Is the construction at Scott going to be much cheaper?
Reading this conversation want to add in my views about all the bad planning going on.
1 The new stadium I feel is a bad deal all around we are going to pay public money and destroy our river front so a billionaire keep his unpopular team that in the region. Do our leaders even care about our city or just there jobs after the blame if the rams move out.
The worst part is I feel if the dome is not build the historic buildings would just rot away anyway but at least they can still be rehabbed someday.
2 The NGA I feel north-side regenerate is already dead and this is just the last ditch effort to get something build there. I think city leadership just gave up and wants the feds to deal with all the empty land or underutilized land.
3 The quick trip is just bad zoning laws and an aldermen that doses not care what is build in her ward. I feel the quick trip is not really the worst thing ever but can be done a lot better.
I feel the problem is a slow or no growth region is the root of one and two if our region was growing then I feel would would not have to struggle to fill our vacant land and buildings. Me and my wife are planing to buy a loft or condo downtown in the late spring and we feel the best way to fix the city is to move there get involved with the city.
1 The new stadium I feel is a bad deal all around we are going to pay public money and destroy our river front so a billionaire keep his unpopular team that in the region. Do our leaders even care about our city or just there jobs after the blame if the rams move out.
The worst part is I feel if the dome is not build the historic buildings would just rot away anyway but at least they can still be rehabbed someday.
2 The NGA I feel north-side regenerate is already dead and this is just the last ditch effort to get something build there. I think city leadership just gave up and wants the feds to deal with all the empty land or underutilized land.
3 The quick trip is just bad zoning laws and an aldermen that doses not care what is build in her ward. I feel the quick trip is not really the worst thing ever but can be done a lot better.
I feel the problem is a slow or no growth region is the root of one and two if our region was growing then I feel would would not have to struggle to fill our vacant land and buildings. Me and my wife are planing to buy a loft or condo downtown in the late spring and we feel the best way to fix the city is to move there get involved with the city.
- 1,299
Okay, UrbanSTL'ers, which is more likely to happen:
We build a new riverfront stadium for an NFL team?
The U.S. Geospatial installation moves to McNorthside?
We build a new riverfront stadium for an NFL team?
The U.S. Geospatial installation moves to McNorthside?
The NGA will be built I think and with less just in the pruit-igo siteNorthside Neighbor wrote:Okay, UrbanSTL'ers, which is more likely to happen:
We build a new riverfront stadium for an NFL team?
The U.S. Geospatial installation moves to McNorthside?
- 9,559
Stadium will be open for the 2019 season
NGA is going to Scott.
and the stadium would destroy our riverfront? lol....
NGA is going to Scott.
and the stadium would destroy our riverfront? lol....
^ I say both,
1) North Riverfront Stadium with less parking at a minimum will have a MSL team - I believe Peacock and Gov Nixon have already worked out the bond/finance in the backroom. In addition to the Terminal Railroad, Ameren and construction angles resolved, I am betting that you will see a reduced footprint of surface lot parking and some selective garage RFP's in order to make sure that legal challenges from existing business along Broadway will be dropped. Somehow the Drury Family and or McKee, Arch Grounds, Great Riverway Greenway will get worked into a new parking scheme
2) The city has cleared any legal challenges being in the way for NGA to secure the land and have a funding mechanism/TIF in place to do the street/infrastructure work without putting a bond to the voters. The doubt in the back of my head is political decision in DC by an outgoing President favoring home state.
1) North Riverfront Stadium with less parking at a minimum will have a MSL team - I believe Peacock and Gov Nixon have already worked out the bond/finance in the backroom. In addition to the Terminal Railroad, Ameren and construction angles resolved, I am betting that you will see a reduced footprint of surface lot parking and some selective garage RFP's in order to make sure that legal challenges from existing business along Broadway will be dropped. Somehow the Drury Family and or McKee, Arch Grounds, Great Riverway Greenway will get worked into a new parking scheme
2) The city has cleared any legal challenges being in the way for NGA to secure the land and have a funding mechanism/TIF in place to do the street/infrastructure work without putting a bond to the voters. The doubt in the back of my head is political decision in DC by an outgoing President favoring home state.
St. Clair County offers to transfer land to Federal government for free: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... a2690.html.
I know this would hurt the city, but moving it to St. Clair County and making it apart of Scott makes a lot of sense.
I know this would hurt the city, but moving it to St. Clair County and making it apart of Scott makes a lot of sense.
^ First, it is close to Scott but not part of Scott AFB. So my questions, why does it make more sense over any other location being looked at?
To put in another context. Would it make sense or for those on the forum for Stifel to pull up from downtown and announce a new location next to Edward Jones or RGA because they should be next to another financial service firm or cluster the inddustry? That is the argument that I hear from everyone who states that it makes sense is... NGA is a govt spy agency that does mapping in St. Louis so it make sense to be next to a AFB that for all intents and purposes handles air logistics because they are both Federal agencies... What is even more frustrating is that DOD picked a Texas air base over Scott for its next CyberSecurity unit. So by the logic shouldn't NGA really be looking to move to Texas? So I'm still confused about the it makes more sense part? Even on security end, the facility will be built to a spec that addresses security with or without an AFB nearby. So again, why does it make more sense?
I can't think of an argument why it makes more sense even with the land offering. This is a plus $1 billion dollar facility. The St. Clarie County land deal looks good on print but number wise is a very small cost burden on this project. The govt if anything should be more worried about cost overruns that are plaguing the VA big time. The dollar amounts on change orders for some of the new VA hospitals are something else if you follow construction
To put in another context. Would it make sense or for those on the forum for Stifel to pull up from downtown and announce a new location next to Edward Jones or RGA because they should be next to another financial service firm or cluster the inddustry? That is the argument that I hear from everyone who states that it makes sense is... NGA is a govt spy agency that does mapping in St. Louis so it make sense to be next to a AFB that for all intents and purposes handles air logistics because they are both Federal agencies... What is even more frustrating is that DOD picked a Texas air base over Scott for its next CyberSecurity unit. So by the logic shouldn't NGA really be looking to move to Texas? So I'm still confused about the it makes more sense part? Even on security end, the facility will be built to a spec that addresses security with or without an AFB nearby. So again, why does it make more sense?
I can't think of an argument why it makes more sense even with the land offering. This is a plus $1 billion dollar facility. The St. Clarie County land deal looks good on print but number wise is a very small cost burden on this project. The govt if anything should be more worried about cost overruns that are plaguing the VA big time. The dollar amounts on change orders for some of the new VA hospitals are something else if you follow construction
it's one thing to say moving to Scott AFB would not be good for the region. It's another to say to say that the Scott site isn't better for the DoD.
The Scott site is clearly easier for the DoD to move to than moving to a site in the middle of a very depressed urban area with obsolete infrastructure that will require confusing land assemblage from the home city and will generate bad press from clearing poor people out of their homes (as little as the DoD may care about that sort of thing). The site next to Scott will have a much quicker, cheaper, and secure construction period as it has already been prepared for development with new infrastructure by St. Clair County. As big as their budget for the project may be, it makes little sense from the DoD's perspective to choose a site that will cost tens of millions of dollars more, will have a longer construction period, and will present more complications when it's completed.
The Scott site is clearly easier for the DoD to move to than moving to a site in the middle of a very depressed urban area with obsolete infrastructure that will require confusing land assemblage from the home city and will generate bad press from clearing poor people out of their homes (as little as the DoD may care about that sort of thing). The site next to Scott will have a much quicker, cheaper, and secure construction period as it has already been prepared for development with new infrastructure by St. Clair County. As big as their budget for the project may be, it makes little sense from the DoD's perspective to choose a site that will cost tens of millions of dollars more, will have a longer construction period, and will present more complications when it's completed.
Danny, no doubt that the site work would be a cake walk compared to the North St. Louis site but most of the difficulty is in the facility itself, not putting down or even replacing a storm drain, sewer, a water line and so forth. Sorry, but from my construction experience is the site is not really that big of an issue. Would have a bond approval in hand so St Louis could start repaving the streets, replace some pipe and adding a some fiber now be good, yes? But of the biggest delays and cost over runs on large govt projects is in the vertical end due to the complexities of what a particular facility needs in the structure itself.
It also gets back to another policy decision. Does govt just go and pick a new field and new infrastructure every time it is a convenient path? Or does the govt take a policy of using existing or rebuilding old infrastructure that already exists? So far we are doing a good job building new interchanges like the one I-64 that now is being justified by this proposed while their is still plenty of highway interchanges that need to be maintained in the area. Finally, I find it ironic that the county exec noted that it is a good fit for Mid-America in the Biz Journal article. Trying to comprehend that one as now the NGA needs its own airport or we promote this site because feds paid for most of the Mid America airport in the first place so now Feds are beholding to keep building next to Mid America until it is surrounded so maybe just maybe it will have commercial flights again.
The saddest is part in all this is the metro region as whole and therefore both St. Louis and Southern Illinois will continue to be a slow growth, aging metro area in part because the Feds have done a great job of pitting the respective state, counties and cities for jobs that are already in the region and promote more infrastructure spending that will require more of it to be maintained by the same people who are already there.
It also gets back to another policy decision. Does govt just go and pick a new field and new infrastructure every time it is a convenient path? Or does the govt take a policy of using existing or rebuilding old infrastructure that already exists? So far we are doing a good job building new interchanges like the one I-64 that now is being justified by this proposed while their is still plenty of highway interchanges that need to be maintained in the area. Finally, I find it ironic that the county exec noted that it is a good fit for Mid-America in the Biz Journal article. Trying to comprehend that one as now the NGA needs its own airport or we promote this site because feds paid for most of the Mid America airport in the first place so now Feds are beholding to keep building next to Mid America until it is surrounded so maybe just maybe it will have commercial flights again.
The saddest is part in all this is the metro region as whole and therefore both St. Louis and Southern Illinois will continue to be a slow growth, aging metro area in part because the Feds have done a great job of pitting the respective state, counties and cities for jobs that are already in the region and promote more infrastructure spending that will require more of it to be maintained by the same people who are already there.
From the article:dredger wrote:^ First, it is close to Scott but not part of Scott AFB. So my questions, why does it make more sense over any other location being looked at?
As for security, it is true that wherever the building is built it will be be built to specs. But having it inside an Air Force base where there is already a layer of security with controlled access is only beneficial. If it remains adjacent, and not made apart of, then this benefit is erased. But it sounds like the plan would be to annex it into Scott.The land offered to the government, near MidAmerica Airport and adjacent to Scott Air Force Base, is owned by St. Clair County and is infrastructure-ready and equipped with fiber optics.
Kern said the county could simply transfer the land to the federal government and federal officials could make it part of the air base.
Even from an urbanist perspective, sure the tax money is nice, but making a chunk of the city a castle with a moat around it goes against many principles of development that most on this board advocate for daily. Also, your point about the region being split against each other is noted. However, transferring this agency to Scott to further entrench the AFB's relevance, I would argue, does more for the region than ensuring that the city keeps a fraction of its tax money.
I Just don't see anywhere written that says it will be annexed by the Air Force. This will just be more federal government property which I'm sure the county doesn't want once a federal facility is built there.
I guess I just don't understand how an urbanist perspective can reconcile the fact that jobs are leaving the city, and therefore in time its workforce and demographics. So who is going to be there to rebuild urban decay? What tax base will there support rebuilding that decay on a meaningful scale let alone supporting services? The pace right now is painfully slow for the city getting back on its feet and even now will take another decade or maybe two just to see west downtown/midtown to be redeveloped.
My argument at the end of the day is you want have the influx of people coming back into the city to even come close to the population and density it was once in St. Louis and passing on a $1.6 billion investment in the middle of the city, even if it doesn't conform to urbanist standards, is a really bad bad idea that only continues the sprawl from infrastructure to employment in the region.
I can only agree to disagree at this point.
I guess I just don't understand how an urbanist perspective can reconcile the fact that jobs are leaving the city, and therefore in time its workforce and demographics. So who is going to be there to rebuild urban decay? What tax base will there support rebuilding that decay on a meaningful scale let alone supporting services? The pace right now is painfully slow for the city getting back on its feet and even now will take another decade or maybe two just to see west downtown/midtown to be redeveloped.
My argument at the end of the day is you want have the influx of people coming back into the city to even come close to the population and density it was once in St. Louis and passing on a $1.6 billion investment in the middle of the city, even if it doesn't conform to urbanist standards, is a really bad bad idea that only continues the sprawl from infrastructure to employment in the region.
I can only agree to disagree at this point.
Isn't the argument not that being next to Scott will help the NGA, but that the NGA's location adjacent to Scott basically prevent the Scott's closure for the foreseeable future?
I wouldn't say it alone prevents it. US Transportation Command being headquartered there is more of an anchor than NGA. But, units can move, so having another agency such as the NGA located there certainly helps. They could always move too, I suppose, but I doubt we'd lose both, if even one, in the foreseeable future.Ebsy wrote:Isn't the argument not that being next to Scott will help the NGA, but that the NGA's location adjacent to Scott basically prevent the Scott's closure for the foreseeable future?
- 8,911
Illinois House takes supportive, albeit meaningless, action.
http://www.dwightkay.org/2015/03/resolu ... ocate.html
http://www.dwightkay.org/2015/03/resolu ... ocate.html
- 623
Not sure if this would make a difference, but I was talking to a guy who moved into town for a job with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. When he was moving into town he was considering moving to South City (Tower Grove and Shaw specifically), and all he got from his co workers were scare stories about "how bad it is" (this was well before the events of this summer). He said most people live in Illinois and South County, and he ended up moving to Columbia.
He would run around the neighborhood and Downtown at lunch and people couldn't believe he would "run through those neighborhoods"
If the current work base is already this concerned about their current neighborhood, and they have any influence (or are a reflection of the decision makers) its hard to see them going with the north city option.
He would run around the neighborhood and Downtown at lunch and people couldn't believe he would "run through those neighborhoods"
If the current work base is already this concerned about their current neighborhood, and they have any influence (or are a reflection of the decision makers) its hard to see them going with the north city option.
People in our region are overly scared of the city and black people my god scared of soulard give me a brake I hope they do move out of the city then seem like the only thing the city gains is some tax money. I would let them move and keep our great street grid in north city.mattonarsenal wrote:Not sure if this would make a difference, but I was talking to a guy who moved into town for a job with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. When he was moving into town he was considering moving to South City (Tower Grove and Shaw specifically), and all he got from his co workers were scare stories about "how bad it is" (this was well before the events of this summer). He said most people live in Illinois and South County, and he ended up moving to Columbia.
He would run around the neighborhood and Downtown at lunch and people couldn't believe he would "run through those neighborhoods"
If the current work base is already this concerned about their current neighborhood, and they have any influence (or are a reflection of the decision makers) its hard to see them going with the north city option.
^ That would only reinforce the perception. Now you basically having the federal government stating that a part of the city is off limits, not safe and we should not invest +$1 billion into an urban core. To get political, you essentially would have an administrative under the first Black President agreeing with unfounded fears as expressed by someone/NGA employee to mattonarsenal.
I get a kick out of the state of Illinois supporting this little piece of economic gain, but being unwilling to invest basically anything else in the Metro East. If you care about your part of the St. Louis region, then how about REALLY caring?
But that's exactly what's in it for them. Throw the Metro East a bone on an issue that costs them absolutely nothing. Not that the Metro East should be offended by this. It's a win-win.jstriebel wrote:I get a kick out of the state of Illinois supporting this little piece of economic gain, but being unwilling to invest basically anything else in the Metro East. If you care about your part of the St. Louis region, then how about REALLY caring?
I just heard on NPR the Steve Stenger has sent a letter to the powers that be expressing his full support of THE CITY'S effort to land this plum.
^Wow, if that's true then it's huge. That basically takes the possible sites down to two (North City/Pruitt-Igoe and Scott Air Force Base) from four.
^Yep; that's what the report said. I just heard a little bit of it, so I have no details.
- 8,155
^ My sense is that the potential county sites weren't that strong to start with and especially once Labor officially endorsed the City site a few weeks ago it just makes sense to throw support behind the City and try and keep it in MO; having a city/county rift could only help St. Clair.