977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostSep 16, 2024#126

Auggie wrote:Then why don't you go build a house on one of those vacant lots? Once you do, then you will have earned the right to criticize a developer who's trying to add 36 new housing units in a neighborhood that's lost 2,000 residents since 2000.
This line of thinking would invalidate basically every discussion or critique of a developer on this forum (including some you’ve made).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostSep 16, 2024#127

There is something to be said about preserving our historic architecture.  If AHM wants to build at the corner of Morgan Ford & Juniata they need to present a plan that everyone can be supportive of.  As a landlord and developer, getting everyone on board with your project is a big part of the job.  It is a different story when a very small group of people are out to kill a project.  It doesn't seem like that is the case with this project.  

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostSep 16, 2024#128

If the developer was smart, they'd leave and let TGS keep losing people. Good luck filling retail without people to patronize it. That seems like a great strategy. The city and TGS is in no position to be picking and choosing or rejecting what a developer wants to do with property they own, especially when it is adding 36 housing units.

5
New MemberNew Member
5

PostSep 18, 2024#129

My name is Kyle Howerton and I'm one of the partners of AHM Group.  After reading this discussion, and receiving a gentle nudge to post, here we go.  (warning: this is long)

...where to start...

Who We Are & Why We’re Here:
AHM Group is a locally owned and operated real estate development shop that’s focused on making a materially positive impact within the City of St. Louis.  To date, we’ve not done a single project outside of the City of St. Louis and that’s the way we hope it continues to go.  The majority of us are City residents (I'm a city resident).  We are in love with Tower Grove South.  The entire reason we took the risk of building MOFO (first project south of 44 in decades) was because of our passion and optimism (in every sense of the word) about the neighborhood.  That's why we're now hoping to accomplish our third ground-up project in the neighborhood.  That's also why, with Y|O, we saved the historic structure, which – due to high costs to achieve our goal of saving the building that ultimately delayed the construction start by two years and added substantial construction time - went against advice from the engineers, architects, and construction team.  It made the project nearly $750,000 more costly as well as reduced the size of the apartments and commercial space.  We are preservationists.  Last year we received three Landmarks awards for 2206 Locust, Bavarian Inn (Arsenal/Minnesota), and The Nicholas (Park/Grand).  Note regarding incentives: the sole reason the historic Y|O structure could be saved was because of the use of incentives.  We are not seeking incentives for 3150 so that we can provide additional funding to SLPS, SLMPD, STLFD, and other City services.  The City continues to lose population and we hope to be a stabilizing force to assist in attracting and retaining people from all backgrounds to ensure our City thrives in every way possible.

Design Intent & Community Engagement:
What makes us excited about this project is that it continues the progress made in Tower Grove South to make it the neighborhood it is today and, in its current design, does not require incentives of any kind (hell yeah!).  It'll support the businesses that occupy commercial spaces of our existing properties (Black Sheep, Three Little Monkeys, Freeman Pilates, Road Crew, and Homegrown Hair).  Owning/operating a business is incredibly difficult in today’s environment and we need as many people as possible on the MoFo strip to support the businesses/employees.  We have received letters of support from most Morgan Ford business owners, employees of businesses, neighborhood residents, Alder Velazquez, the Tower Grove South Neighborhood Association, etc.  
The project’s current design is a result of the nine-month-plus long neighborhood engagement process.  We are open to adding a small retail bay, but the neighborhood stakeholders voted in favor of additional parking rather than retail.  Note that we can certainly add retail inside the parking structure when cars are no longer necessary to thrive in St. Louis City (the City is not alone in its reliance on cars).  In addition to going against the wishes of the community, we would also then need to seek a variance to reduce parking to be less than one space per apartment unit.  Yes, there are many TGS residents that don't mind having fewer parking spaces in this project, but the majority wins and the majority voted in favor of 1:1 parking.  Therefore, we wouldn't receive the amount of support necessary to obtain the required variances to move the project forward.  The minute our society doesn’t require 1:1 parking, we will add retail.  That just isn't an option today.  (A quick aside, we also have learned firsthand that secure garage parking is necessary to attract and retain residential tenants that make projects viable...we're currently struggling with occupancy in DTW due to this exact issue.  It's an unfortunate reality/fact that we wish wasn't true.  This is also why AHM Group is so excited for the Jefferson Ave Metro expansion project)
When the PRB presentation goes public, the submission will look exactly the same as it did last year.  That's because when we went back to the neighborhood after the last PRB hearing, it was confirmed that parking remained more important than additional retail.  This time, we will have even more support than the amount of support presented to the Board last year, including many people who are volunteering to appear in person to advocate for this project.  

Why Keeping the Structures Isn’t an Option:
As learned with Y|O, we’ll need to receive 90%+ RE tax abatement plus a materials sales tax exemption in order to integrate one of the existing structures into the project, and even then it doesn’t work.  The math just doesn’t work.  It’s all or nothing – from a design and economic perspective we’ve looked at this a dozen ways.  Plus, the structures are functionally obsolete, not historically/architecturally significant, and economically infeasible to renovate and re-tenant at lease rates that support the project cost. 

Frequently Asked Questions/Frequent Statements by the Public:
The Buildings are Vacant Because of the Developer: No, the buildings are not vacant because of AHM Group.  3150 was vacant when we bought it and it's been vacant for ~20 years.  3148 was occupied by Home Grown Hair, which has now doubled its space in the commercial space at Y|O (and is thriving!).  HGH was going to vacate the space due to the structure’s state of disrepair when we bought it, lack of space, energy inefficiency and inability to keep the space a comfortable temperature during the winter/summer without spending a tremendous amount of money on heating/cooling bills, adding a second HVAC system, etc.  The basement requires waterproofing and structural repairs to keep out mold-causing moisture.  Upstairs, 3148 is in an even worse-off condition.  The space was occupied by the owner of HGH when we acquired the building and she vacated shortly thereafter to another location within the neighborhood due to building issues.  We would’ve needed to quadruple her rent to afford the loan payments to fund the requisite repairs (including gutting the entire building to properly fix the issues including floor joist issues, roof issues, basement issues, plumbing/electrical/drywall/HVAC issues).  Today, the ground floor space is being leased (for free) on a temporary basis by one of our employees who started a retail shop.  We hope he can prove out his business model/concept and then we can relocate him to another one of our City properties for long-term occupancy once he knows he'll be successful.  3146 is occupied by another one of our employees; he's currently purchasing a home in the country and will vacate the house soon.

They Should Build on a Vacant or Underutilized Lot Instead of Here:  There are three dwelling units on land that will be redeveloped into 36 apartment units.  Doesn’t that prove that these parcels are underutilized???  Furthermore, we own these three parcels.  We don’t own other land and other land/parcels are not for sale. 

Buy & Build on 7-Eleven: Do you know the 7-Eleven traded for $1.44MM in 2020?  We’d need to put 100 apartment units on the site in order for it to be economically feasible.  We were in discussions with 7-Eleven to occupy MOFO in 2019 before they renewed their lease for another 30 years in 2020!  That was the only way to make the redevelopment happen there, we tried, and it failed.

Why Can’t the Developer Include Affordable Housing:  It would be nice if we could, but we’d need to utilize incentives and no one seems to believe the “but-for” test with affordable housing and incentives.  We’ve learned we can’t be “everything to everyone” and we need to have small wins rather than cutting our nose off to spite our face. 

Why the Cheap Box Design: We’re utilizing limestone, steel, and glass as the exterior materials for all primary facades (fiber-cement siding will be utilized on the alleyway facade).  Our goal is for the design to be as timeless as possible (it’s impossible to know whether the design will be timeless until 100 years from now).  We utilized brick for Y|O and got pushback against even that.  Frankly, we’ll never win and that’s a bummer, but it is what it is and my partners/I have accepted that fact.  This will be the best-designed project with the highest-grade materials we’ve used to date and that lets us sleep at night.  If stone, steel, and glass are not satisfactory, then we don’t know what to do.

Email me at kyle@ahmre.com to voice any frustrations/concerns, or even just to ask a question about this project or any other topic.  Maybe I’ll even receive a positive vibe!  With the Prime rate at 8.50%, the team needs a positive vibe!  

Also, if you'd like to support or kill the project, reach out to Bennett Anderson at andersonb@stlouis-mo.gov. Or, reach out to me and I'm happy to connect you with Bennett.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostSep 18, 2024#130

Say it louder for the crowd in the back.

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostSep 18, 2024#131

I am pro development and want the AHM's of the world to be successful.  I will play devils advocate.   A couple of quick thoughts on my way out the door to walk some job sites.  

Design Intent & Community Engagement:
 
Partially park it underground.  Provide parking and the retail space.  Before you say that it is not economically feasible, you are spending 11.5M as proposed.  You certainly can find ways to reduce cost to partially park underground.  
 
Why Keeping the Structures Isn’t an Option:

3148 Morgan is certainly a historically significant building especially how it relates and interacts to the urban fabric of the neighborhood.  I would argue that the little shotgun home is as well. I believe that a few of the most reputable historic preservationists in the area said as much.  Not to mention, St. Louis's historic housing stock is what makes it unique.  We should avoid demo of said structures when it is avoidable.  
 
Frequently Asked Questions/Frequent Statements by the Public:
 
The buildings were and currently are in no worse shape than literally thousands that have been bought in the city, redeveloped, and re-leased for commercial and residential uses.  
 
In fact, they are in better shape than almost every building that has been redeveloped in Benton Park and Benton Park West. 
 
It sounds like you might have over paid because you assembled them for a development project.  Not to redevelop.  
 
They Should Build on a Vacant or Underutilized Lot Instead of Here:  “There are three dwelling units on land that will be redeveloped into 36 apartment units.  Doesn’t that prove that these parcels are underutilized???  Furthermore, we own these three parcels.  We don’t own other land and other land/parcels are not for sale.”  
 
No.  It does not prove that the parcels are underutilized.  That is pretty faulty logic.  Your argument has the underlying assumption that the best use is for the site is more density.  Your logic could be applied to almost all of St. Louis.  Use needs to take into various other neighborhood considerations.  You can't look at it in a vacuum.  
 
Prime at 8.5%.

Fed funds rate is at 5.5% and will drop .25% or .5% today.  Your borrowing costs are likely closer to 6.75% - 7.5% today. There are other projects that have been proposed and got started in the same time frame.  

9,539
Life MemberLife Member
9,539

PostSep 18, 2024#132

I for one think it would be great if we can demo 3 house and add 36 units all over the city.

2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostSep 18, 2024#133

^ Agreed. 

I already was in support of this project, but after reading the developer's comments, I'm totally in support.

Up until two months ago, I lived just a few blocks away from this spot. I've since moved to another south St. Louis city neighborhood. 

I'd love to see more residential units added to that strip and to that neighborhood. While the strip has some nice restaurants, it also has quite a few ratty buildings.

It seems some people would rather just wait (and wait and wait) for a solution. 

Add residents, add something new and modern, and increase the potential for what those parcels can produce. 

2,053
Life MemberLife Member
2,053

PostSep 18, 2024#134

^2nd'd and I also want to echo that we really have to 'weight' projects that aren't asking for any incentives differently. I also know a few people (anecdotal, I know) that have been trying to buy/rent in this ward, lost out, and moved to the county (...or further (sigh)) - I'm also a firm believer that building increased density in these desirable neighborhoods are big wins for the city. 

Also one of my favorite things about my neighborhood is our walkable shops/restaurants, so the more people right next door is a welcome sight for keeping these shops thriving. 

226
Junior MemberJunior Member
226

PostSep 18, 2024#135

Does anyone know who to contact for support for this project? I hate for them to hear negatives and want to write in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9,539
Life MemberLife Member
9,539

PostSep 18, 2024#136

dbehrens011 wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
Does anyone know who to contact for support for this project? I hate for them to hear negatives and want to write in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bennett Anderson at andersonb@stlouis-mo.gov

226
Junior MemberJunior Member
226

PostSep 18, 2024#137

dbInSouthCity wrote:
dbehrens011 wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
Does anyone know who to contact for support for this project? I hate for them to hear negatives and want to write in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bennett Anderson at andersonb@stlouis-mo.gov
Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostSep 18, 2024#138

Why Keeping the Structures Isn’t an Option:

As learned with Y|O, we’ll neeed to receive 90%+ RE tax abatement plus a materials sales tax exemption in order to integrate one of the existing structures into the project, and even then it doesn’t work.  The math just doesn’t work.  It’s all or nothing – from a design and economic perspective we’ve looked at this a dozen ways.  Plus, the structures are functionally obsolete, not historically/architecturally significant, and economically infeasible to renovate and re-tenant at lease rates that support the project cost. 
What do you mean by "integrate"? Whole buildings? Facades only? "The math doesn't work" doesn't mean much without details. A developer is trying to spend as little money as possible and pocket as much as possible. I know: that's business. But it's always the primary incentive. And, again, the "functionally obsolete" argument is the very same argument used to level vast swaths of the city during Urban Renewal. I would say these buildings are architecturally significant for the sole reason that they are built out of St. Louis brick, which will never be produced again. Partial preservation is better than no preservation.
They Should Build on a Vacant or Underutilized Lot Instead of Here:  There are three dwelling units on land that will be redeveloped into 36 apartment units.  Doesn’t that prove that these parcels are underutilized???  Furthermore, we own these three parcels.  We don’t own other land and other land/parcels are not for sale.  
This is an issue that could be improved through policy changes—making it economically unfavorable to sit on unproductive land. But greater density is not, in every case, the higher use. And by the logic you've presented, building a 20 story, windowless, cinder block "luxury apartment" box on this parcel is a "higher use" than restoring and utilizing the existing structures. Recall that these structures existed when the neighborhood was at its peak population; they are not the reason for the decline in population.

I'm not even opposed to replacing these buildings with something better, but density is not the only measure of goodness. And, generally, I think the proposed apartment building looks nice; but the proposed dead street level facade is unacceptable. Regardless, some level of preservation should be seriously pursued in every instance where demolition of historic structures is considered—especially when it involves replacing pedestrian-scaled storefronts with a parking podium. We have a limited supply that can never be reproduced. STL's historic architecture is one of the few aesthetic/characteristic advantages it has over other cities, and aesthetics, scale, and accessibility (i.e. blank walls = bad) of the built environment are more important to quality of life than people realize.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostSep 18, 2024#139

Then how about you pony of the cost to buy the land and the cost to rejuvenate your precious dilapidated buildings yourself? If you think you know so much more than the actual developers who have done great stuff for this city.

502
Senior MemberSenior Member
502

PostSep 18, 2024#140

I appreciate Kyle’s comments and explanations. While they might not be satisfactory for everyone, they’re good comments that the developer didn’t need to put out there.

Hopeful next stop: approval

1,794
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,794

PostSep 18, 2024#141

It needs more retail. This a commercial district. Don’t care what “stakeholders” have to say. The only stakeholders with time to actually attend and comment on these things are the pearl clutching weirdos.

9,539
Life MemberLife Member
9,539

PostSep 18, 2024#142

Bunch of retail just became available across the street as 3 monkeys pizza and black sheep closed

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostSep 18, 2024#143

dbInSouthCity wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
Bunch of retail just became available across the street as 3 monkeys pizza and black sheep closed
That is a pretty short sighted perspective.  

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostSep 18, 2024#144

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
It needs more retail. This a commercial district. Don’t care what “stakeholders” have to say. The only stakeholders with time to actually attend and comment on these things are the pearl clutching weirdos.
Commercial districts need people. Something TGS has been losing for decades.

1,794
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,794

PostSep 18, 2024#145

Auggie wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
JaneJacobsGhost wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
It needs more retail. This a commercial district. Don’t care what “stakeholders” have to say. The only stakeholders with time to actually attend and comment on these things are the pearl clutching weirdos.
Commercial districts need people. Something TGS has been losing for decades.
Good thing adding retail wouldn’t limit the number of units

1,092
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,092

PostSep 18, 2024#146

Auggie wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
Then how about you pony of the cost to buy the land and the cost to rejuvenate your precious dilapidated buildings yourself? If you think you know so much more than the actual developers who have done great stuff for this city.
Are you aware that "actual developers" played a part in the declining population in TGS? The zillion conversions of two/four family flats to single family for sale homes had an impact. 

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostSep 18, 2024#147

Auggie wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
Then how about you pony of the cost to buy the land and the cost to rejuvenate your precious dilapidated buildings yourself? If you think you know so much more than the actual developers who have done great stuff for this city.
The community can and should provide feedback.  It is an important part of the process.  Even if the feedback differs from yours.

2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 18, 2024#148

^ I mean, that's so basic. And to be fair AHM has engaged the community. 

As for the Auggie's comment about "dilapidated" structures, that's extremely dangerous if that kind of attitude would take hold. The interest in, and renovation of, such structures have formed the basis of renewed investments in our city's neighborhoods over the past several decades, including TGS, and giving developers carte blanche ok to demo properties simply because they are "dilapidated" would be outrageous. There's legitimate reasons for supporting or opposing demo in this particular case, but I am very glad that the demo review and Preservation Board process is in place, I don't think AHM disagrees.

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostSep 18, 2024#149

STLrainbow wrote:
Sep 18, 2024
^ I mean, that's so basic. And to be fair AHM has engaged the community. 

As for the Auggie's comment about "dilapidated" structures, that's extremely dangerous if that kind of attitude would take hold. The interest in, and renovation of, such structures have formed the basis of renewed investments in our city's neighborhoods over the past several decades, including TGS, and giving developers carte blanche ok to demo properties simply because they are "dilapidated" would be outrageous. There's legitimate reasons for supporting or opposing demo in this particular case, but I am very glad that the demo review and Preservation Board process is in place, I don't think AHM disagrees.
If it wasn't clear from the quote, I was speaking directly to Auggie.  

2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 18, 2024#150

^ it was clear.

Read more posts (118 remaining)