Arch City wrote:
View from the Lenor K. Sullivan and Carr Streets
View from the Lenor K. Sullivan/Mississippi River
View from I-70, facing east
Will this ever happen? Anyone think they'll ever do a phase II here?
- 196
Will this ever happen? Anyone think they'll ever do a phase II here?
- 1,026
oh don't tease me. .....
No I don;t think it will ever happen. If they can't get people to back ballpark village what are the odds of this going through ....
lets put it this way ... once the bottle district goes up this will probably follow -
sorry, I'm bitter
No I don;t think it will ever happen. If they can't get people to back ballpark village what are the odds of this going through ....
lets put it this way ... once the bottle district goes up this will probably follow -
sorry, I'm bitter
Pinnacle dukes it out with the city: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
St. Louis, Pinnacle Entertainment, come to legal blows over casino deal
By Tim Logan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/26/2010
ST. LOUIS — Just three months ago, Pinnacle Entertainment and the city of St. Louis were standing side by side to save the President Casino.
Now they are racing to the courthouse steps, brandishing lawsuits against each other.
City Hall and the Las Vegas-based gambling operator each sued the other Tuesday as a dispute about their contract for Lumière Place casino boiled over. At stake is the city's shot at Missouri's precious 13th casino license and $50 million in new housing and retail that Pinnacle had promised to build downtown.
The suits focus on a 2004 redevelopment agreement that paved the way for the half-billion dollar Lumière Place.
Read more at the link above...
wow. just great.
it seems the city is just hellbent on chasing Pinnacle out.
it seems the city is just hellbent on chasing Pinnacle out.
- 5,433
Seems like there should be opportunities to settle this matter before things go any further. Personally I'd like to see the city abandon its efforts to retain the second casino license, and I'd like to see Pinnacle develop Phase II of Lumiere Place. It seems like both parties would win in a sense if this happened- Pinnacle would lock out immediate competition, and the city would get a development that would (ultimately) make up for the lost revenue provided by the President Casino.
As much as I'd like to see the city hang onto the second casino license, I would just as soon prefer to see it awarded to Cape Girardeau. I think there are plenty of casinos in the area anyway, and if the Missouri Gaming Commission selected Cape Girardeau, that would lock out the developers that are trying to get approval for a casino in Spanish Lake that would no doubt rob the city of revenue. At least a casino in Cape would not be in direct competition like one in Spanish Lake or the existing casinos in St. Charles, Maryland Heights, Lemay, East St. Louis, and Alton.
So it seems like there's a way that the city and Pinnacle could come to terms on this matter, unless, of course, Pinnacle was like the Cardinals' owners and had little if any intention of building Phase II of Lumiere Place in the first place. Yeah, I know, DeWallet III says they may build Phase I of Ballpark Village, but I won't hold my breath. I'd sooner bet on Lumiere Place Phase II, but I think the city should proceed carefully with this matter.
As much as I'd like to see the city hang onto the second casino license, I would just as soon prefer to see it awarded to Cape Girardeau. I think there are plenty of casinos in the area anyway, and if the Missouri Gaming Commission selected Cape Girardeau, that would lock out the developers that are trying to get approval for a casino in Spanish Lake that would no doubt rob the city of revenue. At least a casino in Cape would not be in direct competition like one in Spanish Lake or the existing casinos in St. Charles, Maryland Heights, Lemay, East St. Louis, and Alton.
So it seems like there's a way that the city and Pinnacle could come to terms on this matter, unless, of course, Pinnacle was like the Cardinals' owners and had little if any intention of building Phase II of Lumiere Place in the first place. Yeah, I know, DeWallet III says they may build Phase I of Ballpark Village, but I won't hold my breath. I'd sooner bet on Lumiere Place Phase II, but I think the city should proceed carefully with this matter.
- 712
again, wouldn't it be nice if those models were displayed in an centralized Public Urban Planning Gallery? 
- 2,929
Well, both sides are unhappy, and both think they're right. Since we're dealing with tens of millions of dollars on both sides, and considering we live in the letigious US, there being a lawsuit doesn't surprise me. I'm just glad this doesn't appear to be a five-alarm call for a truckful of attorneys to race to the courthouse, each beating the other up with their briefcases to be first to yell, "Breach! Malfeasance!"
As Michael Corleone and Stringer Bell are known to have said, it's just business.
The one precedent setting I'd look to here, for purposes of this thread and for StL, is whether or not Pinnacle will follow through with its $50M development pledge or face a fine (a la what will happen to DeWitt & Cordish).
Still am hoping for the Phase II as modeled above, but in this economy, I'm not holding my breath.
As Michael Corleone and Stringer Bell are known to have said, it's just business.
The one precedent setting I'd look to here, for purposes of this thread and for StL, is whether or not Pinnacle will follow through with its $50M development pledge or face a fine (a la what will happen to DeWitt & Cordish).
Still am hoping for the Phase II as modeled above, but in this economy, I'm not holding my breath.
- 11K
Maybe the city supports removing I-70 which would make a Phase II much more appealing to banks and potential residents/businesses and Lumiere allows another license in St. Louis City?
Pinnacle's not going anywhere; they've got a half a billion dollars invested Downtown. To echo Corporate, "it's just business".Nerfdude wrote:wow. just great.
it seems the city is just hellbent on chasing Pinnacle out.
Please don't turn into Ed GoltermanAlex Ihnen wrote:Maybe the city supports removing I-70 which would make a Phase II much more appealing to banks and potential residents/businesses and Lumiere allows another license in St. Louis City?
- 712
DeWitt/Cordish will not pay a fine. Remember that was waived. Different thread though.
- 11K
Hey - at least there's a timeline on this one. We'll know by the end of September what's likely to happen here. I'd like to think that the City to River effort and removing I-70 is a pretty big opportunity for the city.The Count wrote:Please don't turn into Ed GoltermanAlex Ihnen wrote:Maybe the city supports removing I-70 which would make a Phase II much more appealing to banks and potential residents/businesses and Lumiere allows another license in St. Louis City?
- 712
Does Lumiere's lawsuit against the city put the $50M phase II project at risk?
Dispute Reveals Pitfalls in Casino Deal
Dispute Reveals Pitfalls in Casino Deal
P-D: Pinnacle faces penalty for falling short on riverfront investments
In 2004, Pinnacle Entertainment made a deal with the city to invest $50 million in revitalizing the riverfront area within five years of opening its $507 million Lumière Place casino.
A year later, Pinnacle promised a $25 million condo tower on Laclede's Landing. In 2006, the company announced plans to build stores and additional condos as part of a second phase of Lumière Place, which opened in December 2007.
But the recession hit — and the projects were canceled.
Pinnacle now faces a December deadline. Its only investment outside of its casino complex: the $9.8 million Stamping Lofts project. And even though it is getting full credit for the project, its financial investment was just $2 million.
The article states that the city recieves $20 million a year in tax revenue. Is that correct? or the could that be the total taxes generated for state, city, etc.?
If so, I think its a no brainer if you take a pass on fighting for a $1 million dollar penality when your general fund is getting $20 million a year in revenues and a the last casino license went south of town insted of a few miles north of your city limit.
As far as phase II, I think the market shelved this plan without a doubt. But, I also have tough believing this will come to be or any meaningful development on Laclede's landing until the raised section of I-70 is dismantled.
If so, I think its a no brainer if you take a pass on fighting for a $1 million dollar penality when your general fund is getting $20 million a year in revenues and a the last casino license went south of town insted of a few miles north of your city limit.
As far as phase II, I think the market shelved this plan without a doubt. But, I also have tough believing this will come to be or any meaningful development on Laclede's landing until the raised section of I-70 is dismantled.
^ Not quite. $2 million per year, not $20 million. At that rate it would be over 15 years before Pinnacle met it's $50 million obligation.
So Pinnacle is being penalized for their stalled projects. Why not the Cardinals for BPV?
I don't really see the downside to holding them to the agreement. They are doing very well (>$170 million income last year), and it's not like they can just move somewhere else. Probably they wouldn't even want to, being downtown gives them access to a different demographic than they get other locations, and if they move they would have to give up their license with no guarantee of getting another one.
If they wanted to amend the agreement to ride out the economic downturn, something like agreeing to invest a larger sum in exchange for a 5-year delay, that might be worth considering. Otherwise, pay up, which it sounds like might be the option they choose: Pinnacle considers options in redevelopment agreement
If they wanted to amend the agreement to ride out the economic downturn, something like agreeing to invest a larger sum in exchange for a 5-year delay, that might be worth considering. Otherwise, pay up, which it sounds like might be the option they choose: Pinnacle considers options in redevelopment agreement
The head of Pinnacle Entertainment's operations in St. Louis said Thursday the company might simply pay an annual penalty to satisfy the remainder of its obligation to participate in $50 million in redevelopment projects near its Lumiere Place casino.
I can't believe the incredible lack of imagination Pinnacle is exhibiting. They would rather shell out almost $50 million in cash to the City than invest in Laclede's Landing and at least have some sort of upside. It's obviously good for the city to have some extra revenue for the next 20+ years. It's just unfortunate Pinnacle can't find a more thoughtful and constructive use for the money.
The city seems willing to negotiate the terms/use of the money as they just allowed some of it to go to an aquaponics project that is outside the original development area. Can Pinnacle really not think of a single project: retail, apartment, entertainment, etc... that would complement their existing development. How about a riverboat museum, the formerly proposed ferris wheel, retrofitting the six story brick warehouse at Ashley & N 2nd into office space or artist studios, building retail on N 2nd & Laclede's Landing Blvd. and N 2nd & Lucas (the only two empty lots between the Metrolink station and the entrance to the casino), or putting a beer garden on the roof of the Hotel Lumiere, or pay from improvements to the Laclede's Landing Metrolink Station with sculpture, murals, lighting, etc... or pay to light the Eads Bridge and/or the new Mississippi River Bridge. I can't believe St. Louis would turn down that offer, and what could be a more appropriate contribution to the city by a casino named Lumiere? That's 5 minutes of brainstorming. They should do better with 20 years and an intimate understanding of their clientele's wants, needs, demographics and spending habits.
The city seems willing to negotiate the terms/use of the money as they just allowed some of it to go to an aquaponics project that is outside the original development area. Can Pinnacle really not think of a single project: retail, apartment, entertainment, etc... that would complement their existing development. How about a riverboat museum, the formerly proposed ferris wheel, retrofitting the six story brick warehouse at Ashley & N 2nd into office space or artist studios, building retail on N 2nd & Laclede's Landing Blvd. and N 2nd & Lucas (the only two empty lots between the Metrolink station and the entrance to the casino), or putting a beer garden on the roof of the Hotel Lumiere, or pay from improvements to the Laclede's Landing Metrolink Station with sculpture, murals, lighting, etc... or pay to light the Eads Bridge and/or the new Mississippi River Bridge. I can't believe St. Louis would turn down that offer, and what could be a more appropriate contribution to the city by a casino named Lumiere? That's 5 minutes of brainstorming. They should do better with 20 years and an intimate understanding of their clientele's wants, needs, demographics and spending habits.
- 1,610
Pinnacle doesn't want people out and about. They make money by keeping people inside the casino. They aren't in the restaurant game or the bar game. Easiest way to make money is to just have people give it to you, which is what they have going for them now. At best another hotel would be something they would be interested in, but is that good for the area/STL?wabash wrote: Can Pinnacle really not think of a single project: retail, apartment, entertainment, etc... that would complement their existing development. How about a riverboat museum, the formerly proposed ferris wheel, retrofitting the six story brick warehouse at Ashley & N 2nd into office space or artist studios, building retail on N 2nd & Laclede's Landing Blvd. and N 2nd & Lucas (the only two empty lots between the Metrolink station and the entrance to the casino), or putting a beer garden on the roof of the Hotel Lumiere, or pay from improvements to the Laclede's Landing Metrolink Station with sculpture, murals, lighting, etc... or pay to light the Eads Bridge and/or the new Mississippi River Bridge. I can't believe St. Louis would turn down that offer, and what could be a more appropriate contribution to the city by a casino named Lumiere? That's 5 minutes of brainstorming. They should do better with 20 years and an intimate understanding of their clientele's wants, needs, demographics and spending habits.
Lumiere Place includes many bars & restaurants, the top ranked spa in St. Louis, the top ranked hotel, and a 500 seat theater. So, while they make their bread & butter on the casino floor, they've already spent heavily to create a multi-faceted entertainment experience that will bring people into and around their casino. I'm surprised they can't think of yet another attraction/amenity to complement their investment.
- 1,610
^Right, but these are all under the same roof as the casino. If they build a new sushi place a few blocks away, that's not as easy to sweep patrons into the casino. If there wasn't a casino 20 feet away, Pinnacle wouldn't build restaurants & bars.wabash wrote:Lumiere Place includes many bars & restaurants, the top ranked spa in St. Louis, the top ranked hotel, and a 500 seat theater. So, while they make their bread & butter on the casino floor, they've already spent heavily to create a multi-faceted entertainment experience that will bring people into and around their casino. I'm surprised they can't think of yet another attraction/amenity to complement their investment.
- 11K
I'm sure the city would rather just have the cash than say, have 2x as much go towards the Trestle, repaving Laclede's Landing or towards I-70 removal, but I wish they would think outside the box a bit here.
I think it would make sense for Lumiere Place to add their next hotel or attraction (with ground floor retail space) at the Southeast corner of Broadway and Convention Plaza on the current surface parking lot. It would be right across the street from Lumiere Link, their underground tunnel, linking directly to the casino.
The StorySTLToday wrote:When Pinnacle Entertainment won the city’s blessing in 2004 to build its glitzy Lumière Place casino on Laclede’s Landing, it pledged to invest in $50 million worth of downtown real estate. City officials and the Las Vegas-based casino company have agreed on a series of investments in downtown projects that will, said development chief Rodney Crim, “extinguish” Pinnacle’s responsibilities to the city. ...But they do not add up to $50 million. And they don’t have to.