Completely ridiculous...All those potentially productively reusable apartments on Kingshighway...gone for nothing. Yet another prominent vacant lot for our city.Auggie wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... -top-story
Project dead, developer did not want 10% of the proposal's units to be reserved for people making under 60% of the median income in exchange for a 10 year-80% tax abatement.
They plan to sell the land.
I'm sure that if the city rejected demolition back then, the developer would have just backed out. This is the unfortunate reality when the private-public balance is overwhelmingly favored for the private companies and then they keep acting like they're the ones being hampered.SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025Completely ridiculous...All those potentially productively reusable apartments on Kingshighway...gone for nothing. Yet another prominent vacant lot for our city.Auggie wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... -top-story
Project dead, developer did not want 10% of the proposal's units to be reserved for people making under 60% of the median income in exchange for a 10 year-80% tax abatement.
They plan to sell the land.
We really shouldn't be allowing demolition until approvals, permitting and financing are completely finished and guaranteed. Those buildings could have potentially found rehabilitation and reuse. Instead they're a waste of valuable housing stock and building materials. When will this city ever stop sabotaging itself and make sure things happen in due order, so we aren't left with non-tax producing open void turfed surfaces, when speculative development falls through.
Compared to St. Louis overall FPSE is a profitable neighborhood but FPSE is not exceptionally competitive nationally which is the problem.JaneJacobsGhost wrote:You don’t need tax abatement to make money in this neighborhood
Right now, St. Louis is losing thousands of low income people per year and more market rate or luxary apartments in neighborhoods like FPSE are not gonna magically help retain them. They need affordable housing in liveable parts of the city, that's all the city asks.addxb2 wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025Compared to St. Louis overall FPSE is a profitable neighborhood but FPSE is not exceptionally competitive nationally which is the problem.JaneJacobsGhost wrote:You don’t need tax abatement to make money in this neighborhood
The conversation around incentives gets stuck with “well are you profitable?” when instead the investors are asking “where are we most profitable?”
That’s why even in 2016-2019 most of the development boom in the City was local investors on a mission and willing to invest in slimmer margins.
#2 issue in 2026 according to commercial real estate investors is lack of capital as banks tighten their lending strategy. That’s a new problem and one that doesn’t bode well for a region that can’t guarantee the highest returns.
The conversation of incentives shouldn’t be static. It needs to fluctuate based on macroeconomic conditions. Right now, St. Louis is the cheap date and creating uncertainty with incentives or asking for too much will just send the money to KC.
It's not magic, is economic activity and jobs that would make a contribution toward retaining more people and making St Louis attractive to people not currently leaving here. St Louis is a cheap market for rents that doesn't need as much incentive as cities as NY. My suggestion is not to ignore the needs of poor people, just to adjust the requests to developers. 10% doesn't work, how about 5% of units? How about asking for a contribution to affordable housing the city could use to repair and maintain vacant houses?Auggie wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025Right now, St. Louis is losing thousands of low income people per year and more market rate or luxary apartments in neighborhoods like FPSE are not gonna magically help retain them. They need affordable housing in liveable parts of the city, that's all the city asks.addxb2 wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025Compared to St. Louis overall FPSE is a profitable neighborhood but FPSE is not exceptionally competitive nationally which is the problem.JaneJacobsGhost wrote:You don’t need tax abatement to make money in this neighborhood
The conversation around incentives gets stuck with “well are you profitable?” when instead the investors are asking “where are we most profitable?”
That’s why even in 2016-2019 most of the development boom in the City was local investors on a mission and willing to invest in slimmer margins.
#2 issue in 2026 according to commercial real estate investors is lack of capital as banks tighten their lending strategy. That’s a new problem and one that doesn’t bode well for a region that can’t guarantee the highest returns.
The conversation of incentives shouldn’t be static. It needs to fluctuate based on macroeconomic conditions. Right now, St. Louis is the cheap date and creating uncertainty with incentives or asking for too much will just send the money to KC.
If they refuse, it's not really the city's position to screw over its own residents and taxpayers so a sleazy out of town developer can make a little more money.
The reason we are here today right now is because we have done that for decades. We have maintained class segregation, we have subsidized middle and high income housing for decades, and obviously it doesn't actually work, no matter how much Otis "led the SLDC for 22 years of population loss" Williams insists it will.
My point is that St. Louis hasn't had a major issue attracting and/or retaining middle and high income residents. If that was our issue, our population growth recently would look closer to that of Pittsburgh. Our issue has been a complete inability to retain low-income residents because the actually cheap part of the city is border-line unliveable and the liveable parts of the city do not have housing cheap enough for those low income residents to move to. So they end up leaving the city entirely, and this tornado is just going to amplify that.Rick Prieto wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025It's not magic, is economic activity and jobs that would make a contribution toward retaining more people and making St Louis attractive to people not currently leaving here. St Louis is a cheap market for rents that doesn't need as much incentive as cities as NY. My suggestion is not to ignore the needs of poor people, just to adjust the requests to developers. 10% doesn't work, how about 5% of units? How about asking for a contribution to affordable housing the city could use to repair and maintain vacant houses?Auggie wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025Right now, St. Louis is losing thousands of low income people per year and more market rate or luxary apartments in neighborhoods like FPSE are not gonna magically help retain them. They need affordable housing in liveable parts of the city, that's all the city asks.addxb2 wrote: ↑Oct 30, 2025Compared to St. Louis overall FPSE is a profitable neighborhood but FPSE is not exceptionally competitive nationally which is the problem.
The conversation around incentives gets stuck with “well are you profitable?” when instead the investors are asking “where are we most profitable?”
That’s why even in 2016-2019 most of the development boom in the City was local investors on a mission and willing to invest in slimmer margins.
#2 issue in 2026 according to commercial real estate investors is lack of capital as banks tighten their lending strategy. That’s a new problem and one that doesn’t bode well for a region that can’t guarantee the highest returns.
The conversation of incentives shouldn’t be static. It needs to fluctuate based on macroeconomic conditions. Right now, St. Louis is the cheap date and creating uncertainty with incentives or asking for too much will just send the money to KC.
If they refuse, it's not really the city's position to screw over its own residents and taxpayers so a sleazy out of town developer can make a little more money.
The reason we are here today right now is because we have done that for decades. We have maintained class segregation, we have subsidized middle and high income housing for decades, and obviously it doesn't actually work, no matter how much Otis "led the SLDC for 22 years of population loss" Williams insists it will.
That was Green's "interpretation" of the developer's numbers, they never said they could afford it. SLDC and Browning obviously interpreted the numbers differently. They passed Mayor Jones' SLDC score card without the affordable housing requirement, but Green said "only by the narrowest of margins". So, only barely passing, doesn't count? That is almost literally moving the goal posts.Auggie wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025According to the developer's own data, 10% was doable for them with the 10 year-80% tax abatement. They said no because they wanted more money.
And judging by the tone of the article, they were not negotiating in good faith, especially considering they have someone like Spencer in the mayor's office and have still decided to drop the plan. Obviously it was never going to happen, no matter what the city did.
If the 10% affordable ask would have made the project unprofitable, they would have said that specifically to the P-D. But they didn't, because the numbers would have worked out.TalkinDev wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025That was Green's "interpretation" of the developer's numbers, they never said they could afford it. SLDC and Browning obviously interpreted the numbers differently. They passed Mayor Jones' SLDC score card without the affordable housing requirement, but Green said "only by the narrowest of margins". So, only barely passing, doesn't count? That is almost literally moving the goal posts.Auggie wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025According to the developer's own data, 10% was doable for them with the 10 year-80% tax abatement. They said no because they wanted more money.
And judging by the tone of the article, they were not negotiating in good faith, especially considering they have someone like Spencer in the mayor's office and have still decided to drop the plan. Obviously it was never going to happen, no matter what the city did.
Ald. Browning was close to this the whole way and he clearly indicated the goal posts were moved at the last minute.
Bingosouthcitykid wrote:The flight of low income minorities is not the lack of available housing, it's directly tied to high crime and a problematic school system. No one wants to try and raise children where they are pressured to join gangs and drugs are readily available. For those with no children why deal with carjackings, burglary or being unable to go for a stroll down the street Until about 8 years ago I lived in one of those neighborhoods and did not realize the psychological effect it had on me until I moved into a safer one. It was like a great burden lifted off my shoulders not having to live in fear every day.
Yes you can. It’s finding solutions for problems like these that drove mankind to create government. The government can build people houses.TalkinDev wrote: ↑Oct 31, 2025You can't magically create affordable housing for people that can only pay 60% or less of market rate rents.
This is such an overly dramatic response. My goodness.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025Crazy how the failure of one apartment proposal brings out the resident neoliberal cucks en masse
This is reductive, like a lot of the housing in north city and greater dutchtown has black mold, appliances, heating and cooling that frequently break down, and rents higher than you might expect. I'm not saying crime's not a factor but to say housing isn't I think is simplistic.southcitykid wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025The flight of low income minorities is not the lack of available housing, it's directly tied to high crime and a problematic school system. No one wants to try and raise children where they are pressured to join gangs and drugs are readily available. For those with no children why deal with carjackings, burglary or being unable to go for a stroll down the street Until about 8 years ago I lived in one of those neighborhoods and did not realize the psychological effect it had on me until I moved into a safer one. It was like a great burden lifted off my shoulders not having to live in fear every day.
The problem is lack of affordable housing. A low income family who wants to leave a North City neighborhood can often only afford a North City neighborhood, they can't move to a place like FPSE because the available housing costs too much. So they leave. You literally describe the phenomenon that I am talking about, except you could afford a better neighborhood, they often cannot.southcitykid wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025The flight of low income minorities is not the lack of available housing, it's directly tied to high crime and a problematic school system. No one wants to try and raise children where they are pressured to join gangs and drugs are readily available. For those with no children why deal with carjackings, burglary or being unable to go for a stroll down the street Until about 8 years ago I lived in one of those neighborhoods and did not realize the psychological effect it had on me until I moved into a safer one. It was like a great burden lifted off my shoulders not having to live in fear every day.
There are similarly priced South City and North City neighborhoods. Generally speaking, the more market rate housing that is built, assuming that it is enough to make a significant difference on total supply, results in better affordability as a whole. Austin Texas is a good example.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025The problem is lack of affordable housing. A low income family who wants to leave a North City neighborhood can often only afford a North City neighborhood, they can't move to a place like FPSE because the available housing costs too much. So they leave. You literally describe the phenomenon that I am talking about, except you could afford a better neighborhood, they often cannot.southcitykid wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025The flight of low income minorities is not the lack of available housing, it's directly tied to high crime and a problematic school system. No one wants to try and raise children where they are pressured to join gangs and drugs are readily available. For those with no children why deal with carjackings, burglary or being unable to go for a stroll down the street Until about 8 years ago I lived in one of those neighborhoods and did not realize the psychological effect it had on me until I moved into a safer one. It was like a great burden lifted off my shoulders not having to live in fear every day.
Austin isn't comparable to St. Louis at all. Completely different sets of circumstances and demographics shifts at play. If it was easy for low income people to move to more desireable parts of the city, they wouldn't be fleeing at a rate of thousands per year.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025There are similarly priced South City and North City neighborhoods. Generally speaking, the more market rate housing that is built, assuming that it is enough to make a significant difference on total supply, results in better affordability as a whole. Austin Texas is a good example.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025The problem is lack of affordable housing. A low income family who wants to leave a North City neighborhood can often only afford a North City neighborhood, they can't move to a place like FPSE because the available housing costs too much. So they leave. You literally describe the phenomenon that I am talking about, except you could afford a better neighborhood, they often cannot.southcitykid wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025The flight of low income minorities is not the lack of available housing, it's directly tied to high crime and a problematic school system. No one wants to try and raise children where they are pressured to join gangs and drugs are readily available. For those with no children why deal with carjackings, burglary or being unable to go for a stroll down the street Until about 8 years ago I lived in one of those neighborhoods and did not realize the psychological effect it had on me until I moved into a safer one. It was like a great burden lifted off my shoulders not having to live in fear every day.
Your position has the underlying assumption that the only reason people are leaving is because of affordability. That is inherently flawed and a sloppy analysis. It is much more complicated that families are leaving by the thousands because it's too expensive. They are leaving in part because of the issues outlined above by southcitykid and for a myriad of others. All of those issues need to be comprehensively addressed tp reverse that change.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025Austin isn't comparable to St. Louis at all. Completely different sets of circumstances and demographics shifts at play. If it was easy for low income people to move to more desireable parts of the city, they wouldn't be fleeing at a rate of thousands per year.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025There are similarly priced South City and North City neighborhoods. Generally speaking, the more market rate housing that is built, assuming that it is enough to make a significant difference on total supply, results in better affordability as a whole. Austin Texas is a good example.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025
The problem is lack of affordable housing. A low income family who wants to leave a North City neighborhood can often only afford a North City neighborhood, they can't move to a place like FPSE because the available housing costs too much. So they leave. You literally describe the phenomenon that I am talking about, except you could afford a better neighborhood, they often cannot.
Abundance liberalism doesn't work when the city is already at the floor for what properties can charge for rent. There is an absolute minimum that needs to be charged to run the building, and STL is largely already there. NYC? Austin? Sure, their rents were/are significantly inflated above what the bare minimum is. But STL's isn't. No matter how many apartment buildings you build, unless they are forced to have affordable units, they're gonna be too expensive for the 40% of the city that makes under $45k per year and the 20% who are actually in poverty.
That's not what I'm saying. I think most of the people leaving can afford where they lived for the most part. The problem is that the only neighborhoods they can afford are the neighborhoods with high crime, bad infrastructure, bad housing stock, food deserts, etc. They can't move to a more desireable part of the city because they can't afford those neighborhoods because of a lack of affordable housing. So they end up leaving the city entirely because there's no alternatives in the city for them.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025Your position has the underlying assumption that the only reason people are leaving is because of affordability. That is inherently flawed and a sloppy analysis. It is much more complicated that families are leaving by the thousands because it's too expensive. They are leaving in part because of the issues outlined above by southcitykid and for a myriad of others. All of those issues need to be comprehensively addressed tp reverse that change.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025Austin isn't comparable to St. Louis at all. Completely different sets of circumstances and demographics shifts at play. If it was easy for low income people to move to more desireable parts of the city, they wouldn't be fleeing at a rate of thousands per year.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025There are similarly priced South City and North City neighborhoods. Generally speaking, the more market rate housing that is built, assuming that it is enough to make a significant difference on total supply, results in better affordability as a whole. Austin Texas is a good example.
Abundance liberalism doesn't work when the city is already at the floor for what properties can charge for rent. There is an absolute minimum that needs to be charged to run the building, and STL is largely already there. NYC? Austin? Sure, their rents were/are significantly inflated above what the bare minimum is. But STL's isn't. No matter how many apartment buildings you build, unless they are forced to have affordable units, they're gonna be too expensive for the 40% of the city that makes under $45k per year and the 20% who are actually in poverty.
Gotcha. That is entirely possible. I am not familiar enough with the differences in crime between North City neighborhoods and the similarly priced South City ones.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025That's not what I'm saying. I think most of the people leaving can afford where they lived for the most part. The problem is that the only neighborhoods they can afford are the neighborhoods with high crime, bad infrastructure, bad housing stock, food deserts, etc. They can't move to a more desireable part of the city because they can't afford those neighborhoods because of a lack of affordable housing. So they end up leaving the city entirely because there's no alternatives in the city for them.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025Your position has the underlying assumption that the only reason people are leaving is because of affordability. That is inherently flawed and a sloppy analysis. It is much more complicated that families are leaving by the thousands because it's too expensive. They are leaving in part because of the issues outlined above by southcitykid and for a myriad of others. All of those issues need to be comprehensively addressed tp reverse that change.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2025
Austin isn't comparable to St. Louis at all. Completely different sets of circumstances and demographics shifts at play. If it was easy for low income people to move to more desireable parts of the city, they wouldn't be fleeing at a rate of thousands per year.
Abundance liberalism doesn't work when the city is already at the floor for what properties can charge for rent. There is an absolute minimum that needs to be charged to run the building, and STL is largely already there. NYC? Austin? Sure, their rents were/are significantly inflated above what the bare minimum is. But STL's isn't. No matter how many apartment buildings you build, unless they are forced to have affordable units, they're gonna be too expensive for the 40% of the city that makes under $45k per year and the 20% who are actually in poverty.
