It should be named the Total Urbanism Political Activity Committee simply so it can be referred to as TUPAC.timeforguinness wrote:nextSTL PACAlex Ihnen wrote:City PAC
-RBB
-RBB
- 115
As a TGS resident I approve this message.Roger Wyoming wrote: This could be in conjunction with an even larger effort to develop a harmonious bike/ped plan for Grand from Arsenal (the terminus of the existing Great Streets project for S. Grand) north to at least The Rock Church.
This would violate my trademarked reference to the Touhill Performing Arts Center, TouPAC.rbb wrote:It should be named the Total Urbanism Political Activity Committee simply so it can be referred to as TUPAC.timeforguinness wrote:nextSTL PACAlex Ihnen wrote:City PAC
-RBB
Still some tacos from Del Taco left: http://stlouis.craigslist.org/for/2471975688.html
Last Del Taco Fish Taco - $15
Date: 2011-07-01, 2:22AM CDT
Reply to: sale-fccdz-2471975688@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
I bought two Del Taco Fish Tacos before they closed, they are frozen all you have to do is pop them in the oven. First come first serve.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 2471975688
- 3,762
i guess i have higher expectations for people receiving public money. or for people in general, for that matter. but i suppose business is always a good excuse for unethical behavior.rawest1 wrote: I don't know what else to say to that other than he's a businessman... I wouldn't expect him to not try to take full advantage of any tax-credit loopholes there are in the interest of making money.
firstly, you haven't seen ANY plan much less a better one, which makes demo all the more ridiculous at this stage. secondly, you keep trying to frame this as black (site as it is now) or white (strip mall). surely you recognize the infinite number of alternatives?rawest1 wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen a better plan for the area that would get more use from the people that actually live there and walk by it everyday than a strip mall anchored by a grocery/pharmacy store.
I don't think there's anything silly about that notion.
Yeah, I realize any number of things could potentially be built around the saucer. How many of them are realistic? For instance that "photovoltaic canopied" pavillion in that one article looks cool, but it all just seems really impractical.
A strip mall with a grocery store and/or pharmacy would be boring, but highly practical.
A strip mall with a grocery store and/or pharmacy would be boring, but highly practical.
- 11K
^ I think we need a new definition of "practical". It's not "practical" to tear down a city's unique built environment.
- 3,762
i don't think a grocery would be boring at all! that would be great. i'm saying the existence of the saucer does not preclude putting a grocery on the site as well. here's an example of a Safeway in DC that i've walked past on several occasions:rawest1 wrote:Yeah, I realize any number of things could potentially be built around the saucer. How many of them are realistic? For instance that "photovoltaic canopied" pavillion in that one article looks cool, but it all just seems really impractical.
A strip mall with a grocery store and/or pharmacy would be boring, but highly practical.
http://maps.google.com/maps?um=1&hl=en& ... 4402584602
it's not very attractive but size-wise it's perfect. so is Straub's in the CWE for that matter. the driveways on the site would have to be reconfigured (if the new store were to abut Grand next to the Saucer) but i don't see why they couldn't be moved to the corner of the site, closer to Forest Park or the 40 overpass, rather than right in the middle of the block. alternatively the store could abut Forest Park, where there's even more surface lot.
- 549
While we need key services in key areas, settling for boring and practical time after time is NOT going to help St. Louis realize its potential. It's simply not going to turn things around.rawest1 wrote:Yeah, I realize any number of things could potentially be built around the saucer. How many of them are realistic? For instance that "photovoltaic canopied" pavillion in that one article looks cool, but it all just seems really impractical.
A strip mall with a grocery store and/or pharmacy would be boring, but highly practical.
And FWIW, that pavilion was never intended to be a realistic, practical, or a feasible solution- so don't read too far into it. The entire thing: idea > design > writing > posting took place over the course of 2 1/2 days, so it clearly isn't very refined.
It was simply trying to show that there are countless possibilities for the building/site and that demolition and pure preservation are not the only options.
Look, bottom-line is this developer has a plan to put the area to work. If someone can come up with something better, great, but vague statements like "a person with vision could really turn it around!" are not going to cut it.urbanpioneer wrote:While we need key services in key areas, settling for boring and practical time after time is NOT going to help St. Louis realize its potential. It's simply not going to turn things around.rawest1 wrote:Yeah, I realize any number of things could potentially be built around the saucer. How many of them are realistic? For instance that "photovoltaic canopied" pavillion in that one article looks cool, but it all just seems really impractical.
A strip mall with a grocery store and/or pharmacy would be boring, but highly practical.
And FWIW, that pavilion was never intended to be a realistic, practical, or a feasible solution- so don't read too far into it. The entire thing: idea > design > writing > posting took place over the course of 2 1/2 days, so it clearly isn't very refined.
It was simply trying to show that there are countless possibilities for the building/site and that demolition and pure preservation are not the only options.
This owner, who rightfully owns the land and has a plan to put it to work, deserves his shot, as far as I'm concerned. If that means this building has to go, so be it.
- 11K
^ The bottom line is that the developer received $27M in historic tax credits to rehab the buildings on this site. $27M of our money. This means that he can't do whatever he wants. IF he received no public money. IF he received no tax abatement and other incentives. IF the complex wasn't recognized as historic, then fine. If someone buys an unremarkable building and wants to do something with it with their OWN money. OK. That's simply not the case here. Your oversimplification in making this about the rights of the developer is shortsighted.
^ Yup.
However, I find little fault with the developer. The developer is simply operating within a given environment, within a certain set of constraints. Yackey is trying to make money by owning a piece of land in the City and using every available resource to enhance his ROI. That isn't a bad thing! Complaining about Yackey is like complaining about the sun coming up in the morning; its business, its not going to change anytime soon, and the best thing we can do is try to guide this businessman in a way that is beneficial for both him and the City. If leveling the building makes sense from a highest and best use standpoint, I'm for it. That isn't the issue people find fault with, at least not me.
I find fault with the City, the entity defining the constraints. Its pure insanity that the sub-committee from last week approved tax abatement for re-development of a building that they just defined historic and shelled out $27M for. What are they spending (OUR) money on? What direction are they heading in? How are the hedging their risk?
Here's what I see -
The City: Total lack of unification and absolutely no clear direction on the part of the City. Alderpeople are merely pimping the project du jour in attempt to appease developers in their wards and receive campaign contributions.
"$27M in tax credits today. 10 year tax abatement tomorrow. Do they totally contradict each other? Who cares! Shh - We're blowing money and it looks like progress"
Meanwhile, you have Slay not really taking a stand on this project and throwing it into another layer of bureaucracy, which ensures he pisses no one off either way the decision falls.
The Developer: Who wouldn't want to be a developer in the City? You have to provide no real justification or skin in the game and the City is practically handing you tax abatements and tax credits. That way, when your project falls flat on its ass you remain completely cash positive and owe no taxes! All of this for a measly $5k contribution to someone who controls an 11,000 person piece of land in the City? Think about that - $27M in tax credits / $5000 campaign contribution to the person that bird dogs your all the way through while using Aldermain Courtesy = 5400x multiplier. That is making your money work!
However, I find little fault with the developer. The developer is simply operating within a given environment, within a certain set of constraints. Yackey is trying to make money by owning a piece of land in the City and using every available resource to enhance his ROI. That isn't a bad thing! Complaining about Yackey is like complaining about the sun coming up in the morning; its business, its not going to change anytime soon, and the best thing we can do is try to guide this businessman in a way that is beneficial for both him and the City. If leveling the building makes sense from a highest and best use standpoint, I'm for it. That isn't the issue people find fault with, at least not me.
I find fault with the City, the entity defining the constraints. Its pure insanity that the sub-committee from last week approved tax abatement for re-development of a building that they just defined historic and shelled out $27M for. What are they spending (OUR) money on? What direction are they heading in? How are the hedging their risk?
Here's what I see -
The City: Total lack of unification and absolutely no clear direction on the part of the City. Alderpeople are merely pimping the project du jour in attempt to appease developers in their wards and receive campaign contributions.
"$27M in tax credits today. 10 year tax abatement tomorrow. Do they totally contradict each other? Who cares! Shh - We're blowing money and it looks like progress"
Meanwhile, you have Slay not really taking a stand on this project and throwing it into another layer of bureaucracy, which ensures he pisses no one off either way the decision falls.
The Developer: Who wouldn't want to be a developer in the City? You have to provide no real justification or skin in the game and the City is practically handing you tax abatements and tax credits. That way, when your project falls flat on its ass you remain completely cash positive and owe no taxes! All of this for a measly $5k contribution to someone who controls an 11,000 person piece of land in the City? Think about that - $27M in tax credits / $5000 campaign contribution to the person that bird dogs your all the way through while using Aldermain Courtesy = 5400x multiplier. That is making your money work!
- 11K
^ True. It's up to us to change the operating environment and set of constraints.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... redits.php
Here's an interesting article in the RFT about Yackey and the historic tax credits. It points out that he didn't save any money via tax credits from the saucer building.
Here's an interesting article in the RFT about Yackey and the historic tax credits. It points out that he didn't save any money via tax credits from the saucer building.
- 11K
^ It's a crap article. No one has ever said that any HTC's were used on the saucer building. That's no one's argument but a strawman's. The article makes it sound like they did investigative reporting and shot down an argument for keeping the building. It's crap. The point is that Yackey has received $27M in HTC's to develop the complex and now he says that it's not enough. He wants a larger subsidy, and oh by the way, wants to tear down a building that helped him receive the $27M whether it was spent on that building or not.
Does anyone have any interest in figuring out a way to arrange the delivery of delicious tacos to Fr. Biondi, Mayor Slay, Alderwoman Davis, Mr. Yackey etc? They could come as a gift and gesture of good will from the people who love the Del Taco building? Thoughts?
- 549
^Would they even accept them? I wouldn't eat food sent from someone I didn't know.
Besides, why tacos? People aren't against demolition because they want access to tacos. The tacos have almost nothing to do with it... except as part of a easily identifiable name for the building.
If Davis thinks people (we) don't understand the issues, I don't see how sending tacos would help correct that misperception. But sending a book about mid-century modern architecture and the need to preserve it...
Besides, why tacos? People aren't against demolition because they want access to tacos. The tacos have almost nothing to do with it... except as part of a easily identifiable name for the building.
If Davis thinks people (we) don't understand the issues, I don't see how sending tacos would help correct that misperception. But sending a book about mid-century modern architecture and the need to preserve it...
Well yes, that is a very literal and sensible analysis. I just think it would be funny and perhaps help to mitigate any animosity that they may be feeling toward this movement that is attempting to thwart their designs. We want them to see the opposition as well-meaning neighbors who just happen to disagree with them on this point.
- 549
Perhaps, but funny doesn't seem like the way to convince leadership to take a movement seriously. And ultimately, being cordial is probably not the way to change a broken system.tge-atw wrote:Well yes, that is a very literal and sensible analysis. I just think it would be funny and perhaps help to mitigate any animosity that they may be feeling toward this movement that is attempting to thwart their designs. We want them to see the opposition as well-meaning neighbors who just happen to disagree with them on this point.
Seems that Biondi is not a fan of the building:
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 0f31a.html
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 0f31a.html
- 11K
There. Fixed it for you!framer wrote:Seems that Biondi is not a fan of buildings:
Eh, you say potato, I say potato. Hmm. That doesn't really work on a message board.urbanpioneer wrote:Perhaps, but funny doesn't seem like the way to convince leadership to take a movement seriously. And ultimately, being cordial is probably not the way to change a broken system.tge-atw wrote:Well yes, that is a very literal and sensible analysis. I just think it would be funny and perhaps help to mitigate any animosity that they may be feeling toward this movement that is attempting to thwart their designs. We want them to see the opposition as well-meaning neighbors who just happen to disagree with them on this point.
While you're fixing things, perhaps you could fix the title of the thread? They ain't no such thang as the Grand Avenue Del Taco.Alex Ihnen wrote:There. Fixed it for you!framer wrote:Seems that Biondi is not a fan of buildings:
- 11K
^ The city's website lists both "212 S GRAND AVE" and "212 S GRAND BLVD" as the legal address for the building.
The Assessor's Office says BLVD.Alex Ihnen wrote:^ The city's website lists both "212 S GRAND AVE" and "212 S GRAND BLVD" as the legal address for the building.
I nitpick because calling it "Grand Avenue" is a common mistake, similar to non-residents calling us "St. Louie" or us calling the Bears' stadium "Soldier's Field." Grand Avenue only exists north of West Florissant (Avenue, or North Florissant Avenue if you turn right on the exact same street).
BTW, where does it say "Avenue"? If it's on the alderman's submitted bill, that would make all the sense in the world.
