urbanSTL

An Apple Store would sure look good in the retail space... The whole build is designed very "Apple-esque"

I agree with the comment about an iconic building at the terminus of Gateway Mall. I don't see apple moving there, but I could see something like Gucci or high end retailer move in there, even something like north face/Patagonia (which I expect will probably go in the opus development)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:An Apple Store would sure look good in the retail space... The whole build is designed very "Apple-esque"

Probably to small of retail space for a Apple Store. That kind of store I could see being on Euclid, in the Foundry or at Ballpark Village


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An interesting tidbit from the P-D:

Mac Properties initially sought 20 years of full tax abatement, officials said. Pushback by city officials prompted the developer to increase One Hundred’s height by seven floors to accommodate about 50 more apartments and spread out the project’s cost, Roddy said.

rbeedee wrote:An interesting tidbit from the P-D:

Mac Properties initially sought 20 years of full tax abatement, officials said. Pushback by city officials prompted the developer to increase One Hundred’s height by seven floors to accommodate about 50 more apartments and spread out the project’s cost, Roddy said.

Likely because 20 years at 100% is statutorily impossible. 10 years at 100% is maximum full abatement, 15 years at 50% can be added on.
Rejecting full 20 year abatement isn't a negotiating tactic, it's enforcing the law.

I think developing community consensus will be the simple part. One of many reasons we have so much development activity in ward 17 is that I and PCD work very hard to provide clear guidance to a developer early in the process. This can occur because we have a plan and the form based code that establishes a shared vision for the neighborhood so everyone knows where we want to go. Therefore we shouldn’t have a blood-letting with each new project. This site has no height restrictions so that should be off the table and any needed variances from the form based code will be minor. We do want to be open to other legitimate concerns or suggestions that might improve the project and that will be the principal purpose of the Monday night meeting.

The more challenging issue is justifying the use of incentives in an environment that more people are fairly questioning the city’s use of them. That is why the failure of Covington was so important—and having a plan that prioritizes the use of incentives is helpful.
When Covington approached us we were already in talks about the West Pine and Lindell lots and spent considerable time evaluating different scenarios --which ranged the gambit of stand alone projects to combining both lots and building above the St. Regis parking lot. We weren’t sure what, but felt fairly confident something would happen on Kingshighway. This put us in a very strong negotiating position and a great opportunity to test the market. We had already been testing the limits of the market by denying or reducing incentives for projects based on our priorities for several years.

A signature building that pushes the envelope built on a vacant lot trumps a building that forced us to decide between our priorities of historic preservation and increased density. Additionally, Convington’s proposal while attractive in many ways lacked by comparison to the Lindell/Euclid (Lyda’s ward) project which had already been there and done that, but only better. It was on the commercial spine and had first floor retail—an important priority for a car optional neighborhood.
Since Covinton’s failure to advance we have secured proposal’s for two vacant lots on Sarah—one with incentives (dense with retail on 1st floor), and one with no incentives (less dense and no retail). The Komen Euclid project received incentives and it had retail and significantly increased the density of Euclid.

This project with some retail but will not have the impact on retail of the Lindell/Euclid building but pushes the envelope in both design and density. The incentive package deliberately is about 10% less than the Lindell/Euclid project, and the 95% is us (SLDC/me) experimenting with different metrics for incentive design.

We’ll spend considerable amount of time at Monday night’s meeting discussing incentive use. The failure of Covington’s project strengthens our case for use in this project. If you think this merits to advance and we can demonstrate a responsible use of incentives, I would encourage you contact your Alderperson as there are those who are opposed to all incentive use.

andrewarkills wrote:

rbeedee wrote:An interesting tidbit from the P-D:

Mac Properties initially sought 20 years of full tax abatement, officials said. Pushback by city officials prompted the developer to increase One Hundred’s height by seven floors to accommodate about 50 more apartments and spread out the project’s cost, Roddy said.

Likely because 20 years at 100% is statutorily impossible. 10 years at 100% is maximum full abatement, 15 years at 50% can be added on.
Rejecting full 20 year abatement isn't a negotiating tactic, it's enforcing the law.

I figured "full" in the PD article meant 10 years at 100% and 10 more at 50%. Then settled on 10 years at 95% and 5 more at 50%

quincunx wrote: I figured "full" in the PD article meant 10 years at 100% and 10 more at 50%. Then settled on 10 years at 95% and 5 more at 50%

Could be. The Cupples X development originally asked for 25 yrs @ 100% and were forced to pull the bill. It depends on how closely they read the statute I guess.

One Hundred was featured in The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat daily update:

http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNew ... fault.aspx

The Flower Tower?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm borderline obsessed with this project. I absolutely love it and as much I'm a STL fanatic, I feel like we're honestly lucky to have it. Best developer presentation I've seen. PLEASE build this as-is! Don't let old AF nimbys change the design or lower the height. I still think, while good, opus' original tower was far better than what we got. Is Patti Teper still alive..?
This tower is a game changer for not just St. Louis but for cities around the world. I like it more than Aqua.

Studying the additional renderings on NextSTL, I now realize that this tower is actually a trapezoid. It'll look different from every angle; photographers are gonna love it!

But I still want to know if the glass is reflective, tinted, or clear? What material are the solid panels made out of? What color?

That's good to hear. Hope this get approved quickly without much pushback

Tax breaks move ahead:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... d23bd.html

Can someone list some other developments/proposals around town that have gotten similar types of abatement?

I know the Centene complex got an anticipated $75 million over 25 years. And I can personally remember that Brentwood Promenade got about $22 million in TIF, but I think that's a different structure right?

Any recent residential developments or developments of 100's magnitude? 10 million doesn't seem like a lot given the way this town gives away tax money but I can't think of specific examples.

One Hundred is now on Studio Gang's website:

http://studiogang.com/project/one-hundred

Any word on this? Still moving forward, I assume?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk