3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 02, 2009#301

Grover wrote:It's added a substantial amount of tax base to O'Fallon and many of the people living there are happy with it.


At the expense of another municipality. Zero positive growth for our region, not to mention the continued sprawl of employment and resources further west ever undermining the core of our region.


Grover wrote: Not everyone thinks that Winghaven and NorthPark are crap.
An urbanist should find them equitable to cancer or a virulent plague.


Grover wrote:You seem to think so because they're not "urban" enough for your tastes.


They're entirely anti-urban. I moved to St. Louis City partially because I lived near Winghaven and saw that never ending cancer destroying what rural identity St. Charles County once had. In the same manner that Urban Renewal destroyed the identity and functionality of cities, McKee's destruction has the same affect upon these North St. Louis Neighborhoods.


Grover wrote:


I think McKee has successfully built a suburban development in suburbia, has put together a successful warehouse and office development in an area where it makes sense to have warehouses and some offices.


The views of philistines on art are incalculably stupid.



Those with common sense would recognize that we don't need to demolish entire neighborhoods for warehouses or offices! I work for a warehousing firm on North Broadway! North Broadway contains many buildings already for lease or up for sale. The amount of land available is quite astounding and $100,000,000 plus another $400,000,000 TIF could certainly cover remediation if any would be necessary. Why are we demolishing homes, turning North St. Louis into a greenfield, when we had the opportunity to convert underutilized brownfields into functional uses once again, or at the very least see historic vacant warehouses (that have easy access to Highway 70 and the new Mississippi River Bridge) with tenants? If a site must exist within the project area, then Pruitt-Igoe would be an ideal location, but there's no reason to have campuses located within a residential neighborhood when we already have industrial areas nearby.



Vancouver did excellent things with False Creek. Simply amazing. They started in the 1970's and it took a long time, but why can't we do something similar with our North Riverfront Area? Why are we demolishing residential for office and industrial!



The reason becomes apparent not only due to institutional, political, and cultural constraints which stymie dense urban development, but through alleged urbanists, those who are supposed to advocate, who would settle for McKee's phantasmagoria.


Grover wrote:
The plan for NorthSide IS urban. Again, you can simply say that you don't believe the plan if you like.


It's not a plan. It's a bunch of buzzwords to fund his few campuses by placating armchair pushovers, especially those who didn't even attend the May 21st meeting.

479
Full MemberFull Member
479

PostJun 02, 2009#302

UrbanPioneer wrote:^ Agreed. It seemed odd to me, surely there was somewhere else the meeting (and future events) could be held.


I don't think there is any problem with a <i>private</i> meeting being held at a private location.



I do think there is a problem when elected officials do not hold public meetings on controversial major development projects.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJun 02, 2009#303

Any major development project will include both private and public meetings. This is no different.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 03, 2009#304

The views of philistines on art are incalculably stupid.


That sounds so educated.

479
Full MemberFull Member
479

PostJun 03, 2009#305

innov8ion wrote:Any major development project will include both private and public meetings. This is no different.


When is the public meeting?

3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 03, 2009#306

^Do we even know who's on the TIF Comish?


Grover wrote:
The views of philistines on art are incalculably stupid.


That sounds so educated.


Thanks!

216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostJun 04, 2009#307

It could be a battle royale at City Affair if enough opposing viewpoints attend. We may have to hire Mills Lane to keep us seperated and back to our corners.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 04, 2009#308

^ Very sorry I won't be there!

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJun 04, 2009#309

ecoabsence wrote:
innov8ion wrote:Any major development project will include both private and public meetings. This is no different.


When is the public meeting?
Wasn't there one on May 21st? It was my understanding that there will be a series of such public meetings. However I did read Bonasch's article and see concern for the feedback mechanisms or lackthereof.



And I'm not a McKee fanboy either. I think we'd all like to hear what he has to say about the purported closure of churches and grocery stores within the TIF area. McKee really needs to start working the PR if he doesn't want to forsake public support. But given reasonable communication and partnership with stakeholders, I have faith we can see the NorthSide transformed in a positive manner.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 05, 2009#310

Whoa! You're about to get t-r-a-s-h-e-d. That kind of level-headed talk certainly will not be well received here! :wink:

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJun 05, 2009#311

I don't know where best to post this (WAY too many Blairmont threads), but McKee does NOT want to aquire the St. Patrick Center. It was mistakenly listed along with several other properties:



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument

3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 05, 2009#312

After 5 years he has no idea what property he needs?

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJun 16, 2009#313

gosh this thread is BRUTAL. If I read one more thing about Mckee not having a plan I'm gonna go bananas. He has a detailed plan, it has been presented to city hall, and it will be released when the time is right. And as much as a certain Sesame Street character is in denial about this project's ties to the China air cargo hub, UM ya they're intertwined.

6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostJun 16, 2009#314

I agree he has a plan, of course he has to have a plan at this point. However, the man himself keeps insisting he does not have a plan, only a vision.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 17, 2009#315

Moorlander wrote:gosh this thread is BRUTAL. If I read one more thing about Mckee not having a plan I'm gonna go bananas. He has a detailed plan, it has been presented to city hall, and it will be released when the time is right. And as much as a certain Sesame Street character is in denial about this project's ties to the China air cargo hub, UM ya they're intertwined.


Hey, WHICH Sesame Street character are you talking about!?

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJun 17, 2009#316

^ ha!not you

719
Senior MemberSenior Member
719

PostJun 17, 2009#317

^

Moorlander, don't you know Grover and I go way back?







I should probably let it go, but I'll give it one more try.



Moorlander wrote:


gosh this thread is BRUTAL. If I read one more thing about Mckee not having a plan I'm gonna go bananas. He has a detailed plan, it has been presented to city hall, and it will be released when the time is right. And as much as a certain Sesame Street character is in denial about this project's ties to the China air cargo hub, UM ya they're intertwined.


For once I would like to see you back up your statements with some facts:



Where is this detailed plan that you speak of?



How do you know that it has been presented to city hall?



Don't you feel that if you're asking for $ 400 million in (partly guaranteed) TIF money that now would be a good time to release it?



About the China hub: why don't you first answer my questions in the China Cargo Hub thread? Or at least respond to the facts I presented you.



I repeat: the China hub and the North Side vision(?) have no correlation.

If you can come up with factual information (not: "UM ya, they're intertwined") that states otherwise I would really like to see it. If not, then let's just agree to disagree.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 17, 2009#318

Sorry Count, I'm not the Cookie Monster:







I'm GROVER!




8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJun 17, 2009#319

The Count wrote:^



Moorlander wrote:


gosh this thread is BRUTAL. If I read one more thing about Mckee not having a plan I'm gonna go bananas. He has a detailed plan, it has been presented to city hall, and it will be released when the time is right. And as much as a certain Sesame Street character is in denial about this project's ties to the China air cargo hub, UM ya they're intertwined.

For once I would like to see you back up your statements with some facts:




Seems like an obvious observation to me. You have a proposed cargo deal that is waiting in the wing. And before any cargo can be shipped, there must be infrastructure, warehousing, logistics, etc in place to recieve it. This deal also could very realistically bring 10's of thousands of jobs to areas near the airport. Meanwhile, the NorthSide plan (Minutes down 70 from Lambert) is working it's way through the process, (Spearheaded by none other than the same developer who helped start this whole cargo deal in the first place)...

To me it would seem like the NorthSide plan will be a huge selling point to the Chinese. "Hey China, we have this underutilize airport, a large office park right next door, and oh ya, right down the street is XXXX acres we are in the midst of developing. Let's do it together. We have job centers for you warehouses and NA HQ's and plenty of new housing, schools, etc for your workers. Let's make a deal"




Where is this detailed plan that you speak of?
City Hall, Paul McKee's desk




How do you know that it has been presented to city hall?
because that's how these things work.



Things you don't do without a plan

buy 46 million in real estate

Get 400 million application

Be in constant contact with City Hall for the past few years.




Don't you feel that if you're asking for $ 400 million in (partly guaranteed) TIF money that now would be a good time to release it?
Can you not see the statigic benifits here for McKee and the City? Why release it to 1 person more than necessary at this time? I'm sure it is in front of who it needs to be. As much as we'd like it to be released, there is much that will still change, and it will be released in time.


If not, then let's just agree to disagree.
Agreed

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 17, 2009#320

I don't think Moorlander is saying with absolute certainty that this is what's happening, but it's clear that there COULD be a connection. And he's right to say that there doesn't need to be hard evidence to conclude that McKee has a detailed plan and that City Hall has seen it (for all the reasons he stated above).



Look, when someone offers an opinion on this site there's no need to trash it because they can't PROVE their opinion. Just take it for what it's worth, reply if you like and then move on!

719
Senior MemberSenior Member
719

PostJun 17, 2009#321

Grover, I am sorry I mistook you for the Cookie Monster! I apologize.



Moorlander, thanks for explaining "how these things work". I had no idea McKee had his own desk at City Hall.



And Grover, you're right, let's move on!

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJun 17, 2009#322

The Count wrote:
Moorlander, thanks for explaining "how these things work". I had no idea


Sure thing, we can discuss further over a beer. Are you 21?



Are you in any way involved/connected with the NorthSide/NorthPark/China cargo deal? Do you have any insight or 'proof' to disprove any of my suspicions?

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 17, 2009#323

Now c'mon - you're asking for "proof to disprove . . . suspicions"!?!?!?!

8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostJun 17, 2009#324

Well what other reason do see for the count's strong stance against my suspicions? If he is somehow affiliated with the project, maybe he should disclose. To date, IMO he hasn't made one decent point contrary to my suspicions.

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostJun 18, 2009#325

The Count wrote:Grover, I am sorry I mistook you for the Cookie Monster! I apologize.


So you're saying all those blue people look the same to you?







:wink:



-RBB

Read more posts (2 remaining)