The Director of Planning and Urban Design could work with aldermen who can pass statutory law.ecoabsence wrote:The Count wrote:It would be nice to see our Canadian friend back in the Lou.
If the Director of Planning and Urban Design had real statutory power, sure, that would be great.
- 11K
^ In theory. But the aldermen think they're planners, or at least do not want to give up that part of their fiefdoms.
Grover wrote:ecoabsence wrote:The Count wrote:It would be nice to see our Canadian friend back in the Lou.
If the Director of Planning and Urban Design had real statutory power, sure, that would be great.
True.
It seems that our small-city politics will continue to hold us back. It's an excellent observation that McKee is only able to do what he has done and propose the NorthSide project because of the utter void in competence within the city.
You and Doug agree on something after all.
- 11K
^ I can't resist . . .
I just got back from a visit to the NorthSide project area and had a chance to re-examine some of my thoughts, here's what I came up with: http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... pport.html
I just got back from a visit to the NorthSide project area and had a chance to re-examine some of my thoughts, here's what I came up with: http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... pport.html
- 549
Grover wrote:^ I can't resist . . .
I just got back from a visit to the NorthSide project area and had a chance to re-examine some of my thoughts, here's what I came up with: http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... pport.html
^Nice post (on your blog I mean). You articulated much of my attitude towards the project in a clear, logical manner. Keep it up.
Just as important, I found the resulting comments/discussion to be much more thoughtful and engaging than most of the related threads on here.
- 11K
No news? Have our thoughts been played out on this one? Anyone want to take a stab at summarizing both sides (the many sides)? What are people doing to get involved with the debate (besides posting here! 
)
)- 549
Grover wrote:No news? Have our thoughts been played out on this one? Anyone want to take a stab at summarizing both sides (the many sides)? What are people doing to get involved with the debate (besides posting here!
^ There are some of us (john w. is one for sure), who are starting a workgroup to create proposals for the kind of thoughtful infill projects we'd like to see in the area.
I've got a design that I'm working on that (I think) is turning out really nice. I'll be able to post in a month or two when I have it finished.
- 549
So, McKee presented his plan to the AIA today... pretty interesting stuff. While parts of the presentation were the same as the prior meeting, he went further in depth on certain aspects of the proposal (namely in massing and street configurations for the 22nd Street interchange and Cass Ave/ I-70).
I don't have too much time to give a run down of how the meeting went down because I'm leaving in a couple hours to go to Colorado for a week. I know Steve Patterson was in attendance and took pictures, so I'm almost positive he'll give a more detailed summarization of the meeting. But here are some brief observations:
1. McKee presented a 3D fly-over indicating massing of existing and new structures. I really hope this video gets put on YouTube, everyone needs to see it: it gives a much better indication of the vision than previous 2D maps. In short: most existing houses stay. Residential massing is done in such a way that new construction would be infill. commercial properties are built up to the street with parking behind. The massing looks very good (for the most part).
2. From what I saw, the St. Louis Architecture community is overwhelmingly in support of the project. Take whatever meaning you want from that, architects are very excited about the vision and the potential of new work.
3. McKee convinced MoDot to change the interchange at I-70 and Cass. Before, the south bound I-70 off-ramp would dead end at Cass as you head towards downtown. After the change, it goes through Cass and connects to 12th. A HUGE improvement.
4. He spoke some about stimulus funds, and indicated that if he receives stimulus money, the TIF amount will go down. He also indicated other ways to get funding. Wash U (forget which department) will act as the non-profit requesting certain means of funding because private entities are unable to request. I'm unclear of how/why it works this way and I'm probably butchering the explanation. Hopefully Steve will elaborate.
I don't have too much time to give a run down of how the meeting went down because I'm leaving in a couple hours to go to Colorado for a week. I know Steve Patterson was in attendance and took pictures, so I'm almost positive he'll give a more detailed summarization of the meeting. But here are some brief observations:
1. McKee presented a 3D fly-over indicating massing of existing and new structures. I really hope this video gets put on YouTube, everyone needs to see it: it gives a much better indication of the vision than previous 2D maps. In short: most existing houses stay. Residential massing is done in such a way that new construction would be infill. commercial properties are built up to the street with parking behind. The massing looks very good (for the most part).
2. From what I saw, the St. Louis Architecture community is overwhelmingly in support of the project. Take whatever meaning you want from that, architects are very excited about the vision and the potential of new work.
3. McKee convinced MoDot to change the interchange at I-70 and Cass. Before, the south bound I-70 off-ramp would dead end at Cass as you head towards downtown. After the change, it goes through Cass and connects to 12th. A HUGE improvement.
4. He spoke some about stimulus funds, and indicated that if he receives stimulus money, the TIF amount will go down. He also indicated other ways to get funding. Wash U (forget which department) will act as the non-profit requesting certain means of funding because private entities are unable to request. I'm unclear of how/why it works this way and I'm probably butchering the explanation. Hopefully Steve will elaborate.
- 479
UrbanPioneer, thanks for the recap.
How will the developer ensure that the form and massing shown in the 3D view get built that way? Will there be a Planned Unit Development form-based zoning overlay? Hope so.
Regarding retaining all existing homes -- what about existing businesses? Vacant buildings owned by McKee and other owners?
Did McKee talk about preservation planning? (I mean not just rhetoric -- of which there is much from all sides -- but actual nuts and bolts.)
How will the developer ensure that the form and massing shown in the 3D view get built that way? Will there be a Planned Unit Development form-based zoning overlay? Hope so.
Regarding retaining all existing homes -- what about existing businesses? Vacant buildings owned by McKee and other owners?
Did McKee talk about preservation planning? (I mean not just rhetoric -- of which there is much from all sides -- but actual nuts and bolts.)
- 8,907
Friday, June 26, 2009
McKee eyes land swap with MoDot for first phase
St. Louis Business Journal - by Lisa R. Brown
![]()
In May, Paul McKee, chairman of O’Fallon, Mo.-based McEagle Properties, unveiled an $8.1 billion mixed-use redevelopment on the city’s north side.
McKee has spent five years buying nearly 1,000 properties to the tune of $46 million, financed in part by the Bank of Washington, and just announced his plans to transform the 500 acres into new office buildings, stores and homes. McKee has made the rounds to state and local officials and neighborhood groups with an outline for development in phases.
For McKee, his goal to re-energize the city all comes down to land. “The city is not in play to attract companies from outside St. Louis,” he said. “If you really believe St. Louis can be great again, it takes jobs, and job creation takes land.”
McKee said the first step is a transfer of property he owns near Mullanphy and Interstate 70, north of downtown, to the Missouri Department of Transportation to accommodate the new $640 million Mississippi River Bridge, set to start construction this year and be completed in 2012.
Under McKee’s plan, MoDot would exchange up to 42 acres it owns near Highway 40/I-64 and 22nd Street on the western edge of downtown for land McEagle owns near Cass Avenue and North 10th Street for the bridge ramps. McKee’s idea is to build a high-density business hub near Jefferson and Highway 40/I-64 that would create a corridor of development on Jefferson Avenue that feeds into new development on the north side of the city. Concurrent with developing the area around 22nd Street, McKee said development also would be targeted at the off-ramp where the new Mississippi River Bridge ends and create another hub of development that extends to Tucker Boulevard.
McKee said he has talked with several businesses about relocating their office space to the Highway 40/64 and 22nd Street intersection, but he won’t disclose any names. In his presentation materials, McKee has a rendering of an office tower at the site. A new office tower has not been built downtown in two decades.
Geisman said the city is supportive of efforts to add a new office building. Several major office tenants have migrated to Clayton in recent years, where newer office buildings are more abundant.
“One of the things the city has really needed for a long time is attractive opportunities for new Class A office space and new retail development,” Geisman said. “This could get us there quicker.”
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... tory4.html
McKee eyes land swap with MoDot for first phase
St. Louis Business Journal - by Lisa R. Brown
In May, Paul McKee, chairman of O’Fallon, Mo.-based McEagle Properties, unveiled an $8.1 billion mixed-use redevelopment on the city’s north side.
McKee has spent five years buying nearly 1,000 properties to the tune of $46 million, financed in part by the Bank of Washington, and just announced his plans to transform the 500 acres into new office buildings, stores and homes. McKee has made the rounds to state and local officials and neighborhood groups with an outline for development in phases.
For McKee, his goal to re-energize the city all comes down to land. “The city is not in play to attract companies from outside St. Louis,” he said. “If you really believe St. Louis can be great again, it takes jobs, and job creation takes land.”
McKee said the first step is a transfer of property he owns near Mullanphy and Interstate 70, north of downtown, to the Missouri Department of Transportation to accommodate the new $640 million Mississippi River Bridge, set to start construction this year and be completed in 2012.
Under McKee’s plan, MoDot would exchange up to 42 acres it owns near Highway 40/I-64 and 22nd Street on the western edge of downtown for land McEagle owns near Cass Avenue and North 10th Street for the bridge ramps. McKee’s idea is to build a high-density business hub near Jefferson and Highway 40/I-64 that would create a corridor of development on Jefferson Avenue that feeds into new development on the north side of the city. Concurrent with developing the area around 22nd Street, McKee said development also would be targeted at the off-ramp where the new Mississippi River Bridge ends and create another hub of development that extends to Tucker Boulevard.
McKee said he has talked with several businesses about relocating their office space to the Highway 40/64 and 22nd Street intersection, but he won’t disclose any names. In his presentation materials, McKee has a rendering of an office tower at the site. A new office tower has not been built downtown in two decades.
Geisman said the city is supportive of efforts to add a new office building. Several major office tenants have migrated to Clayton in recent years, where newer office buildings are more abundant.
“One of the things the city has really needed for a long time is attractive opportunities for new Class A office space and new retail development,” Geisman said. “This could get us there quicker.”
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... tory4.html
Friday, June 26, 2009
Will Paul McKee and City Hall bond?Burned by three previous bond guarantees city considers another request
St. Louis Business Journal - by Lisa R. Brown
Developer Paul McKee Jr. is asking the city to go down a road that has proved to be treacherous.
McKee wants the city of St. Louis to guarantee bonds to fund construction of his $8.1 billion northside project. While he is seeking other subsidies, McKee says the city-backed bonds are critical to his development. Such a guarantee has been used sparingly and would require a major shift in policy at city hall....
...Now McKee is seeking $410 million in tax increment financing for the yet unnamed northside project that would include $5 billion in new construction over the next 20 years. Of the $410 million TIF request, McKee is requesting that 50 percent of the bonds are guaranteed by the city. McKee also is seeking to tap into $95 million in tax credits for land assemblage for major redevelopment projects in distressed areas.
Mayor Francis Slay is skeptical when it comes to backing bonds, according to his chief of staff Jeff Rainford. “(He) will support doing so only in extraordinary circumstances.”
Rainford said city leaders are working with McKee “to produce the best possible development with the least amount of public subsidy. The public benefit of the project has to far outweigh the public risk of backing the bonds,” Rainford said. “Second, the guarantee has to produce a project with far more public benefit than a project without the guarantee. Third, a desired project would not get funded and built without a guarantee.”
Slay adamantly opposed backing the bonds for Cordish Co.’s Ballpark Village proposal for a $550 million mixed-use development north of Busch Stadium, a concession the Baltimore-based company pushed for but ultimately did not receive.
Each of the three previous city-backed bond agreements was structured differently, but none have turned out to be financial success stories.
Let’s make a deal
When the Midland Group sought to develop St. Louis Marketplace in the early 1990s, it could not get financing because of the perceived risk at the site, a former steel mill. Stephen Notestine, former principal of the Midland Group and now managing partner of Chesterfield-based Quadrant Properties, said the city’s backing of the bonds for a $15 million TIF for St. Louis Marketplace was necessary to move the project forward. The land required extensive environmental remediation and Union Pacific railroad lines that ran through the site had to be relocated.
Retailers that initially flocked to the half-million-square-foot St. Louis Marketplace in the 1990s, including a Sam’s Club and Builders Square, ultimately vacated the strip center, leaving it mostly empty before the center was re-positioned as office space under new ownership in 2005.
But the city is still on the hook. Under the deal, the city did not have a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement, and no standing to foreclose on the property before it was re-positioned. Its debt is still locked into a 7.5 percent interest rate with no ability to re-finance.
The next time the city of St. Louis backed bonds for a development, for the Renaissance Grand Hotel & Suites that opened in 2003, it did a different deal.
The bonds for the Renaissance Grand were backed not by general revenue funds, but with the city’s block grant entitlement. When the convention center hotel brought in less revenue than was projected, the city had to use $13.6 million in block grants to pay the interest on the bonds over five years. The hotel, which is still open and owned by bondholders, was foreclosed on in February 2009. The city holds first position on the mortgage unlike the St. Louis Marketplace deal.
City leaders once again took a leap of faith in developer John Steffen with his purchase of the 375,000-square-foot office One City Centre building near Sixth Street and Washington Avenue downtown. At the time of the acquisition, Steffen said buying the office building was critical to redeveloping the adjacent St. Louis Centre mall. He told city officials the only way to make the purchase work was if the city would back the bonds.
City leaders, including Slay and the Board of Aldermen, signed off on $14.5 million worth of tax increment financing that included a city-backed guarantee on the bonds. Two years later, Steffen’s Pyramid Cos. went out of business. The office building, now owned by SCR Investments, a partnership led by Stacy Hastie, is nearly vacant, and St. Louis Centre remains closed. SCR Investments is currently paying the debt service on the 25-story office building and is seeking tenants for the building but none has been announced.
Notestine likened McKee’s proposed development to the risk his company took in developing St. Louis Marketplace, at a smaller scale. “I don’t know how you could ever develop north city without a massive public/private partnership,” he said. But whether the city will bite on McKee’s request is unknown. Deputy Mayor Barb Geisman said city officials don’t know enough details about McKee’s development to weigh in on whether backing bonds will be considered. “Lots of people ask for lots of things; it doesn’t mean they’re going to get it.”
continue reading
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... tory2.html
Will Paul McKee and City Hall bond?Burned by three previous bond guarantees city considers another request
St. Louis Business Journal - by Lisa R. Brown
Developer Paul McKee Jr. is asking the city to go down a road that has proved to be treacherous.
McKee wants the city of St. Louis to guarantee bonds to fund construction of his $8.1 billion northside project. While he is seeking other subsidies, McKee says the city-backed bonds are critical to his development. Such a guarantee has been used sparingly and would require a major shift in policy at city hall....
...Now McKee is seeking $410 million in tax increment financing for the yet unnamed northside project that would include $5 billion in new construction over the next 20 years. Of the $410 million TIF request, McKee is requesting that 50 percent of the bonds are guaranteed by the city. McKee also is seeking to tap into $95 million in tax credits for land assemblage for major redevelopment projects in distressed areas.
Mayor Francis Slay is skeptical when it comes to backing bonds, according to his chief of staff Jeff Rainford. “(He) will support doing so only in extraordinary circumstances.”
Rainford said city leaders are working with McKee “to produce the best possible development with the least amount of public subsidy. The public benefit of the project has to far outweigh the public risk of backing the bonds,” Rainford said. “Second, the guarantee has to produce a project with far more public benefit than a project without the guarantee. Third, a desired project would not get funded and built without a guarantee.”
Slay adamantly opposed backing the bonds for Cordish Co.’s Ballpark Village proposal for a $550 million mixed-use development north of Busch Stadium, a concession the Baltimore-based company pushed for but ultimately did not receive.
Each of the three previous city-backed bond agreements was structured differently, but none have turned out to be financial success stories.
Let’s make a deal
When the Midland Group sought to develop St. Louis Marketplace in the early 1990s, it could not get financing because of the perceived risk at the site, a former steel mill. Stephen Notestine, former principal of the Midland Group and now managing partner of Chesterfield-based Quadrant Properties, said the city’s backing of the bonds for a $15 million TIF for St. Louis Marketplace was necessary to move the project forward. The land required extensive environmental remediation and Union Pacific railroad lines that ran through the site had to be relocated.
Retailers that initially flocked to the half-million-square-foot St. Louis Marketplace in the 1990s, including a Sam’s Club and Builders Square, ultimately vacated the strip center, leaving it mostly empty before the center was re-positioned as office space under new ownership in 2005.
But the city is still on the hook. Under the deal, the city did not have a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement, and no standing to foreclose on the property before it was re-positioned. Its debt is still locked into a 7.5 percent interest rate with no ability to re-finance.
The next time the city of St. Louis backed bonds for a development, for the Renaissance Grand Hotel & Suites that opened in 2003, it did a different deal.
The bonds for the Renaissance Grand were backed not by general revenue funds, but with the city’s block grant entitlement. When the convention center hotel brought in less revenue than was projected, the city had to use $13.6 million in block grants to pay the interest on the bonds over five years. The hotel, which is still open and owned by bondholders, was foreclosed on in February 2009. The city holds first position on the mortgage unlike the St. Louis Marketplace deal.
City leaders once again took a leap of faith in developer John Steffen with his purchase of the 375,000-square-foot office One City Centre building near Sixth Street and Washington Avenue downtown. At the time of the acquisition, Steffen said buying the office building was critical to redeveloping the adjacent St. Louis Centre mall. He told city officials the only way to make the purchase work was if the city would back the bonds.
City leaders, including Slay and the Board of Aldermen, signed off on $14.5 million worth of tax increment financing that included a city-backed guarantee on the bonds. Two years later, Steffen’s Pyramid Cos. went out of business. The office building, now owned by SCR Investments, a partnership led by Stacy Hastie, is nearly vacant, and St. Louis Centre remains closed. SCR Investments is currently paying the debt service on the 25-story office building and is seeking tenants for the building but none has been announced.
Notestine likened McKee’s proposed development to the risk his company took in developing St. Louis Marketplace, at a smaller scale. “I don’t know how you could ever develop north city without a massive public/private partnership,” he said. But whether the city will bite on McKee’s request is unknown. Deputy Mayor Barb Geisman said city officials don’t know enough details about McKee’s development to weigh in on whether backing bonds will be considered. “Lots of people ask for lots of things; it doesn’t mean they’re going to get it.”
continue reading
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... tory2.html
- 10K
Looks like St. Louis Centre on the left side of that picture.
- 8,907
Caption from the picture:
What a worthless rendering.
A rendering of McKee’s development near Highway 40 and Jefferson Avenue.
What a worthless rendering.
- 11K
AHH! I can see it now! What a fantastic project! A beautiful vision! (I'm joking)
- 11K
The Post-Dispatch has a story about McKee.
I'll just add that IMO the story goes a little light in emphasizing that unlike large redevelopment schemes in the past NorthSide is a private (albeit with a lot of public funding) endeavor. The story mentions this, but also talks of Burnham's plan for Chicago as the side of the Urban Planning debate represented by Northside. It also goes light on (though does mention) that the only way this is possible is the disinvestment of 50 years in North St. Louis. I just think that those two points are critical as they are what defines this project. This isn't a Mill Creek Valley, it's not South St. Louis, it's not Benton Park, it's not Old North St. Louis. The discussion (again, just my opinion) should be: A)should North St. Louis see more investment? B)if so, how do we get there given the state of that part of the city.
By the way, I think Tim Logan's a good writer and does a good job covering the city. If you're on Twitter you can follow him at "tlwriter".
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... mentAnchor
I'll just add that IMO the story goes a little light in emphasizing that unlike large redevelopment schemes in the past NorthSide is a private (albeit with a lot of public funding) endeavor. The story mentions this, but also talks of Burnham's plan for Chicago as the side of the Urban Planning debate represented by Northside. It also goes light on (though does mention) that the only way this is possible is the disinvestment of 50 years in North St. Louis. I just think that those two points are critical as they are what defines this project. This isn't a Mill Creek Valley, it's not South St. Louis, it's not Benton Park, it's not Old North St. Louis. The discussion (again, just my opinion) should be: A)should North St. Louis see more investment? B)if so, how do we get there given the state of that part of the city.
By the way, I think Tim Logan's a good writer and does a good job covering the city. If you're on Twitter you can follow him at "tlwriter".
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... mentAnchor
- 33
Graphic depiction of the single-family home values as forecast in the Northside Regeneration TIF application financial pro-forma
http://www.northsidecba.org/documents.html
http://www.northsidecba.org/documents.html
The proposal for a rebuilt 22nd interchange and reconnecting the immediate street grid as shown on McKee's development website looks like a pretty decent plan in my opinion. The infrastructure itself seems like it can stand alone and would be a good stimulus project that can be done on a relative quick basis with design build. Nor do I see any reason why their would any objections on this particular part of the project (you can alway relocate the gardens next to Market Street & 22nd).
As far as jobs, make the new interchange happen and see if McKee can deliver with some good real estate and great highay access. He couldn't do any worse then Cordish. If he fails at 22nd street. At least the city finally gets rid once and for all a failed inner city freeway project while gaining better access for Jefferson Ave and more developable land.
As far as jobs, make the new interchange happen and see if McKee can deliver with some good real estate and great highay access. He couldn't do any worse then Cordish. If he fails at 22nd street. At least the city finally gets rid once and for all a failed inner city freeway project while gaining better access for Jefferson Ave and more developable land.
- 597
quick question. I'd like to buy a fixer upper in the Northside in the near future would it be unwise to buy within the development area?
- 6,775
Arch_Genesis wrote:quick question. I'd like to buy a fixer upper in the Northside in the near future would it be unwise to buy within the development area?
No
- 33
Arch_Genesis wrote:quick question. I'd like to buy a fixer upper in the Northside in the near future would it be unwise to buy within the development area?
Yes.
But I can introduce you to neighbors who live in the area and know all the best fixer-uppers if you are still interested.
innov8ion wrote:When asked about the benefits of a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), Paul McKee stated, “Bringing an outside third party to the table would complicate matters. There can’t be two different conversations going on at the same time. You have to be respectful of the aldermen and the political process.”
But should constituents be blindfully trusting of the political process? Tell us Mr. McKee, how much money have you and your numerous shell companies paid to impacted aldermen and other key political persons? Likely enough for aldermen to be critical of aspects of the plan, yet still plow it through. With campaign war chests filled by folks like McKee, how concerned must incumbents be with re-election? Given this information, it’s fairly evident that stakeholders can’t solely depend on the political process to ensure a productive outcome for both sides.
More here: http://davetalks.wordpress.com/2009/08/ ... t-project/