They took down the lights in the park and ride today.quincunx wrote:Finally some action this morning. They were cutting DeBaliviere with a saw and had a jack hammer going south of the strip mall on DeGiverville.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 805
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Barriers set up along Debaliviere now. Looked like demo companies were in and out of the strip mall businesses today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Demo!
![]()
- 542
This was only off by eight years. I'm glad, because it's given us eight years of peace without this construction.framer wrote: ↑Jul 13, 2012Wow. I thought this was dead. We need some updates!
An increased oversupply of mediocre mid-market condos no longer being my concern...
(we moved from 5600 Waterman block to a house on 5700 in 2013, and sold the metropolis condo at a sizable loss in 2016, despite having thought it had ridden the bubble most of the way down already when we bought it in 2008)
...my major concern is the racial vector of this development. The Eastern side of S-D is mostly AfAm. I'm pleased to report that we're still one of only about five melanin-deficient households on 5700, out of about forty houses. Expo is another Saint Louis-brand barely-concealed Black removal scheme.
That strip mall was built in 1987-88 so it did look like architectural effluent, but it did at one time or another feature the following and more: an AfAm dental practice, the barbershop, the nail place, the chop suey place, Express Mart which had some things and wasn't extortionate, and the laundromat. All of these, and the Subway, and Talayna's had a lot of AfAm customers. The greatest loss might have been the dental practice of Dr Davis, who I believe had some health issue--the dentistry office abruptly closed around Christmas 2017.
I have lived within 100 paces either side of DeBaliviere since 2008 and at no point during this time has the area been some sort of scary crime hole or a real "open air drug market" as a number of the comments over the course of this thread would have you believe. Yes, you can sometimes score some weed near the train station. Big whoop.
Expo is a play to drop a bunch of white and Asian/Asian American Barnes/WashU type people on top of the train station to make the area "better." It's the same old, old, old story. DeBaliviere was considered acceptable territory by whites in the Mid 20C. Then they abandoned it. Then after a few decades of mostly African Americans using it, it's profitable for someone to jam several hundred more WashU Med condos where the "unsightly" strip mall was, which is to say, where Black people were actually using businesses. Yes, AfAm residents of Winter Garden and S-D will frequent the Fields Foods as will I, but this was a purposeful removal of businesses frequented principally by AfAm customers. And it will be hailed as "improvement" of the neighborhood
I know I'm part of the problem, of course--white people showing up a bit in 5700 and 5800 Pershing, DeGiverville, and Waterman probably added to the perception that an acceptably bourgie condo tower or three was needed to further gentrify the area. In the meantime, I'm praying that my neighbors are able to keep their houses in the family when they pass away, and that their great grandsons aren't murdered by the police for walking on a sidewalk simply because a bunch of little WashU Beckys with itchy cell phones overran Expo.
- 805
I think you raise some good points, and I disagree on others.throatybeard wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2020This was only off by eight years. I'm glad, because it's given us eight years of peace without this construction.framer wrote: ↑Jul 13, 2012Wow. I thought this was dead. We need some updates!
An increased oversupply of mediocre mid-market condos no longer being my concern...
(we moved from 5600 Waterman block to a house on 5700 in 2013, and sold the metropolis condo at a sizable loss in 2016, despite having thought it had ridden the bubble most of the way down already when we bought it in 2008)
...my major concern is the racial vector of this development. The Eastern side of S-D is mostly AfAm. I'm pleased to report that we're still one of only about five melanin-deficient households on 5700, out of about forty houses. Expo is another Saint Louis-brand barely-concealed Black removal scheme.
That strip mall was built in 1987-88 so it did look like architectural effluent, but it did at one time or another feature the following and more: an AfAm dental practice, the barbershop, the nail place, the chop suey place, Express Mart which had some things and wasn't extortionate, and the laundromat. All of these, and the Subway, and Talayna's had a lot of AfAm customers. The greatest loss might have been the dental practice of Dr Davis, who I believe had some health issue--the dentistry office abruptly closed around Christmas 2017.
I have lived within 100 paces either side of DeBaliviere since 2008 and at no point during this time has the area been some sort of scary crime hole or a real "open air drug market" as a number of the comments over the course of this thread would have you believe. Yes, you can sometimes score some weed near the train station. Big whoop.
Expo is a play to drop a bunch of white and Asian/Asian American Barnes/WashU type people on top of the train station to make the area "better." It's the same old, old, old story. DeBaliviere was considered acceptable territory by whites in the Mid 20C. Then they abandoned it. Then after a few decades of mostly African Americans using it, it's profitable for someone to jam several hundred more WashU Med condos where the "unsightly" strip mall was, which is to say, where Black people were actually using businesses. Yes, AfAm residents of Winter Garden and S-D will frequent the Fields Foods as will I, but this was a purposeful removal of businesses frequented principally by AfAm customers. And it will be hailed as "improvement" of the neighborhood
I know I'm part of the problem, of course--white people showing up a bit in 5700 and 5800 Pershing, DeGiverville, and Waterman probably added to the perception that an acceptably bourgie condo tower or three was needed to further gentrify the area. In the meantime, I'm praying that my neighbors are able to keep their houses in the family when they pass away, and that their great grandsons aren't murdered by the police for walking on a sidewalk simply because a bunch of little WashU Beckys with itchy cell phones overran Expo.
I've lived here two years now (on the 5700 block of Pershing) and share many of the same experiences that you do. This is a diverse block, probably much more diverse than the city at large. My experiences on DeBaliviere have been positive and I have never felt it was a dangerous, scary place. I also enjoyed Express Mart for its convenience and several of the eateries.
I am glad that the project was halted by eight years, too. Otherwise, I doubt I would have been able to afford to buy in the neighborhood at all. Few homes have sold for as little as mine did in the past two years, and all that did have needed work. You are right that this project is going to increase property values as it brings a shiny new buildings and valuable amenities with it including the grocery store (don't think it will be a Fields Foods, there's already one on Euclid & Washington and its floundering), restaurants, and retail.
I am disappointed that this project, on top of a metrolink station, contains no low income housing component. That's a shame. The developer's rationale for not including any was weak (argued there was plenty in the zip code, which stretches a little ways north).
But this project is not going to change the demographics of the neighborhood by itself. They are already changing. Low income housing east of DeBaliviere on Pershing is vanishing and it seems that every new house east of Des Peres in SD is being bought by a white family. Rentals still seem to remain diverse. And this was even before the project was announced. The trends were there, the demographics shifting, and I believe that is why Pearl jumped on the opportunity to develop. It will certainly accelerate the gentrification of the neighborhood, and they are complicit since they refused to add low income housing to their project. But they didn't start this trend, and this project ertainly won't bring the trend to completion. DeBaliviere is just about to get hot.
Having voiced some of my concerns and frustrations with the project, there are some really amazing things it is going to do for the neighborhood. For starters, we will see roughly 500 more residents in the neighborhood over the next two years. That's a good increase in density in such a short time, and it will make for a more lively community. Additionally, a grocery store is a HUGE get for this neighborhood. This is already a very walkable neighborhood with transit stations all around the neighborhood, but the addition of a grocery store makes it a truly walkable neighborhood. Its location makes it easy to access for many adjacent neighborhoods without a car, too! This side of the neighborhood has also lacked bars and more traditional sit down eateries. Gaining some of those will be really nice for residents. It is my hope that some of the strip mall businesses will move into nearby spaces. The vacant retail spaces are certainly there for them to fill, but who knows if that will happen.
Its not that the strip mall was unsightly that most people are happy to see it gone, its that its low land productivity next to an important Metrolink stop and one of the best urban parks in America is unacceptable. The new buildings going up are much more in line with urban development around a station minus all the parking. This is a marked improvement for the neighborhood and the region. Like a huge improvement.
But I'm with you that this neighborhood, and maybe it starts with the neighborhood association, needs to make a concerted effort NOW to protect the interests of lower income residents (both longtime and future).
One more thing I wanted to point out.
If we don’t build more apartments, the existing ones in the neighborhood will get even more expensive because people looking to live in the neighborhood will still need to find a place. Adding supply helps to calm prices (even if they are still rising due to increase in demand).
These developments don’t create gentrification. They are a response to it. Adding supply is the only way you keep housing prices from spiking through the roof.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we don’t build more apartments, the existing ones in the neighborhood will get even more expensive because people looking to live in the neighborhood will still need to find a place. Adding supply helps to calm prices (even if they are still rising due to increase in demand).
These developments don’t create gentrification. They are a response to it. Adding supply is the only way you keep housing prices from spiking through the roof.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just curious if there's any kind of movement in STL pushing for some kind of a property tax freeze? You know, where the taxes never go up as long as the same owners own the home, but after it sells, the new, higher rate kicks in? I know some communities have this, and it helps protect long-time homeowners from having to sell their homes due to ever-rising property taxes in suddenly hot neighborhoods.
- 6,123
^Seems like we have precisely the opposite of that: a tax dump to get renovation done and no tax hike on anyone who keeps their property up in the first place. Seeing the absurdly low tax rates on mansions in fancytown makes me sick.
That might be something the state would have to do. In Illinois a 65+ home owner can get a $6k discount on their assessed value. A 65+ home owner with income below a certain level can get their assessment frozen.
My experience has been that the increase in MSD bills and homeowner's insurance premiums have far outpaced property assessment increases. Is that the case for anyone else?
It's interesting that in some parts fo the region people fear a new multi-family development nearby will hurt their property values while here the worry is the opposite.
How has the addition of the Lofts in the Loop and the Everly affected nearby property assessments?
Are there similar worries about Delmar Divine?
The rehab of the apt building at Hamilton and Cabanne?
My experience has been that the increase in MSD bills and homeowner's insurance premiums have far outpaced property assessment increases. Is that the case for anyone else?
It's interesting that in some parts fo the region people fear a new multi-family development nearby will hurt their property values while here the worry is the opposite.
How has the addition of the Lofts in the Loop and the Everly affected nearby property assessments?
Are there similar worries about Delmar Divine?
The rehab of the apt building at Hamilton and Cabanne?
I seem to remember us voting for an MSD proposition to raise rates fairly rapidly on basically everyone in order to fund the backlog of repairs and capital investment as well as higher quality of service from MSD for people on both sides of 270.
- 2,430
This isn't what the research shows though for all markets, especially in ones like ours that don't have a superheated housing shortage.... it's generally accepted that these kinds of market-rate developments help tame rents on moderate and higher income renters but the impact on lower-income renters can be negative. This good NYT article from earlier this year that includes research on Minneapolis is here...SeattleNative wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2020One more thing I wanted to point out.
If we don’t build more apartments, the existing ones in the neighborhood will get even more expensive because people looking to live in the neighborhood will still need to find a place. Adding supply helps to calm prices (even if they are still rising due to increase in demand).
These developments don’t create gentrification. They are a response to it. Adding supply is the only way you keep housing prices from spiking through the roof.
Sent from my iPhone using TaF
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/upsh ... hoods.html
At the end of the day, what St. Louis City desperately needs is to lower our incredibly high level of poverty concentration and it's deeply disappointing that this project fails to include any kind of income restricted units while being so heavily subsidized.
I don't think so, but somewhat relevant to this is quite a few of these 10 year tax abated homes in neighborhoods like old McRee Town/now gentrified Botanical Heights are reselling after just a couple years with a jacked up price and still more years of abatement left... for example something first selling in 2017 or 2018 for $350k being re-sold now for $400k and still 7 or 8 years of abatement left. I wish that these abatements were structured to end with the secondary sale by the original homeowner.framer wrote: ↑Aug 24, 2020Just curious if there's any kind of movement in STL pushing for some kind of a property tax freeze? You know, where the taxes never go up as long as the same owners own the home, but after it sells, the new, higher rate kicks in? I know some communities have this, and it helps protect long-time homeowners from having to sell their homes due to ever-rising property taxes in suddenly hot neighborhoods.
And they shouldn't even be given out anymore for places likes Botanical Heights, which are nothing like they were when abatement may have been warranted even just a few years ago.
- 805
Thanks for that article STL Rainbow. I agree that this was a huge missed opportunity for affordable housing in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood (especially on top of the transfer station for our Metrolink lines!).
I think the only way you offer low income families (that don't already own here) the ability to live in a neighborhood like Skinker DeBaliviere is through affordable housing units at this point. Even retaining 2 and 4 fams, which the neighborhood should do as much as possible, won't protect housing affordability as many of those units are upgraded with granite counter tops, refinished hardwood floors, etc and command higher rents.
In that article, I'm still not sure I agree with their suggestion that correlation might imply causation in not so hot markets, though its possible. Rents were already pricing out low income residents in these two neighborhoods before either of these projects were announced. I see Pearl and Lux developing high end buildings as a reaction to those tides, not as a cause to those tides. They will likely exacerbate it, though, as I said above, and their refusal to add affordable housing makes their neglect of low income residents intentional.
But again, I don't think the problem here is that we are adding urban form or tearing down a poor land-use strip mall and I don't think that these two things in and of themselves will create a less diverse neighborhood (which is what I was originally responding to), it's that these two developments simply ignore equity as a fundamental issue in who they are marketing to as tenants. That is worth criticizing. The added density and coming amenities should be welcomed.
I think the only way you offer low income families (that don't already own here) the ability to live in a neighborhood like Skinker DeBaliviere is through affordable housing units at this point. Even retaining 2 and 4 fams, which the neighborhood should do as much as possible, won't protect housing affordability as many of those units are upgraded with granite counter tops, refinished hardwood floors, etc and command higher rents.
In that article, I'm still not sure I agree with their suggestion that correlation might imply causation in not so hot markets, though its possible. Rents were already pricing out low income residents in these two neighborhoods before either of these projects were announced. I see Pearl and Lux developing high end buildings as a reaction to those tides, not as a cause to those tides. They will likely exacerbate it, though, as I said above, and their refusal to add affordable housing makes their neglect of low income residents intentional.
But again, I don't think the problem here is that we are adding urban form or tearing down a poor land-use strip mall and I don't think that these two things in and of themselves will create a less diverse neighborhood (which is what I was originally responding to), it's that these two developments simply ignore equity as a fundamental issue in who they are marketing to as tenants. That is worth criticizing. The added density and coming amenities should be welcomed.
@Framer, isn't that sort of like California's Prop 13, which has been an unmitigated disaster in the face of needed density increases?
- 991
FWIW there aren't really any properties left in BH that were tax abated previously that haven't seen renovation Our shotgun rehab is one, but I think we're just one of a few abated properties remaining, if not the very last one.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Aug 26, 2020I don't think so, but somewhat relevant to this is quite a few of these 10 year tax abated homes in neighborhoods like old McRee Town/now gentrified Botanical Heights are reselling after just a couple years with a jacked up price and still more years of abatement left... for example something first selling in 2017 or 2018 for $350k being re-sold now for $400k and still 7 or 8 years of abatement left. I wish that these abatements were structured to end with the secondary sale by the original homeowner.framer wrote: ↑Aug 24, 2020Just curious if there's any kind of movement in STL pushing for some kind of a property tax freeze? You know, where the taxes never go up as long as the same owners own the home, but after it sells, the new, higher rate kicks in? I know some communities have this, and it helps protect long-time homeowners from having to sell their homes due to ever-rising property taxes in suddenly hot neighborhoods.
And they shouldn't even be given out anymore for places likes Botanical Heights, which are nothing like they were when abatement may have been warranted even just a few years ago.
I can attest to that. Got the receiving end of property tax increase when we purchased our home in Cali while most of my neighborhoods enjoy 1980 capped property tax rates. Even then, I was fortunate in the fact that we moved because I was able to find a job, a better job in recession and the home prices were collapsed when we did purchase. I think prop13 truly has created an unbalanced property tax system that makes schools utterly dependent on state budgets & outside fundraising with less homeowners paying significantly higher rate while a large part of the tax base get the plus side of house value appreciation with 1980 prop 13 capping rates hikes at fraction of value. I also think that Prop 13 added one more thing attributing to the cali housing crises as unintended consequence. You literally don't have any incentive to move up or downsize or out of real estate unless you move out of state and or have enough money you really don't care.SeattleNative wrote: ↑Aug 26, 2020@Framer, isn't that sort of like California's Prop 13, which has been an unmitigated disaster in the face of needed density increases?
I thought Missouri already caps property taxes for retirees. To me that makes a lot more sense to me because retirees have most likely spent years paying similar fair share on house value and most likely retirees have reverted to a fixed income of Social Security and or few that still have pension plans.
We're under a consent decree to fix the sewer system so we don't put poo in the river when there's a lot of rain. Previous generations opted not to deal with that instead building a bunch of additional stuff to take care of, so we're left holding the bag in both respects. We passed bond issues to lessen the amount of the rate hikes in trade off of paying interest and fees on the bonds over a longer period of time.Ebsy wrote: ↑Aug 26, 2020I seem to remember us voting for an MSD proposition to raise rates fairly rapidly on basically everyone in order to fund the backlog of repairs and capital investment as well as higher quality of service from MSD for people on both sides of 270.
Those rate hikes and why seem to get less attention than the prospects of property assessment increases do to developments nearby. I suppose that's because there's no choice concerning it before us whereas the prospect of a potential development leading to assessment increase leading to displacement does (whether to do the development and how). I wish the infrastructure burden brought on by enabling spreading out and deferred maintenance on the existing would get more attention. Especially since it crowds out wealth that could go to property taxes to support schools or other things.
My in laws live in Cali. They won’t move for this reason. Don’t want the increase in taxes. They bought their home in the early 80s. Although, I think you might get one move where they still don’t go up? Not 100% sure on that. I doubt they move until they go into assisted living or something later in life.dredger wrote: ↑Aug 26, 2020I can attest to that. Got the receiving end of property tax increase when we purchased our home in Cali while most of my neighborhoods enjoy 1980 capped property tax rates. Even then, I was fortunate in the fact that we moved because I was able to find a job, a better job in recession and the home prices were collapsed when we did purchase. I think prop13 truly has created an unbalanced property tax system that makes schools utterly dependent on state budgets & outside fundraising with less homeowners paying significantly higher rate while a large part of the tax base get the plus side of house value appreciation with 1980 prop 13 capping rates hikes at fraction of value. I also think that Prop 13 added one more thing attributing to the cali housing crises as unintended consequence. You literally don't have any incentive to move up or downsize or out of real estate unless you move out of state and or have enough money you really don't care.SeattleNative wrote: ↑Aug 26, 2020@Framer, isn't that sort of like California's Prop 13, which has been an unmitigated disaster in the face of needed density increases?
I thought Missouri already caps property taxes for retirees. To me that makes a lot more sense to me because retirees have most likely spent years paying similar fair share on house value and most likely retirees have reverted to a fixed income of Social Security and or few that still have pension plans.