Getting off topic but some pretty good arguments on why big large solar farms are just trading one benefit, no carbon, but destroying or impacting the environment by taking away habitat when we have a pretty large footprint with our structures already. However, would have put forth the capital to change to a more micro distributive method of electric generation and distribution.
Getting off topic but some pretty good arguments on why big large solar farms are just trading one benefit, no carbon, but destroying or impacting the environment by taking away habitat when we have a pretty large footprint with our structures already. However, would have put forth the capital to change to a more micro distributive method of electric generation and distribution.
I personally think that the public parking garages we know of right now (garage phase 2 behind 4210 Duncan, Cortex K, and 4343 Duncan) will serve the Cortex District as it grows up with no additional garages unless built by BJC for their own usages. I have a feeling I'll be wrong on that, but those three parking garages will have enough parking to easily replace all existing parking lots in the future.BellaVilla wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2021So much gd parking. I get that its "shared" but does that mean future developments will no parking or limited parking? Does Cortex have a parking master plan? They're getting a lot of free money from the City and its annoying to see so much of it go towards non-productive, city-destructive uses like parking garages.
Further, if we are going to have a garage, does its footprint need to be so massive? The garage appears to have more square footage than the two other buildings combined. Why not a taller, narrower garage that opens more of the space for future office, lab or residential space? The whole theory behind cortex is to build a critical mass of creative thinkers in a dense environment to cause a high velocity of exchange in their high tech marketplace of ideas. But its beginning to look more like another office park just with garages instead of lots.
- 1,291
Not sure why the City didn't include parking structures as part of their 'solar ready' mandate from 2019 (unless garages are included in the 'commercial building' aspect of said mandate). Unfortunately doesn't require anyone to actually put solar panels on their buildings, just to be ready for it.Miss Shell wrote: ↑Jun 05, 2021Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I would love to see an innovation district incorporate solar panels on the roofs of their buildings. I know BJC/WashU put solar panels on one of their parking garages on Duncan, but Cortex itself needs them. That might also attract green startups and businesses to the area.
Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
The progressive alderpersons really need to issue legislation mandating all structured parking and preferably all surface parking have solar canopies. If companies are just going to hoard that land until the end of time, might as well get some societal benefit out of all that asphalt. I'm sure patrons also wouldn't complain about significantly cooler cars. I'm sure the owners would complain, but screw 'em.
- 2,928
Drove past this site within the past half hour. There's a few trucks with workers working on the fencing right now.
Regarding parking, let's all remember that many people who work in Cortex are coming into the City from the County and beyond. That's a win.
Right now, I believe the City should be fighting to bring new jobs to STL that will attract people to the City, which definitely includes people who drive cars. Until we get to the point where fleets of third party-operated self-driving vehicles (Uber, Google, Enterprise, etc.) eliminate our demand-based need to own vehicles, and can chauffeur us to work but not have to loiter there while we work, the need for people to drive to work remains. We're not there yet. The construction of parking garages in Cortex so far has been reasonable, whether popular or not. Concurrently, as the demand from companies for office space has been decreasing with the popular advent of remote working, I'm trying to stay positive on Cortex's continued office space expansion, from the delayed footprint of the Sandcrawler to the hopeful redevelopment of the Goodwill buildings, along with a hopeful sister building to Cortex One along FPP and the apartment buildings set for behind it. And, of course, Cortex K, which hopefully will grow to the north lots in future phases so long as demand remains strong for developments there. If parking garages are built to fulfill the needs of the residents and office tenants who will work there, then so be it.
Regarding parking, let's all remember that many people who work in Cortex are coming into the City from the County and beyond. That's a win.
Right now, I believe the City should be fighting to bring new jobs to STL that will attract people to the City, which definitely includes people who drive cars. Until we get to the point where fleets of third party-operated self-driving vehicles (Uber, Google, Enterprise, etc.) eliminate our demand-based need to own vehicles, and can chauffeur us to work but not have to loiter there while we work, the need for people to drive to work remains. We're not there yet. The construction of parking garages in Cortex so far has been reasonable, whether popular or not. Concurrently, as the demand from companies for office space has been decreasing with the popular advent of remote working, I'm trying to stay positive on Cortex's continued office space expansion, from the delayed footprint of the Sandcrawler to the hopeful redevelopment of the Goodwill buildings, along with a hopeful sister building to Cortex One along FPP and the apartment buildings set for behind it. And, of course, Cortex K, which hopefully will grow to the north lots in future phases so long as demand remains strong for developments there. If parking garages are built to fulfill the needs of the residents and office tenants who will work there, then so be it.
- 443
Respectfully, this is just incorrect. There are many, many examples of cities overcoming their car sickness despite an existing demand based need to own vehicles. People want pedestrian/cyclist/mass transit friendly urban spaces to live and work in. And even supposing your statement is correct, that still doesn't explain the need for garage after garage in a supposedly urban development.gone corporate wrote: ↑Jun 07, 2021Until we get to the point where fleets of third party-operated self-driving vehicles (Uber, Google, Enterprise, etc.) eliminate our demand-based need to own vehicles, and can chauffeur us to work but not have to loiter there while we work, the need for people to drive to work remains. We're not there yet.
Not mention the fiscal insanity inherent in what you're suggesting. If we are moving to a world of autonomous vehicles picking us up when only when needed, why the hell are we subsidizing massive parking garages that, by your own admission, will be obsolete? And when that time comes, they will continue to stand because the shear quantity of steel and concrete make garages so expensive to demo.
- 2,928
^We are going off-topic here, so I'll try (edit: and fail) to be concise. Demand exists for car parking for future residents and employee commuters at this site. If they built this without parking for cars, it likely wouldn't succeed. There is a need for car parking at offices in the City and across the Metro Area. It's decreasing by two means, especially in the City: an increase in carless transportation (cycling, mass transit, etc.), and a decrease in demand for consolidated office space post-pandemic. However, this need still exists. Now, I'm not a real estate developer, but I do work with real estate investment, and right now I see continued and explicit demand for such developments having adequate car parking in STL and other cities. I look forward to this demand decreasing as new methods of commuting are adopted more popularly in STL (and beyond), as well as those coming into being by new technologies, including and especially driverless fleets of third-party vehicles.
Would I prefer that the parking garage be office space instead? Yes, hell yes, absolutely. 100% agree with you here.
Is that fiscally possible here? I don't see it, as demand will sharply decrease for prospective tenants if their employees won't have a place to park when they commute to Cortex from the suburbs.
Meanwhile, I'm reminded of Wash U's expansion that includes underground parking that can later be adapted towards non-vehicular use. With luck, this site's garage, and those other new ones going up, can be constructively adapted like Wash U plans to do when owned, individual vehicles are no longer the standard.
Again, if the City is pushing for increased job location in competition with places like Creve Coeur, Chesterfield, Clayton, and Maryland Heights, it would be a considerable disservice to only further developments that have no place for cars to park. All things being equal, it would competitively disadvantage Cortex.
Would I prefer that the parking garage be office space instead? Yes, hell yes, absolutely. 100% agree with you here.
Is that fiscally possible here? I don't see it, as demand will sharply decrease for prospective tenants if their employees won't have a place to park when they commute to Cortex from the suburbs.
Meanwhile, I'm reminded of Wash U's expansion that includes underground parking that can later be adapted towards non-vehicular use. With luck, this site's garage, and those other new ones going up, can be constructively adapted like Wash U plans to do when owned, individual vehicles are no longer the standard.
Again, if the City is pushing for increased job location in competition with places like Creve Coeur, Chesterfield, Clayton, and Maryland Heights, it would be a considerable disservice to only further developments that have no place for cars to park. All things being equal, it would competitively disadvantage Cortex.
- 443
I disagree with your premise that to be competitive with County office parks Cortex must subsidize County living and commuting via parking infrastructure. In fact, by bulding all these garages and catering to Couny-ites, Cortex is signing its own death warrant. The City will never be able to out County the County. Yet, we continue to try. Nearly 100 years in the making at this point. Also, many employers want their employees to be able to quickly access their jobs without needing a personal vehicle, especially environmentally conscious employers of which the number grows every day.
As to the developers demanding more parking, yeah its a positive feedback loop that needs to be broken and will only be broken by legislating for a different kind of development. Developers say St. Louisans need lots of parking becuase they have a low tolerance for walking, biking, or taking public transit, thereby lowering their tolerance for walking even further.
I understand the reality of the situation: this site is getting a garage. Nevertheless, its footprint is way too big. Absent a clearly outlinee parking strategy for Cortex that states otherwise, I'm skeptical that it will ever be the urban district promised. How many Garage-Majals can we really stomach in Cortex?
As to the developers demanding more parking, yeah its a positive feedback loop that needs to be broken and will only be broken by legislating for a different kind of development. Developers say St. Louisans need lots of parking becuase they have a low tolerance for walking, biking, or taking public transit, thereby lowering their tolerance for walking even further.
I understand the reality of the situation: this site is getting a garage. Nevertheless, its footprint is way too big. Absent a clearly outlinee parking strategy for Cortex that states otherwise, I'm skeptical that it will ever be the urban district promised. How many Garage-Majals can we really stomach in Cortex?
Maybe parking garage design needs a re-thinking. Like ?a ramp on the periphery surrounding regular floor plates that could more easily be repurposed to other uses when cars become obsolete without having to tear down and waste the whole mess.
- 991
If there was enough demand to support this project without the garage (or one substantially smaller), don't you think a developer would gladly cut out that cost?
- 2,928
Until such legislation is passed, I believe this status quo of garage development will remain. Again, and on an absolute basis, this is not just STL...BellaVilla wrote:As to the developers demanding more parking, yeah its a positive feedback loop that needs to be broken and will only be broken by legislating for a different kind of development. Developers say St. Louisans need lots of parking becuase they have a low tolerance for walking, biking, or taking public transit, thereby lowering their tolerance for walking even further.
I'm very much in favor of this and believe this, or something akin to it, should be the new standard for garage design & construction.imran wrote:Maybe parking garage design needs a re-thinking. Like ?a ramp on the periphery surrounding regular floor plates that could more easily be repurposed to other uses when cars become obsolete without having to tear down and waste the whole mess.
- 3,762
isn't it more about parking minimums than demand? or does that only apply to residential construction?Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Jun 08, 2021If there was enough demand to support this project without the garage (or one substantially smaller), don't you think a developer would gladly cut out that cost?
i have to agree with BellaVilla. i don't understand how St. Louis will ever become a car-optional city while this sh*t is continuously rationalized. every study demonstrates that there is WAY too much f*cking parking in St. Louis, yet every single new development just *has* to have dedicated parking. it's self-fulfilling—the same stupid sh*t infinitely.
- 2,928
^Until alternate modes of transportation, such as mass transit, become a more viable option for commuters, I believe we're stuck with car commuters. Maybe it's really all about increased options in alternative modes of transportation? I'd like that, a lot.
- 3,762
^ but the point is that the city is already AWASH in parking. there is currently more than enough parking, so stop building a new garage with every damned building until parking actually starts to become scarce. that lets developers spend less money on expensive garages and more on density, which in turn makes alternate modes of transportation viable. you are never going to encourage alternate modes of transportation by providing wide roads, high speed limits, and plentiful parking, making it easier to drive and harder/more dangerous to utilize alternate modes.
this isn't that hard. lots of other cities around the world have figured it out.
this isn't that hard. lots of other cities around the world have figured it out.
Isn't there a metro station literally a block from here? There is your public transit solution. Seriously, one block. I get a 1:1 parking for residential as Link doesn't go everywhere but when you have park and ride scattered around the region and direct access to your place of employment one block away, you lose that argument. If we're going to field complaints about headways, increased ridership I imagine would become the flashpoint for adding frequency.
In an ideal world I'd increase subsidies for businesses who pay for Metro cards and are immediately adjacent along any of the lines. Those who want subsidies for garages, get far less. Talking 25%. Or a stepped package where the building might get 50%/10 for the building (residential or office) and 25%/5 for the garage. There's no way forward without challenging the status quo, even if it proves painful (read: not that difficult to navigate, lots of other cities do it).
Whatever, it's not even worth humoring any longer. Whoever is approving stuff like this doesn't care either. The more concrete, drive-in-drive-out, earnings tax life support facade of 'prosperity' by filling in massive voids of parking death with taller voids of parking death as a means to dispel a vacancy aesthetic, the better, I suppose.
In an ideal world I'd increase subsidies for businesses who pay for Metro cards and are immediately adjacent along any of the lines. Those who want subsidies for garages, get far less. Talking 25%. Or a stepped package where the building might get 50%/10 for the building (residential or office) and 25%/5 for the garage. There's no way forward without challenging the status quo, even if it proves painful (read: not that difficult to navigate, lots of other cities do it).
Whatever, it's not even worth humoring any longer. Whoever is approving stuff like this doesn't care either. The more concrete, drive-in-drive-out, earnings tax life support facade of 'prosperity' by filling in massive voids of parking death with taller voids of parking death as a means to dispel a vacancy aesthetic, the better, I suppose.
- 2,623
It's Time to Think About Living in Parking Garages
This could be a great rider attached to TIFs in the central corridor. It's not super common yet but if the prefab garage companies can get on board then things could get even cheaper.Building for a future retrofit costs more money. “If it costs you 5 percent more on a $50 million building, [developers] might say, ‘That’s $2 million we don’t have,’” says LeBlanc. Banks don’t like to lend out money for a project that might have inadequate parking in the future---if the project goes under, they’re stuck with the problem.
^Isn't that what the Mercantile Exchange building downtown is going for, basically? Unfortunately, they did it the other way round: non-garage structure was essentially converted to a giant parking silo with condos.
I'm not sure of the outcome of the planning commission meeting, but I imagine the project advanced there. By the way, here are 6 new renderings.chriss752 wrote: ↑Jun 04, 2021Cortex K is heading to the Plan Commission on June 9th for a rezoning request (from Type J, Industrial to Type H, Area Commercial). Plan Commission agenda specifies support for the rezoning request and advancement to the Board of Aldermen for consideration. TIF Commission hearing, as previously discussed, moved back to July as the Alderwoman reviews the project and a deal is made on the usage of the $14 million in TIF for Cortex K.
Numbers for the project are no different than previously reported right now (162 apartments, 30,000sf of commercial space in the Cortex MX apartment building, 120,000sf of office space, 610 space parking structure, $99 million cost). The Plan Commission document includes better renderings of the buildings. I'm definitely liking the way this all looks.
- 6,118
The glass snout on the apartment building is actually kind of interesting. While I get the garage objections I do very much like this overall.