urbanSTL

^ From the same article you got Gov Rauner promises. I wonder what MO promises on Monday and how can either one can be considered legit when one state is literally broke and the other one is cheap and will cut off its nose in spite of itself.

On Friday, Illinois sweetened its offer by announcing about $115 million for transportation improvements around the site, including a new interchange estimated to cost $43 million, and a proposed short extension of MetroLink, which already runs to Scott. Illinois has been stymied by a budget impasse, but Rauner insisted he could make a special appropriation without delay.

If the NGA picks St.Louis East then i'll fully support it however i still be steaming from the decision.
I truly feel the jobs should stay in the city however i have a gut feeling that they'll award the project and jobs to Illinois only to obligate Obama .
Its nice to know Missouri is trying to turn up the heat however it may be too late or may be its not..
Yes Illinois is financially strapped among the fastest declining state population

Also job sprawl is bad for the region. Some of the workers probably don't want their commute distance to double. Over the long term employees will move closer to the SAFB site, also bad for the region.

shimmy wrote:but the Illinois site makes more sense using pretty much every metric.

Pure and total hogwash.

There are a multitude of reasons why the government should be considering the impacts this has beyond the agency itself. The Illinois side can keep dismissing those, but a public, government agency shouldn't be allowed to simply dismiss the ramifications one of their decisions will have on citizens. And moving the NGA to Illinois is definitely going to have a negative impact on the region of St. Louis.

And beyond that, the NGA is on record as not being as closed off as they have been in the past. They're more option to collaboration from the tech world. The city site is an overwhelmingly better choice in that regard.

There are also benefits somewhere in the middle. Increasingly their talent pool is going to prefer the urban location, and even their current base will find the city location more convenient.

I'd actually argue that the two things the Scott AFB pushes most about their site are fairly meaningless. They claim it's more secure because it's by a military base as if the city site won't be incredibly secure. And they view it as a way to secure the Scott AFB's long-term viability. As if that's any better of a reason than the city talking about the government's responsibility in the city.

The city site is overwhelmingly the most logical location when you look at all angles.

^ I would have to agree with. An agency who is have been completing its task and mission for decades in the city doesn't suddenly need to be near a AFB to be secure or better serve its stakeholder or clients. Heck, the federal government in itself is run from the urban core of Washington DC.

What are the strengths of each proposal considering the respective local governments are going to build everything the facility needs infrastructure wise.

1) IL site offers more space period @ 182 acres which is great if one of the goals is to support a facility of several thousand more or additional government facilities from outside of the region. Long term they might looking at consolidating their other facility in Arnold if not mistaken. I believe that might be the big reason why city proposal has an unlikely ally in St. Louis County and the State. The Feds are consolidating space and creating supersized facilities and IL site supports it. Think GSA moving everyone into downtown KC on the other side of state or closer to home, VA consolidating its St. Louis workforce.

2) N St. Louis site offers connectivity to a growing tech corridor and its workforce as well as literally three college institutions in Harris-Stowe, SLU and Wash U. as well as meeting policy goals and intentions. In other words, I'm arguing that being close to this workforce and potential future employee is just as important to its mission as Shimmy is arguing about needing to be as close to an AFB for its security.

The other strength but not as big of a factor is the city is centrally located in the region as well as rebuilding infrastructure in a built environment. In other words, sustainable goal would be to re use and rebuilt existing infrastructure even if it is less urban. It is still within the built environment. I think it is a worth while goal and deserves some weight. In this case, the city has proposed a facility and will hear Monday the infrastructure it will build to support it and have no doubt the NGIA can continue to perform its mission in the city.

shimmy wrote:And if it does go to Illinois, seeing it as happening only because of political favors with Obama is nonsense.

I think the city is a more compelling site for a variety of reasons that have already been extensively argued through this thread, but I agree that Obama shouldn't get blame or credit for this decision, whichever way it goes. I just don't think this regional decision has the sort of national importance where it would rise to the president's desk, or where he would overrule the Next NGA West committee if they did not choose his personally preferred site. It's very important to those of us in the region, but from the national perspective this is a relatively minor question of locating a short distance in one of two directions from the current location. No doubt senators and representatives from both regions are lobbying hard for this, but I bet they are directing that lobbying towards the NGA bureaucracy where this decision will actually be made, and not toward the president, who will issue a relatively bland statement of support whichever site is chosen. I think we generally underestimate the strength of these bureaucracies where most staff span multiple administrations, and overestimate the extent of the personal involvement of the president in these decisions. I'm skeptical that the decision will even be made by Cardillo himself. Maybe having the decision made in Kansas City is a point for the Missouri side, maybe not.

Also, I think if you were going to try and decide which way Obama would decide based on politics, you go down a rabbit hole of competing theories. He's spent much of his life in Illinois and knows the many elected officials there, but St. Louis was named a Promise Zone (a program he reportedly is very supportive of), but there's also been some public opposition to the eminent domain that would be required, he's friends with Durbin but also McCaskill, both states have a contested Senate seat that could go either way, but arguably the Kander needs more help against Blunt given Missouri's red tilt than the eventual Democratic nominee in Illinois needs against Kirk given Illinois' blue tilt, etc.

roger wyoming II wrote:Put me down in the camp that if Illinois is chosen it's not just due to politics.... there are good arguments for both sites and I don't think it is an easy decision to make.

Sure! If there weren't any advantages to sprawl development, nobody would be doing it.

dredger wrote:^ I would have to agree with. An agency who is have been completing its task and mission for decades in the city doesn't suddenly need to be near a AFB to be secure or better serve its stakeholder or clients. Heck, the federal government in itself is run from the urban core of Washington DC.

I am with you in sentiment - hope NGA picks N. StL for the new location of their western HQ. However, the location of the federal government is not exactly without security. Joint Base Boling, Joint Base Meyers, Joint Base Andrews, Fort Belvoir, Davison AAF, Naval Yard, Fort Meade, Marine Barracks, and not to mention all of the agencies under the direction of the executive branch (homeland security, FBI, CIA, DIA, Pentagon, Secret Servvice...), etc. surround our government. Know what I mean? This is not Olympus has Fallen! lol. But yes, I do think they would be just as secure in N. St. Louis as SAFB. NGA has another location already in Arnold right? Nobody is arguing security about that installation.

Shimmy its easy for you to say its obvious you don't live here and it won't impact you however your merits are invalid to me.
I'm not going to waste time trying to validate the reasonings why the NGA's importance to the city matters.
All that matters is its another reasoning why our region continues to struggle and is fractured. Our fragmented region continues the awful poaching from within
The Metro East see's it as a win win for them they could careless about the city losing out!
The only glimmer of positive is the jobs stay within the region.

What will happen to the current NGA site after they leave? Is there a buyer? Would AB be interested? Are portions worthy of preservation? Should the state or city buy the property for the next Mississippi River Bridge?

If I'm not mistaken there is some nice historic properties on the site. I wonder if there is a way to create a river access in that area, though it could be hard with the nearby rail lines.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I also think we have to acknowledge this isn't an urban development and only because of our dysfunction do we feel it would be a win to slam a suburban site plan into our core. If we were more invested in our core it wouldn't be such a big deal if NGA located out. (Of course it's not the precise circumstances, but it is interesting to compare the situation in D.C. where FBI HQ will be moving out to one of three sites in the suburbs where over 10,000 jobs will be consolidated and developers will get a crack at the freed up space in the heart of the city)

It's not an urban development by our traditional standards of what makes something urban. This won't add to the street wall or make this neighborhood feel a great deal more walkable or livable. All true.

But it IS an urban development in that it's development and jobs in the urban core. It doesn't require sprawl inducing infrastructure that drain resources in the long-term and short-term. It is an urban development because of density. It keeps people near other people.

gary kreie wrote:What will happen to the current NGA site after they leave? Is there a buyer? Would AB be interested? Are portions worthy of preservation? Should the state or city buy the property for the next Mississippi River Bridge?

I've heard the standard procedure is that ownership goes to the nearest Dept. of Defense site, so the current NGA site will go to SAFB.

If they already know the NGA "FG" going to SAB then how come they are dragging this out like the NFL did? It makes no sense just announce it already its not like the city hasn't been led on to believe differently, even if they put out a more competitive package than Illinoise.
Either way the city will have to really hope cortex becomes something greater than what it is right now or am i over reacting
I want more investment in NSTL even if the NGA doesn't fit into the so called urban geography of NSTL its a start with a fresh beginning of possible massive rebuild specially with the failed McKee rebuild the time is about now or else NSTL will likely be a area of 15,000 folks
Honestly its very depressing when the city you are born raised and love feels like a abandoned cat nobody wants.