How is it misleading? It says right in the article that this was going to happen because of NGA and that MLS just sped up the process because their construction needs to start.dbInSouthCity wrote:This is very misleading. The ramp work has nothing to do with the stadium. I would know, I planned the funding for it when I was at MoDOT. This was planned for the new NGA HQ, cleaning up the 20th street mess and making Jefferson a full interchange.dredger wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2020PD write up on planned downtown ramp closures for MLS stadium construction along with graphic on future Jeff interchange improvements. I don't believe their is much new than what is already known but definite confirmation of things moving full steam ahead.. Assume everything will look vey different for west downtown in the near future
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... 724c3.html
- 337
- 9,539
LArchitecture wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2020How is it misleading? It says right in the article that this was going to happen because of NGA and that MLS just sped up the process because their construction needs to start.dbInSouthCity wrote:This is very misleading. The ramp work has nothing to do with the stadium. I would know, I planned the funding for it when I was at MoDOT. This was planned for the new NGA HQ, cleaning up the 20th street mess and making Jefferson a full interchange.dredger wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2020PD write up on planned downtown ramp closures for MLS stadium construction along with graphic on future Jeff interchange improvements. I don't believe their is much new than what is already known but definite confirmation of things moving full steam ahead.. Assume everything will look vey different for west downtown in the near future
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... 724c3.html
The headline “ Five Highway 40 (I-64) ramps to close permanently on Feb. 3 for new soccer stadium”
And it’s not sped up, I programmed the money for spring 2020 literally in 2017.
https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... ouis_1.pdf
See page 31 of the pdf.
The improvements are adding a full interchange at an extended 22nd Street as well as Jefferson?
- 9,539
- 337
I wouldn’t say the headline is misleading either. The entity that needs that work to happen sooner is MLS since they open before NGA.dbInSouthCity wrote:LArchitecture wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2020How is it misleading? It says right in the article that this was going to happen because of NGA and that MLS just sped up the process because their construction needs to start.dbInSouthCity wrote: This is very misleading. The ramp work has nothing to do with the stadium. I would know, I planned the funding for it when I was at MoDOT. This was planned for the new NGA HQ, cleaning up the 20th street mess and making Jefferson a full interchange.
The headline “ Five Highway 40 (I-64) ramps to close permanently on Feb. 3 for new soccer stadium”
And it’s not sped up, I programmed the money for spring 2020 literally in 2017.
https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... ouis_1.pdf
See page 31 of the pdf.
Yeah, I think that modot would have dragged their feet on this for a few more years if it wasn't for the new stadium.
Maybe. As db said ‘Spring 2020‘. Spring is from mid-March to mid-June, so it was bumped maybe two or three months.
- 85
I'm so shocked the media would have a misleading title! This is such a first!
Maybe you can splain the extension of 22nd Street all the way south to Scott Ave? Obviously, there isn't going to be much local traffic there other than UPS, and Scott doesn't go anywhere except back to Jefferson. So is it basically just there to route the trucks away from Jefferson? It seems a rather large expense for that, or for "overflow" or "relief" or whatever the proper traffic planner terminology is.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2020
The headline “ Five Highway 40 (I-64) ramps to close permanently on Feb. 3 for new soccer stadium”
And it’s not sped up, I programmed the money for spring 2020 literally in 2017.
https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... ouis_1.pdf
See page 31 of the pdf.
^ I could see that land becoming very valuable once the stadium is developed. Would be one of many ideal locations for a hotel.
Sure, but unless they build a supertall building there, I don't see why a dedicated highway access ramp would be necessary.addxb2 wrote: ↑Jan 25, 2020^ I could see that land becoming very valuable once the stadium is developed. Would be one of many ideal locations for a hotel.
It isn't quite that simple though. If you leave 2008-2012 Olive in place, then you also have to leave the alley behind it, along with the dumpsters, telephone poles, streetlights, and rebuild whatever stormwater / sewer lines run down it. That alley would also run across their plaza, unless they build new access along the east side of the building.
And from the site plans, they are planning on grading that entire east plaza space along 20th Street between Market and Olive, so that the stadium entrance plaza / festival space will be more or less level. If the existing building remains, they will have to build a retaining wall around at least 2 sides of it, and they would have to do that before they start construction on the northeast corner of the stadium.
Whatever you think of it, that precedent has already been set.urban_dilettante wrote:^^ eh, that all sounds pretty speculative. and if it were true then Mr. Kuehling probably could have made a better case than "it looks silly." if the building were blocking stadium construction then i'd be more sympathetic since, presumably, the stadium will be an economic and cultural engine for the city. but its not blocking construction. it's slated to become empty space. the aesthetics of its continued existence are subjective. and like it or not, Abbott bought the building fair and square. if he were to sit on it forever then there might be a case for eminent domain, but currently there is not. i think this is setting a really sh*tty precedent and i think it would be a flagrant abuse of ED.
And that wasn't speculative, these are facts:
- The column at the northeast corner of the stadium is to be only ~30' away from the west wall of 2008 Olive, and the stadium roof will nearly overhang it.
- There is an alley behind 2008 Olive that runs across what is to be the stadium plaza. If the city abandons that alley, they would have to create an easement and compensate Abbott (fire code requirements, utility access, waste disposal, loading dock, are all affected) or they could be sued.
- The east half of the stadium site slopes down 15' from Olive to Market. MLS owners have planned a long, continuous level plaza along 20th St, for multiple reasons, as you can see by the stairs shown on the stadium plan. There's only 2 ways to accomplish that with 2008 Olive remaining; either raise the entire plaza, or build a retaining wall around the existing building.
- 2,386
^It has already been stated publicly that eminent domain is being utilized to acquire that property. They petitioned to blight the entire redevelopment area which includes those parcels. Their lawyer commented on the use of eminent domain in a recent StL today article.
Where was that stated publicly? The P-D article had a quote from the LCRA presentation by the team attorney stating that they may need the power of eminent domain. That was the only time I've seen it mentioned.newstl2020 wrote: ↑Jan 25, 2020^It has already been stated publicly that eminent domain is being utilized to acquire that property. They petitioned to blight the entire redevelopment area which includes those parcels. Their lawyer commented on the use of eminent domain in a recent StL today article.
- 2,386
^That, combined with the blighting of the development area specifically including those parcels which would only be done if they were pursuing ED to acquire the properties. Otherwise those parcels would have been excluded from the request. At least that's how I believe the process works. Attempting to blight someone else's property legally is usually only done for purposes of ED. Not an expert by any means in this though so I may be wrong.
The city declares a redevelopment area "blighted" for the purpose of granting tax abatement (which includes the vast majority of them). A specific developer is named for each "redevelopment area", but that does not grant them eminent domain powers, and I don't believe that that implies the city will use it on their behalf. (Just looking through the latest LCRA agenda, all of those other projects declare the redevelopment areas blighted as well, and they are not requesting eminent domain)newstl2020 wrote: ↑Jan 25, 2020^That, combined with the blighting of the development area specifically including those parcels which would only be done if they were pursuing ED to acquire the properties. Otherwise those parcels would have been excluded from the request. At least that's how I believe the process works. Attempting to blight someone else's property legally is usually only done for purposes of ED. Not an expert by any means in this though so I may be wrong.
I believe Abbott could refuse to sell, and take advantage of the tax abatement as well (if the city denies any eminent domain request and approves a redevelopment agreement with them for 2008 Olive, although that seems unlikely).
- 2,386
^Makes sense. Thanks!
I would still put my betting money on them going all in on ED if they can't acquire the properties, the one comment from the article that definitely stood out to me was the team's GC speaking about the last remaining properties. Something to the tune of "but quite frankly, that would look ridiculous" in reference to the properties remaining in someone else's control and standing as is.
The time table seems to be coming into shape, however, so we are likely to get the answer to this sooner rather than later.
I would still put my betting money on them going all in on ED if they can't acquire the properties, the one comment from the article that definitely stood out to me was the team's GC speaking about the last remaining properties. Something to the tune of "but quite frankly, that would look ridiculous" in reference to the properties remaining in someone else's control and standing as is.
The time table seems to be coming into shape, however, so we are likely to get the answer to this sooner rather than later.
^It would look ridiculous mostly because the three sides of the 2008 Olive building that would face the stadium and plaza were never intended to be seen, and so have little aesthetic value. The back 2/3 of the building is also just one story. There is a bit of return to the yellow brick on the facade, along with a few windows, on the east wall, and a lot of infill on the alley wall which could be removed.
It would make a nice restaurant / bar if the alley were removed. But, beyond that, there isn't much to work with.
Google Streetview - 2008-2012 Olive St. (looking NW)
It would make a nice restaurant / bar if the alley were removed. But, beyond that, there isn't much to work with.
Google Streetview - 2008-2012 Olive St. (looking NW)
- 3,762
^ so then the entirely subjective rationale of "looking ridiculous" is now sufficient to forcibly acquire someone else' property. seems totally legit. in old cities that didn't raze everything for plazas, green space, and parking, these kinds of shoehorned buildings are all over the place.
Let’s not get extreme crazy!
My perspective,
Hypothetical: If the owner paid and invested $200k, is offered $250k but “won’t take anything less than $750K”–that’s price gouging and then I’d say, due to the quantitative and qualitative benefits of this project for the entire metro, use ED. They could have made an easy $50k profit but were being stupid greedy...they now get nothing. I understand ‘supply and demand’ and all but I’m not a total ‘laissez faire’ capitalist.
And to that point, same thing is happening on S. Kingshighway with the old Avalon theatre site. Absentee owner is holding out for way, way too much and impeding, no, bringing down the neighborhood. City should have taken that parcel 10 years ago.
My perspective,
Hypothetical: If the owner paid and invested $200k, is offered $250k but “won’t take anything less than $750K”–that’s price gouging and then I’d say, due to the quantitative and qualitative benefits of this project for the entire metro, use ED. They could have made an easy $50k profit but were being stupid greedy...they now get nothing. I understand ‘supply and demand’ and all but I’m not a total ‘laissez faire’ capitalist.
And to that point, same thing is happening on S. Kingshighway with the old Avalon theatre site. Absentee owner is holding out for way, way too much and impeding, no, bringing down the neighborhood. City should have taken that parcel 10 years ago.
- 2,928
Got to give it up for the building's current owners. Just a couple years ago, guys were openly slinging on this block. Now, it's arguably the most valuable in Downtown West. That's return on investment. That's identifying turnaround potential. They just gotta sell it now and recognize profits, or else they could lose the whole damn thing if they demand too high a price.
So...just to be clear, we are talking about a city block across the street from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept. headquarters since 2014, and directly between it and it's main parking lot? And you are suggesting that this block was an open illicit drug market for...years?gone corporate wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2020Got to give it up for the building's current owners. Just a couple years ago, guys were openly slinging on this block. Now, it's arguably the most valuable in Downtown West. That's return on investment. That's identifying turnaround potential. They just gotta sell it now and recognize profits, or else they could lose the whole damn thing if they demand too high a price.
Not OP. But the presence of the police HQ doesn't do anything to stop crime in that general area. Police drive in and drive out. They're not stopping to question shady characters.urbanitas wrote: ↑Jan 28, 2020So...just to be clear, we are talking about a city block across the street from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept. headquarters since 2014, and directly between it and it's main parking lot? And you are suggesting that this block was an open illicit drug market for...years?gone corporate wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2020Got to give it up for the building's current owners. Just a couple years ago, guys were openly slinging on this block. Now, it's arguably the most valuable in Downtown West. That's return on investment. That's identifying turnaround potential. They just gotta sell it now and recognize profits, or else they could lose the whole damn thing if they demand too high a price.
Didn't somebody get robbed right next to police HQ last week? Every single time I walk down that stretch of Olive it's only unsavory characters. I don't know who's selling what, but police HQ didn't clean up the neighborhood. There are no cops on foot or bike down there.
- 474
^Come down on a Saturday morning and it's all dog walkers for Stray Rescue between Jefferson and 20th on Market, Pine, Olive, Locust and Washington. There may be some incidental crime around there late at night but I wouldn't consider this a bad part of town.