My 2c is residential efforts for the next few years should be focused on the core of downtown as it has a ways to go before it's truly dense/vibrant. Ideally DT will be well on its way to reaching that point in five years or whatever as this Gateway South project is completing it's first phase and then any residential demand for new residential construction in GS future phases would be less of a competitor to the core. Similarly, I'm also curious about the first phase office component... i.e. if it's intended to serve companies that would be doing the assembly/manufacturing and not general office that may pull from the CBD.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2022I am still hoping for this to be more residentially focused than industrial though. Once the historic buildings are renovated I would think apartment projects would just keep rolling in similar to how things are going in Steelcote.
- 2,430
BB142 Redevelopment Plan for the Gateway South Redevelopment Area filed by Ald Coatar
Tax abatement 10 years at 90% plus 5 years at 50%
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=14163
I'm surprised they aren't doing a TIF to get money up front to pay for infrastructure.
Tax abatement 10 years at 90% plus 5 years at 50%
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=14163
I'm surprised they aren't doing a TIF to get money up front to pay for infrastructure.
The TIF road is so difficult, even more so than tax abatement. And, Cortex has shown that even if you have a TIF, changing political winds can cause major difficulties years down the road. If they want to pay upfront for infrastructure, they could overlay a CID with an assessment on the real estate and capturing sales taxes, then monetize it with a CID loan. Not sure they are doing this, but that is a mechanism that is works somewhat similar to a TIF.
Rezoning for this is on the Dec 14 Planning Commission agenda for Dec 14 5:30pm.
- 6,120
^I don't think I realized that was a 600K square foot building. Doing a bit of quick, back of the napkin math I believe it. But holy cow Bob, is that thing big! (I suppose in reality it's more like six 100Ksf buildings all sandwiched together and with a mostly shared facade, but still . . .)
Anyway, I hope they can pull this off. That's almost certainly the landmark I worry about most. And man, the project could be truly transformative.
Anyway, I hope they can pull this off. That's almost certainly the landmark I worry about most. And man, the project could be truly transformative.
"Little Busch" sounds like a fun concept. Overall scope has apparently shrunk based on the massing (which isn't unexpected)...
Little Busch looks amazing. Reminds me a lot of Ascend Amphitheater in Nashville, which I've been saying for a while St. Louis needs something similar tochriss752 wrote:"Little Busch" sounds like a fun concept. Overall scope has apparently shrunk based on the massing (which isn't unexpected)...
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Curious to know if the have talked to the Terminal Railroad about the Little Busch idea considering it's surrounding on all sides by the elevated lines. I like the idea, but we all know railroads don't like anything fun at all.
- 102
If Little Busch has a full size field it would be cool to have the Springfield Cardinals or any Cardinals minor league affiliate play a game here once a season.
Another thing is the big electric tower on that site. Those towers and wires are in no rendering produced so far. So either they’re removing them or don’t know about it.
- 6,120
I love the Little Busch concept. When they were first building Busch III, while Busch II was still standing, I did a few amateur sketches of a fantasy I had of using portions of Busch II as the core of Ballpark Village. Save part of it, put condos in the actual remains of the stadium, and put a smaller baseball field in the middle of it for funsies. This Little Busch idea is quite similar to what I had in mind in many ways. Very lovely! (Helps when a real architect does this stuff.)
And yeah, working around the infrastructure will be an issue, but I expect they'll find a way.
And yeah, working around the infrastructure will be an issue, but I expect they'll find a way.
- 1,792
Madness. A little league stadium wedged in between 3 railroad lines just makes no sense whatsoever. It's got to be a gimmick.
The stadium is cute, but it has a 1% chance of happening, right? That tower isn't likely going anywhere. Yeah, you could probably move it to a parcel east of 1st St. between the TRRA tracks and the floodwall, but it's not going away completely. It carries a high voltage transmission line over the Mississippi River. The stadium would also require vacating 1st. And, Union Pacific owns at least one of those parcels in the wedge.
I did some quick measurements compared to the little league field standards, and the rendering looks pretty much to scale regarding how much space they'd need, meaning it's extremely tight. The TRRA line would need to be right up against the outfield wall. I guess you could alleviate safety concerns regarding balls landing on the tracks with some well-placed netting.
Here's a rough Google Earth measurement. The yellow line depicts the length between home plate and the outfield wall (about 225 feet). The white line roughly depicts the stadium outline.
I did some quick measurements compared to the little league field standards, and the rendering looks pretty much to scale regarding how much space they'd need, meaning it's extremely tight. The TRRA line would need to be right up against the outfield wall. I guess you could alleviate safety concerns regarding balls landing on the tracks with some well-placed netting.
Here's a rough Google Earth measurement. The yellow line depicts the length between home plate and the outfield wall (about 225 feet). The white line roughly depicts the stadium outline.
- 1,609
Maybe better to think of it more as an ampitheatre? would be fun to bang a homer off a passing train (or ground rule double). But who is playing music in between 3 functional raised lines? I guess you can schedule loosely around train schedules but we all know those aren't a lock.
Would love to see a some real design emerge beyond the concept stage - I think I posted it earlier but the architects for this have an amazing catalog of riverfront work - This project has yet to appear on their website.
https://henninglarsen.com/en
If they can work with the Corps of Engineers (if anyone actual can) to envision that flood beyond the after thought it is today it would go a long way
https://henninglarsen.com/en
If they can work with the Corps of Engineers (if anyone actual can) to envision that flood beyond the after thought it is today it would go a long way
- 6,120
^^You'd never hear the trains over the concerts these days. And sadly, I'm not even joking.
- 1,792
Seems to me like they are still throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. To me, the little league field concept is evidence that they don't have a real plan for the area just a desire to develop it. Basically, hey there is this triangle of land here what could we possibly do with it. Laudable sure but realism will set in at some point. It could function as an amphitheater, but it would be far from optimal and really just functions to fill the space with something.beer city wrote: ↑Jan 11, 2023Would love to see a some real design emerge beyond the concept stage
IMHO you either have to rethink/rework at least some of the rail infrastructure here OR you have to accept it as a strictly light industrial development zone rather than residential/office/entertainment. The only thing that makes the area attractive to development for residential purposes is the direct access to the arch and the rail and highway are huge drawbacks. We are long past the stage of urban growth were literally every square meter of land gets built on regardless of the adjacent 'grit'. If it's difficult to get development into Laclede's Landing it has to be several times harder to imagine anything residential kicking off here.
To rethink/rework rail in the area is complicated and expensive and the developer should be pushing this early on if that's what they want/need to make the project happen. If they plan to work around the rails as they are, at least be realistic about what is achievable. Until then I have a hard time taking any of it seriously, there are too many other places ripe for residential development without this level of complications. I am not sure what the rail companies' stance would be if approached about moving some track. Probably something like, 'as long as it doesn't impact our operations or cost us anything we're open to it'. Of course, what does that look like, and how much it costs... not sure.
So far, the optimist in me is hopeful the light industrial portion of the project is achievable and is merely disappointed with the seemingly dishonest distraction of the other fluff. If there was evidence of honest engagement with the railroads i might be open toward optimism for some of the other stuff. The cynic in me thinks the whole thing is an attempt to score some public money incentives and then utterly fail to generate any meaningful development.
If they don't do anything, then the incentives have no value. At least for the typical HTCs, TIF, CID, tax abatement, sales tax exemption on construction materials.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Jan 11, 2023The cynic in me thinks the whole thing is an attempt to score some public money incentives and then utterly fail to generate any meaningful development.
- 1,792
Yeah, that's how they are supposed to work. Just wary when the splashy marketing materials and realistic possibilities seem so divergent.
They're hoping to start stabilizing the Crunden Martin building mid year. I hope 757 S 2nd, which is owned by the LRA makes it. They said it's looking real bad at the HUDZ meeting. The blighting/tax abatement bill was given a do-pass rec from the the cmte.
It'll make it! Very, very damaged but will absolutely be a testament to "nothing is ever too far gone".quincunx wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2023I hope 757 S 2nd, which is owned by the LRA makes it.
