urbanSTL

Here are some pedestrian enhancements I sketched a year ago for FMN Park.

BellaVilla wrote: ↑

Jul 16, 2021

Imo, this is a coup for the new Jones administration and further validates her campaign promise. A couple more projects like this and the status quo will be irreversibly changed.  

^^Jones isn't requiring developers to relocate jobs to the city. Its just one of many bargaining tools at the developers disposal when working out a fair deal for the development incentives. 

I assume by requiring to relocate a warehouse that in turn might require employees but obviously I don't know.         

My thoughts is along the line of a bigger picture of creating another front where local entities and governments just create another means to compete against each other when we all preach that fragmentation is killing the region.   Yes, the warehouse is probably a small part of the deal but why even go that way when result might be someone in the county wants to do a tit for tat when say Green Streets does a development deal in county.   Should the county ask for some employees be moved back from their new/forthcoming city HQ out to the county?   I just don't that part of the deal was really necessary 

^In principle, I agree that municipalities in the region shouldn't use tax incentives to move jobs around. Yet County municipalities have been doing this to the city for decades (and also between each other), so I think it's impractical to ask the City to unilaterally disarm for the good of the region. I think BellaVilla's point is that Tishaura isn't requiring them to move their employees to the city, like they could choose not to ask for tax incentives, there's no way for the city to force a business to move here.

Also, as an urbanist I believe that the region should be less sprawled out and more businesses and people should be concentrated in the core, especially in St. Louis where the city has so much vacant land and holds a small percentage of the regional population comparatively. 

To solve the intra-region competition, I think there'd have to be a mutual agreement to do so, between all the counties and municipalities. 

Moving businesses with incentives is a dangerous game to play; that's for sure. 

I remember growing up in KC and seeing Applebee's, then a Kansas City-area corporation, hop back and forth across the Kansas and Missouri state line for incentives, playing the two states like a fiddle, before ultimately picking up their bags for incentives and consolidation in Glendale, California.

A merger of some sort really, really needs to happen in St. Louis.

Not to mention there is no reason to assume that the developer itself didn't propose the move in lieu of less abatement, more affordable housing, etc. 

sc4mayor,

It's definitely not the same thing as what happens in Missouri and Kansas, but it's still an issue within this hyper-fragmented region. 

Even if the act of moving this company to the city is entirely harmless to regional economics, I guess I still just wish that this wasn't something that either side had to offer at the negotiating table. It shouldn't be a chip. 

Like I said, the St. Louis region really needs to find some sort of compromise on consolidation.

BellaVilla wrote: ↑

Jul 16, 2021

Not to mention there is no reason to assume that the developer itself didn't propose the move in lieu of less abatement, more affordable housing, etc. 

True,  I don't know if the developer is the one who proposed the relocation of the warehouse or not.  If so, would agree that my point is mute in this deal.  

I didn't realize that this building once had a theater. Would be great if they could somehow bring it back. (pic from St. Louis Memories on Facebook)

It was on the LCRA agenda. Says there will be a 132-space parking garage to the west of the building and 190 spaces within the new building. The rehab 95% tax abatement for 10 years. The new build 75% for 5 years, 50% for 5 more. 

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 21, 2021

It was on the LCRA agenda. Says there will be a 132-space parking garage to the west of the building and 190 spaces within the new building. The rehab 95% tax abatement for 10 years. The new build 75% for 5 years, 505% for 5 more. 

If I were a developer, I'd love a 505% tax abatement. City pays me the tax.

I kid I kid. I guess it's good seeing this continue through the approval process. Still just over a year (13 months) out from any potential construction starting

BB 105 Tax abatement

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=13900

Weird rendering. Why would they want to show it standing alone, rather than in context with it's neighboring buildings?

Could be worse, they could have included some random forest, hot air balloon, or fireworks. Trying to find reason in renderings or assign anything of factual basis in the background is chasing fools gold.  

framer wrote: ↑

Jun 05, 2023

Weird rendering. Why would they want to show it standing alone, rather than in context with it's neighboring buildings?

I think the simple explanation is they don't want to take the time to model things that aren't in their scope of work

Fall 2023
 

Any action here?

Anyone have any insight into Jesuit Hall? There's a for sale sign on the front, but there's also a bunch of windows open throughout the building. It doesn't appear that it is open to the elements/people otherwise.

^ I think it's under interior demo work finally with the permit (above your post) issued. Was by there today and noticed what looked to be a construction trailer in the parking lot behind it. I have no confidence about their proposed tower, but hopefully this building can get back on line.  (Unless its brand new, I think the sign is for leasing for the commercial space.)