Its just a site long targeted for a big project like the FedMogul deal.urban_dilettante wrote:^ is Tropicana Lanes closing?
- 3,433
Boomers have a lot of money in 401ks that can easily be converted to self directed IRAs on retirement if not sooner. And a tiny portion of those accounts should legitimately go into high risk high reward investments such as local startups. And that could add up to a lot of money. Many local boomers would like to invest in promising St Louis startups. I'm surprised nobody local has set up an easy means for these investors to get that money to those startups if they want to. Or have even asked for it. Instead big financial companies offer international funds or individual stocks in Silicon Valley to those who can afford to devote a tiny portion of their large deferred income accounts to high risk high reward investments.goat314 wrote:^ Thanks for the optimism Arch. I agree, I feel that St. Louis can often be its own worst enemy and its conservativeness of its investor class has definitely hurt the region. Imagine of all those old money trust fund babies would have invested in "start up" and "tech" back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. Imagine if we would have built a Metro system in the 70s, when Atlanta, San Francisco, and DC were similar sized peer regions. I'm sure St. Louis would be a different region today, its all about those inflection points.
- 8,155
I'm really glad this Federal-Mogul site has slowed down but I'm still concerned about Pace's Vandeventer site plan moving forward; I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Anyway, the sooner Wexford can secure its anchor tenant and get moving on the US Metals site the better..... if they lure some a big name(s) for the project that should really sink it in that a new Saint Louis is being built. I really think the potential is there for a vibrant, significantly larger "tech district" that spills beyond the official confines of Cortex to emerge in the coming years and it is crucial we don't mess up key sites like Midtown Station and the vast, cleared parcel owned by SLU by the Metrolink across from Peveley Building. Who knows, it might even make sense one day to put another Metrolink station at Vandeventer to serve a bustling "Cortex East."
Anyway, the sooner Wexford can secure its anchor tenant and get moving on the US Metals site the better..... if they lure some a big name(s) for the project that should really sink it in that a new Saint Louis is being built. I really think the potential is there for a vibrant, significantly larger "tech district" that spills beyond the official confines of Cortex to emerge in the coming years and it is crucial we don't mess up key sites like Midtown Station and the vast, cleared parcel owned by SLU by the Metrolink across from Peveley Building. Who knows, it might even make sense one day to put another Metrolink station at Vandeventer to serve a bustling "Cortex East."
I'm really confused that it seems my post from yesterday afternoon was deleted by a moderator and then my account was used by a moderator to post an argument against my deleted post? I'm sure it was a mistake or some kind of glitch, so I'm not posting this as any kind of accusation, because I know everyone here means well. I just wanted to clear it up, because I think my points contributed to this discussion
- 8,155
I certainly think another modest office building along the lines of those in Highland Park could work in the Midtown sub-market; which I believe has the lowest vacancy of all. My worry for downtown is that we'll lose some more tenants if we don't move forward with a Class A project soon... the "newest" Class A tower downtown is what, 25+ years old now? Spiffy spaces can be had with renovations, but some just want to go with the newest, A+ space.arch city wrote:Honestly, I really find it disconcerting how I tend to hear only St. Louisans placing limitations on growth and development.
It says a lot.
While respecting zoning laws, let developers develop. I am very familiar with Houston, Atlanta and Dallas. Those cities let developers develop. If there's trouble, the market will correct itself, just like it is doing in Atlanta.
I read an article which suggested it is time for St. Louis to build new office space because the office market is tightening. St. Louis' vacancy rate is 10.5%, while Atlanta's is 16.9% - yet Atlanta is building and St. Louis is not.
![]()
wrt Atlanta, of course they have the great advantage of absorbing massive amounts of office space in recent years and developers have much easier time getting financing. But I do agree it can make sense to grant more incentives to pick up some of that slack to land the right project(s).
- 3,762
interesting. while there's a good amount of surface lot there that could be developed, i really want Tropicana to remain. i'm sure bowling isn't a very lucrative business these days, but Tropicana is probably the most elaborate of St. Louis' few remaining alleys. i spent a good deal of time there as a kid playing arcade games and watching my dad bowl in a weekly league.kbshapiro wrote:Its just a site long targeted for a big project like the FedMogul deal.urban_dilettante wrote:^ is Tropicana Lanes closing?
This would be really cool, but alas, regulations prevent it. You must be an "accredited investor" in order to exchange VC funding for equity in a non-public company. Its essentially the same reason that Kickstarters can't offer equity as a reward for funding. I totally think it should be changed thoughgary kreie wrote:Boomers have a lot of money in 401ks that can easily be converted to self directed IRAs on retirement if not sooner. And a tiny portion of those accounts should legitimately go into high risk high reward investments such as local startups. And that could add up to a lot of money. Many local boomers would like to invest in promising St Louis startups. I'm surprised nobody local has set up an easy means for these investors to get that money to those startups if they want to. Or have even asked for it. Instead big financial companies offer international funds or individual stocks in Silicon Valley to those who can afford to devote a tiny portion of their large deferred income accounts to high risk high reward investments.goat314 wrote:^ Thanks for the optimism Arch. I agree, I feel that St. Louis can often be its own worst enemy and its conservativeness of its investor class has definitely hurt the region. Imagine of all those old money trust fund babies would have invested in "start up" and "tech" back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. Imagine if we would have built a Metro system in the 70s, when Atlanta, San Francisco, and DC were similar sized peer regions. I'm sure St. Louis would be a different region today, its all about those inflection points.
- 11
There are actually some interesting things happening in that space already, just not currently here in St. Louis. I don't know what it would take or what type of developer here in town would utilize it, but "crowdfunding" a specific project is available.
https://fundrise.com/
https://fundrise.com/
- 8,155
I see Pace has altered the site plan yet again, albeit just slightly this time...
![]()
This time they bring a slightly larger 12,000 sq. ft. building up to Vandeventer, which is an improvement, although I'm not getting hopes up the entrance would be from the street.
This time they bring a slightly larger 12,000 sq. ft. building up to Vandeventer, which is an improvement, although I'm not getting hopes up the entrance would be from the street.
- 1,792
I'm starting to think they are just screwing with us. Do they really think the city should bend over for this kind of garbage development. IKEA just built there and this is the best you can bring. Go home PACE, break out your crayons and try again.
- 8,155
nextstl tweeted that the initial permits are in for the three buildings.... we'll see how it goes, but I can't imagine Pace not having run this by Roddy first.
- 1,792
On the one hand I agree, why waste your time unless you think you have a good shot at getting them approved?
On the other hand how can they accept this? It basically Kills any chance of developing the rest of the site doesn't it?
On the other hand how can they accept this? It basically Kills any chance of developing the rest of the site doesn't it?
- 3,235
I thought Roddy already voiced disapproval in suburban development of the sight.
I know this is all "the little boy that cried wolf": but the survey crews were around this area again this morning. Two of them.
- 516
Is that area subject to form-based zoning?downtown2007 wrote:I thought Roddy already voiced disapproval in suburban development of the sight.
- 8,155
^ I don't believe so but I don't think that really means much if the alderman is against the design.
- 3,767
Dweebe wrote:
I drove by yesterday and saw 2 pick-up trucks with individuals in construction gear, walking the site. (For what it's worth)I know this is all "the little boy that cried wolf": but the survey crews were around this area again this morning. Two of them.
south compton wrote:Is that area subject to form-based zoning?downtown2007 wrote:I thought Roddy already voiced disapproval in suburban development of the sight.
Since the site is not under a form-based code and Pace is not seeking incentives, does it make any difference if Roddy likes the design or not? As long as the zoning allows it, and I'm sure it does, what legal authority does the City have to not allow the development? I suppose he could've pushed to put the site under preservation review to block demolition of the existing structures until he got a site plan he liked, but if the permits have been applied for, I'm pretty sure the permit applications must be considered under the laws existing at the time of application.
My point is, I don't think aldermen have the legal authority to approve or deny building permit applications that conform to the zoning ordinance based solely on arbitrary design preferences. Aldermanic power over development does exist on recommending incentives and certain business licenses, but if Pace doesn't want incentives and they want to put in some fast food on this corner, I don't think there is much Roddy can do. Doesn't mean the City is powerless to deny bad development though. It simply needs to adopt better zoning policies.
This brings up the ugly St. Louis tradition of "Aldermanic Courtesy"DannyJ wrote: does it make any difference if Roddy likes the design or not?
- 1,320
If there is a zoning change, the alderman can veto it. And in this case, there is a request for zoning change.
- 8,155
DannyJ, is it true Pace won't be seeking subsidies on Midtown Station? That's rather surprising if so.
- 1,792
City leaders should be engaging PACE directly with regards to this site. They may be but it sure seems like a lets see what the come up with strategy. Figure out what it would take to get a master plan for the entire site. What is driving their repeated reversion to low density suburban style retail development. Midtown station is a big opportunity to accelerate the momentum created by CORTEX and IKEA. The current site plan is not only underwhelming but it also makes the rest of the site far less attractive to develop.
- 8,155
^ I agree... this area is critical for the future success of the city and we need to make sure we get it right. There are certain key parcels in the city that require a strong partnership and a cooperative vision.
^RW, considering the minimal site plan and development being as such, essentially some fast food restaurant pads and maybe a smallish box store, it might do Pace more harm on the PR front than good while not getting much of a financial gain if they were to seek subsidies As STLEnginerd note, a prime spot that you would think have a much better representation or at least support much more square footage of a mixed use development. Instead, I think this is a quick and dirty development deal to make cash on a prime spot now instead of later. Why risk any additional approvals if you have to. Especially if you got some franchise operators ready to move into the area with an established developer.