National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Relocation

CarexCurator · PostMar 07, 2016#4762016-03-07T20:04+00:00

More like an alleyway full of abandoned cats that are scratching each other's ears off.

It is an interesting point that AB has been landlocked for a long time and never had reason to buy the Lemp complex, but if the NGA site opened up for purchase, it'd be much easier to integrate into their campus. There's probably some pretty sweet office space in there that they could grow into as a continental headquarters.

chaifetz10 · PostMar 07, 2016#4772016-03-07T20:27+00:00

^They already have some pretty nice headquarter space, with views of the river to boot. It would make logical sense to see them purchase the land for some type of use, but I don't see them needing more office space.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 07, 2016#4782016-03-07T20:36+00:00

So apparently Stevie Stenger couldn't even make the media event today. And while Slay mentioned possible N/S. it sounds less than impressive comments... now if Stevie Stenger, Governor Nixon and Senator Blount made supportive comments as well that would be an attention-getter.

moorlander · PostMar 07, 2016#4792016-03-07T20:49+00:00

DB deleted his teaser post. He said he has good news to share about what is to come if we land NGA. I'm guessing it was MetroLink related.

dbInSouthCity · PostMar 07, 2016#4802016-03-07T20:52+00:00

moorlander wrote:DB deleted his teaser post. He said he has good news to share about what is to come if we land NGA. I'm guessing it was MetroLink related.

you shut your mouth

Randy · PostMar 07, 2016#4812016-03-07T20:53+00:00

^ These baseless and unsourced rumors are not productive.

dbInSouthCity · PostMar 07, 2016#4822016-03-07T20:57+00:00

Randy the people that know me, know that i know and what i know

CarexCurator · PostMar 07, 2016#4832016-03-07T21:49+00:00

chaifetz10 wrote:^They already have some pretty nice headquarter space, with views of the river to boot. It would make logical sense to see them purchase the land for some type of use, but I don't see them needing more office space.

I was thinking for some generic corporate busywork sort of stuff. Offices for designers, advertising, IT, international meetings, etc.

Other than a brewing college or incubator, it's a corporate building for the type of company that might like a place in Maryland Heights. It's something for an Edward Jones or Express Scripts type.

stlhistory · PostMar 07, 2016#4842016-03-07T22:05+00:00

^That angle of ABInBev is in NYC. Marketing, design, etc. They retain a corporate presence here obviously, but a lot of the lifting is done elsewhere. Plus it's not really in their DNA to do stuff for good PR in a local region if it doesn't have $$$ attached.

My money is that GSA sits on the vacant property for a long time... 10+ years.

STLEnginerd · PostMar 07, 2016#4852016-03-07T23:58+00:00

Regarding the old NGA, aside from AB (which is in a slow slide losing US market share), Sigma Aldrich/Merck might have an expansion interest in the facility. I do hope they expand Lyon Park to include the old Arsenal buildings. They could do a land swap with Cherokee Park which has some development potential as well but less historic significance. I don't see how you develop the Arsenal site without destroying it.

CarexCurator · PostMar 08, 2016#4862016-03-08T02:43+00:00

I believe that is illegal.

Some well-intentioned folks a few years ago fought to keep BJC from developing the part of Forest Park east of Kingshighway in exchange for a massive annual rent paid to Forest Park Forever. Anybody running a non-profit will tell you that a dedicated income stream is a wonderful thing, and a BJC sized income stream is a very wonderful thing indeed. It would have been a very great thing for St. Louis.

The citizens of St. Louis voted however to the strange language that once a park always a park. St. Louis city cannot unmake parks.

It would have to be tested in court, but this makes many things impossible. For instance, I believe what is happening to the arch grounds would not technically be legal if the city had control. Likewise an underground parking facility and train depot like the craziness under Grant Park in Chicago might be very difficult to justify.

I completely support the coalition for the environment, but for some reason despite their huge battles in Jefferson City to get hog crap out of our waterways and stuff like that, they keep taking weird stands against developing parks as museum campuses or anything destinationy or subsidizing. They actually fought the science center being on both sides of the highway and bridging a gap for access to the park. I don't get it...

STLEnginerd · PostMar 08, 2016#4872016-03-08T03:14+00:00

I thought the rule was if you move to develop a park, a parcel in close proximity needed to be converted to parkland. The Barnes situation with that corner of Forest Park was substituted for Chouteau Park in the Grove.

I do think there is some sense to the once a park always a park idea. A lot of people buy houses specifically because it's across the street from a park. The idea that one day the park could be developed is off putting. That said I think in some cases it makes sense, and I think this is one.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 08, 2016#4882016-03-08T03:32+00:00

^ I believe the new voter approved law is that voters must approve of any plan to sell or develop a park for non-park purposes.

CityResident · PostMar 08, 2016#4892016-03-08T14:31+00:00

St.Louis1764 wrote: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.

You misinterpreted my comment. I meant that the land where NGA is CURRENTLY located (on the riverfront) will be given to SAFB.

MattnSTL · PostMar 08, 2016#4902016-03-08T22:26+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I believe the new voter approved law is that voters must approve of any plan to sell or develop a park for non-park purposes.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

vollum · PostMar 09, 2016#4912016-03-09T18:16+00:00

I think it may also depend on the various sources of money that have been used over time to acquire the park, add to the park, or improve the park. Some funding sources have perpetuity clauses that go with them and the perpetuity clause sometimes applies to the entire park property not just the increment being funded. For example federal Land and Water Conservation funds have or at least used to have such a perpetuity clause.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 11, 2016#4922016-03-11T15:46+00:00

Here is the transit related plan for NGA including possible direct Metrolink service

Again not bringing any certainty to the agency but it should help.

stlien · PostMar 11, 2016#4932016-03-11T18:20+00:00

Roger, is that photo from a larger article? Can you share the link? Also, does the proposed MetroLink route go north on 14th to west on Delmar?

goat314 · PostMar 11, 2016#4942016-03-11T18:43+00:00

So would this come with a Southern counterpart, and how are the planning to pay for it. I had heard that N-S was moving forward but didnt know what capacity or form.

addxb2 · PostMar 11, 2016#4952016-03-11T19:08+00:00

Any reason they would decide to take this down Delmar instead of Washington? Trying to jump start some development off of Delmar?

dredger · PostMar 11, 2016#4962016-03-11T19:16+00:00

I'm assuming that any metrolink extension no matter what side of the river we talk about will be dropped and forgot about the day after selection is made considering IL is broke and MO is too cheap (statehouse budget just cut $7 million from Missouri University system)

But for sake of discussion, how would a north st Louis tie into existing metrolink? is their a cut and cover required? or is it an at grade with no actually connection because they would assume a future expansion?

dbInSouthCity · PostMar 11, 2016#4972016-03-11T19:42+00:00

Spoke to someone that works at NGA, said most employees prefer SAB, not because it's better but because they don't want any part of north city. Some say they have no idea why either side is pushing transit...said most NGA workers make $125-200k and have never taken transit or plan to. He said most just want to get in, do their work and get out

STLEnginerd · PostMar 11, 2016#4982016-03-11T20:04+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:Here is the transit related plan for NGA including possible direct Metrolink service

Again not bringing any certainty to the agency but it should help.

Wouldn't it be better to follow the current planned route up to Mongomery, cut west skirting the North edge of the NGA site, and then North on N Jefferson until it intersects with Natural Bridge. ONSTL would still get a stop, as well as NGA on their northern edge. Plus you get some opportunities for grade separated tracks which ups the train speed significantly.

goat314 · PostMar 11, 2016#4992016-03-11T21:57+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:Spoke to someone that works at NGA, said most employees prefer SAB, not because it's better but because they don't want any part of north city. Some say they have no idea why either side is pushing transit...said most NGA workers make $125-200k and have never taken transit or plan to. He said most just want to get in, do their work and get out

Doesn't necessarily sound like the "millennials" we are supposedly trying to attract.

quincunx · PostMar 11, 2016#5002016-03-11T21:59+00:00

STLEnginerd wrote:
roger wyoming II wrote:Here is the transit related plan for NGA including possible direct Metrolink service

Again not bringing any certainty to the agency but it should help.
Wouldn't it be better to follow the current planned route up to Mongomery, cut west skirting the North edge of the NGA site, and then North on N Jefferson until it intersects with Natural Bridge. ONSTL would still get a stop, as well as NGA on their northern edge. Plus you get some opportunities for grade separated tracks which ups the train speed significantly.

Depends on where the main entrance is. I guess they're assuming it'll be on Jefferson.

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Relocation

Choose Display Mode