Ballpark Village

Downtown construction activity, including hotel projects, major renovations, office projects, streetscape improvements, etc.
First unread post3444 posts
This is the thread for what's actually being build/still planned for Ballpark Village. Please feel free to add current renderings and information here.
Sheesh; two months and nothing?
What is there? Many lots remain around downtown that can be developed. The Cupples buildings are still in need of tenants. It's tough to see much happening here for some time. And new creative ideas out there?
But I thought Stifel was committed to this. No official groundbreaking date yet?
While we are waiting for someone to build on the property, I don't know why they couldn't set up a bunch of transportable carnival rides and a large temporary tent beer garden on the place for before and after game festivities. And make a temporary kids water park -- all you would need is flat space and some water sprinklers, as we've learned by the large number of kids that show up in the fountains at CityGarden.
gary kreie wrote:
While we are waiting for someone to build on the property, I don't know why they couldn't set up a bunch of transportable carnival rides and a large temporary tent beer garden on the place for before and after game festivities. And make a temporary kids water park -- all you would need is flat space and some water sprinklers, as we've learned by the large number of kids that show up in the fountains at CityGarden.


They could even call it Hoosierville!
the central scrutinizer wrote:

They could even call it Hoosierville!


Works for me. I'm guessing they don't want tents selling beer right outside the stadium. It might take away from the $8.50 per beer they get inside the stadium. In fact, maybe this is one of the reasons they are dragging their feet on the whole Ballpark Village development. A bunch of food and drink restaurants next to the stadium might cannibalize sales inside the stadium.

In the meantime, surrounding business who do not have an interest in maintaining the sales inside the stadium, such as Hilton at the Ballpark, are spending millions to go after some of that business.
^I feel like they could just create a small "BPV" deck or something that's only accessible on game days by ticket holders. In a lot of the renderings, there are 2nd/3rd floor roof top decks, why not deck over the street a little bit (or put in over the street walk-ways accessible only from inside Busch). Cardinals can get a share of the revenue created by these bars/restaurants. It's no Wrigleyville, but it would be something...
So much of this is piecemeal and not addressing the main topic: that the flat landfill sucks and needs to be replaced, as quickly as possible, by revenue-producing new construction projects that we, as a constituency, were sold as a condition for approving tax-financed support for total site new construction, including Busch III.

Rather than a ferris wheel & cotton candy stands, or of a multi-level bleacher bench across Clark, I'd much prefer to see a constant campaign directed at the Cardinals ownership & the Cordish development company. I would be ever so happy to see a billboard put in there that says:
"Cardinals Nation Deserves Better: Build Ballpark Village".

That would ruffle some feathers.

Side note: I've never seen anyone play softball on that makeshift field. Ever.
gone corporate wrote:
Side note: I've never seen anyone play softball on that makeshift field. Ever.


Same here.
^I've seen a game twice. I'm assuming I happened to see the only two games ever played there.
Isn't Cordish required to pay the city for every year without the project in developement? I swear I read that somewhere.
I don't think anyone knows when that is supposed to start or if it is even still in effect at this point. It's changed so many times because our government doesn't have a spine.
xing wrote:
Isn't Cordish required to pay the city for every year without the project in developement? I swear I read that somewhere.


That was supposed to start in 2011, but was removed when the board of aldermen were trying to come up with incentives for Centene to move in. Somewhere there is a very angry post on the 'Not My Mayor' blog about it with detailed play-by-play information.
@gone - I agree. Build per the agreement or compensate the city for continuing to hold a sizable barren chunk of downtown real estate. Sure there are plenty of other lots in the city but none immediately adjacent to a brand new major league baseball facility.

Failing these options we must (as a city) pursue sanctions or litigation against all parties who have benefited from the new stadium. This includes (rather unfortunately) everyone down to snack vending companies, janitorial companies, etc... They are reaping the rewards of broken promises that were made to an entire region. Until we start pursuing people at that level and lighting the fire at both ends are we likely to see any action from the individuals at the center of this.

The world is filled with hard-luck stories. We've already surpassed our 'sucker' quota as a city. Develop that land in the spirit of the original agreement or pay up and get out.
Is eminent domain an option?
timeforguinness wrote:
Is eminent domain an option?


Only if you want to tie it up in court for the next 10 years.
the central scrutinizer wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
Is eminent domain an option?


Only if you want to tie it up in court for the next 10 years.



If there were a reasonable shot at the city prevailing (and as a layman, I believe there is), I would support such an action. First, it would set a precedent for future 'deals'. If you don't live up to the agreed terms, then as a society, we can make better use of the land and will reclaim it. I know that some will argue that this will steer future developers away. Horsesh*t. Serious and honest developers would look at this situation and see that it was a reasonable action taken under duress. If a downtown developer even remotely lives up to their claims, we'd have no such case against them.

Of course, I can already see the honorable mayor's signature, along with the aldermanic seal of approval, on some new city-financed deal that quietly stipulates that the city never enter into eminent domain proceedings against the property. Cat and mouse.

This should not deter us, though. We have a track record of (unwarranted) surprise, inaction, and acquiescence every time the wool is pulled over our eyes. Until we step forward, as a city, and make it known that we've had enough, we are doomed to continue on the path of goodhearted folly.
the central scrutinizer wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
Is eminent domain an option?


Only if you want to tie it up in court for the next 10 years.


Is being "in court" for the next ten years any better or worse than waiting for "market improvement" for another ten years?
tbspqr wrote:
the central scrutinizer wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
Is eminent domain an option?


Only if you want to tie it up in court for the next 10 years.


Is being "in court" for the next ten years any better or worse than waiting for "market improvement" for another ten years?


Better. It sends a message.

Plus, if we actually start the process with the intent of seeing it through, we may just find that Cordish, et. al would rather go ahead and put their money into a development that has a shot at turning a profit rather than forking it over to a team of attorneys just so they can retain ownership of an undeveloped parcel of land. Either way, we win.
tbspqr wrote:
the central scrutinizer wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
Is eminent domain an option?


Only if you want to tie it up in court for the next 10 years.


Is being "in court" for the next ten years any better or worse than waiting for "market improvement" for another ten years?


I think it comes down to what Stifel Nichols wants at this moment. In other words, I think the Mayor's office sole priority in regards to them and BPV is to make sure they stay downtown, in city and definitely within the region. If it means not acting on the BPV agreement until they put a shovel in the ground or signed a long term lease, so be it. But what you don't want to do is drive a thriving expanding financial HQ out of the city and you certainly don't want give Wells Fargo Securities doubts in the process.
tbspqr wrote:
the central scrutinizer wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
Is eminent domain an option?


Only if you want to tie it up in court for the next 10 years.


Is being "in court" for the next ten years any better or worse than waiting for "market improvement" for another ten years?


Worse. It costs money. Waiting costs nothing.
If a failed economic development project can be said to cost nothing then I guess I'm out of this game. The picture here is much larger than just one empty lot.
I was left dreaming tonight as I attended the Cards-Nats game in Washington. The area beyond the left field gate has boomed with new highrises (well, what's considered a highrise in Washington anyways). All of this despite the fact that its located away from Capitol Hill and other attractions, in what appears to be a rather rough neighborhood otherwise, and next to a stadium that is usually only half filled. The only reason that St. Louis doesn't see similar progress at a site that's in the middle of downtown and across the street from one of the most attended parks in baseball is that answer that we're all tired of: "Well, that's just St. Louis."
dredger wrote:
tbspqr wrote:
the central scrutinizer wrote:

Only if you want to tie it up in court for the next 10 years.


Is being "in court" for the next ten years any better or worse than waiting for "market improvement" for another ten years?


I think it comes down to what Stifel Nichols wants at this moment. In other words, I think the Mayor's office sole priority in regards to them and BPV is to make sure they stay downtown, in city and definitely within the region. If it means not acting on the BPV agreement until they put a shovel in the ground or signed a long term lease, so be it. But what you don't want to do is drive a thriving expanding financial HQ out of the city and you certainly don't want give Wells Fargo Securities doubts in the process.


So, why not use eminent domain and sell the land to Stifel Nichols?