sweet more parking!
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
Ventana shooting...Skyhouse cancellation...Pyramid pulling out of MX project. Great week for downtown!
Great Week for Clayton, lousy week for Downtown. I call it a wash. Unforatunately, a wash doesn't move the area as a whole forward.
Let's focus on the positive, there are developments that are still selling. We have Syndicate, Alexa, BluSpaces, Dorsa, Roberts Tower. All have some great units available in amazing buildings. Surely some of these reservations will look at some of the other developments. Also this slow down will help bolster sales and pricing of existing units. It's the nature of markets...up and downs...
I am sick over this. The developers should not have been granted a demolition permit until the deal was sealed. Now we have an empty lot in the heart of the garment district and no plan whatsover.
- 291
I suspect no one is more sick that the building was demolished than Skyhouse. They, after all, paid for the demolition and now aren't building. I suspect, though, they'll be actively looking for a buyer for that very reason. When you've lost money on a project, it really doesn't pay to sit on it. You want to cut your losses and get them off the books. Hopefully there's a smart buyer out there that recognizes an opportunity and is willing to do something with it now rather than later.
- 252
I just hope they don't sell the land to the neighboring homeless shelter or the company that owns all the parking lots around the area.
I agree STL63101, there are several positives to focus on. I'm hopeful that once some of these projects are weeded out, the others will fill up. There were too many big projects coming on at the same time, and bad timing with the housing market problems.
I agree STL63101, there are several positives to focus on. I'm hopeful that once some of these projects are weeded out, the others will fill up. There were too many big projects coming on at the same time, and bad timing with the housing market problems.
- 923
Downtown STL Fan wrote:I suspect no one is more sick that the building was demolished than Skyhouse. They, after all, paid for the demolition and now aren't building. I suspect, though, they'll be actively looking for a buyer for that very reason. When you've lost money on a project, it really doesn't pay to sit on it. You want to cut your losses and get them off the books. Hopefully there's a smart buyer out there that recognizes an opportunity and is willing to do something with it now rather than later.
What opportunity is that? Buy expensive land in a down market with a project on the books no one wants to buy? Why not just put money in the paper shredder? Does the same thing only faster.
The only thing Skyhouse can do for the time being is to hope someone wants to buy the land and write off the rest. The only people out there buying now are land speculators - no one is going to be interested in developing in a buyers' market, especially not in St. Louis where there's a ton of new residential about to come onto the market it a very short time (Roberts Bros, Park Pacific, Arcade-Wright maybe)
^ Seems like you just repeated what Downtown STL Fan said, yet you disagree with him?
markinlondon wrote:I just hope they don't sell the land to the neighboring homeless shelter or the company that owns all the parking lots around the area.
Scary possibility. SkyHouse is only looking for a buyer that has proper capital, not a shared vision in continuing the downtown redevelopment.
*pissed off
STL63101 wrote:Let's focus on the positive, there are developments that are still selling. We have Syndicate, Alexa, BluSpaces, Dorsa, Roberts Tower. All have some great units available in amazing buildings. Surely some of these reservations will look at some of the other developments. Also this slow down will help bolster sales and pricing of existing units. It's the nature of markets...up and downs...
Gone Corporate et al - hate to say I told you so on Skyhouse and the downtown development scene. The fact that we have so many more developments in play funded by that many more stakeholders makes downtown exponentially more risky.
Let's hope what investors remain had some notion of financial/economic forecasting when they were dumping money into the STL redevelopment. In other words, let's hope the companies that remain didn't put all of their financial eggs in one basket.
Bane of Urban Planners/Developers in the DSTL area: total lack of financial due diligence. The fact that so many of these companies have jumped ship on their projects is absolutely disgraceful. Of course, learning from mistakes is a part of running a successful business. Let's just hope this lesson doesn't come at the expense of our beloved downtown.
Possible Solution: City Hall activates a committee or board that specifically evaluates the financial outlays of both new projects and the companies that propose them?
- 6,775
ttricamo wrote:Possible Solution: City Hall activates a committee or board that specifically evaluates the financial outlays of both new projects and the companies that propose them?
Would you want this committee to evaluate your financial outlays when you propose building your house?
- 2,938
ttricamo wrote:Possible Solution: City Hall activates a committee or board that specifically evaluates the financial outlays of both new projects and the companies that propose them?
Throwing another layer of government, process, and expenses won't stave off market crashes. All it does is add bureaucrats with too much oversight, but the end right to fill in a checkmark. Plus, the specter of "undue influence" would most definitely be in play, more so than ever.
The destruction of the buildings at the corner are a considerable loss if Skyhouse isn't to be built. The only thing they can do for the site, as noted already, is to either hold onto hope that prevailing economic conditions change within the next couple months, or dump it on the open market for cash and hope for the best.
Always thought a luxury condo with a valet entrance next to Larry Rice was doomed to fail. For as much as I liked the site, I couldn't commit to invest in an unbuilt development next to the NLEC.
Someone ought to let the Lucas Park Grille know, so they can reformulate the Sky House martini to add in the taste of broken dreams.
Gone Corporate wrote:Throwing another layer of government, process, and expenses won't stave off market crashes. All it does is add bureaucrats with too much oversight, but the end right to fill in a checkmark. Plus, the specter of "undue influence" would most definitely be in play, more so than ever.
You say "undue influence". Capital Hill says "lobbying". We could play that game all day.
This added "added layer of government" wouldn't be used to "stave off market crashes" - they would need a Crystal Ball and a Random Number Generator to do that. Rather, FDDCFDSTL (financial due diligence committee for downtown St. Louis) could potentially keep developers who claim ""I need more projects because I have banks wanting to do business with me," from getting so far ahead of themselves that they begin to undermine the downtown rebirth.
City Hall already evaluates structural/design plans for projects, why not look at their accounting books?
- 6,775
ttricamo wrote:City Hall already evaluates structural/design plans for projects, why not look at their accounting books?
You want to build a house. The bank says you have good credit and loans you the money. Do you now want a government committee to look at your finances to make sure they are in order? If not, why?
^
CS - the Marxist in me wants to argue this with you. However, and quite obviously, differing laws already exist for individuals vs. businesses effectively making your argument moot. Furthermore, my actions as an individual have a far smaller financial/economic/socio-economic/"hearts and minds" impact on the City of St. Louis than, say, Pyramid Lofts, Centene, The Cardinals Organization, The Bottle Works, etc.
Question: what happens to all of the public funding that was given/spent on these now failing projects? Would it have been better spent on, say, a couple of the condo developments plus some infrastructural construction (expansion of the Link, more bike paths, enticing small business, you name it)
The resources are there to make this city great. Unfortunately, they're greatly mis-appropriated.
CS - the Marxist in me wants to argue this with you. However, and quite obviously, differing laws already exist for individuals vs. businesses effectively making your argument moot. Furthermore, my actions as an individual have a far smaller financial/economic/socio-economic/"hearts and minds" impact on the City of St. Louis than, say, Pyramid Lofts, Centene, The Cardinals Organization, The Bottle Works, etc.
Question: what happens to all of the public funding that was given/spent on these now failing projects? Would it have been better spent on, say, a couple of the condo developments plus some infrastructural construction (expansion of the Link, more bike paths, enticing small business, you name it)
The resources are there to make this city great. Unfortunately, they're greatly mis-appropriated.
Can you give an example of public funding "given/spent on these now failing projects" that could have been spent elsewhere?ttricamo wrote:Question: what happens to all of the public funding that was given/spent on these now failing projects? Would it have been better spent on, say, a couple of the condo developments plus some infrastructural construction (expansion of the Link, more bike paths, enticing small business, you name it)
- 2,938
Concur. Not looking to play word games or go into semantics of definitions or best practices in government.ttricamo wrote:
You say "undue influence". Capital Hill says "lobbying". We could play that game all day.
FDDCFDSTL (financial due diligence committee for downtown St. Louis) could potentially keep developers who claim ""I need more projects because I have banks wanting to do business with me," from getting so far ahead of themselves that they begin to undermine the downtown rebirth.
City Hall already evaluates structural/design plans for projects, why not look at their accounting books?
There are official reviews of all proposed developments within the City, especially large ones such as Skyhouse, which includes financial accountability as part of the due diligence process. What happens, though, is that markets change. Markets cycle, and what's good one day may be crap a year from now.
If, one year ago, I had a development along Wash Ave, with full business plans, architectural renderings, marketing team, 15% presales, et.al., I could've picked up some sweet funding for it, easily eight figures for cheap, with multiple banks and lending agents hounding me for the business. Today, I'd be lucky if I could find one lender for this.
Another layer of bureaucracy cannot counter changing market dynamics. Developers cannot be expected to maintain full cash reserves. There are no financial vehicles out there that can guarantee in a manner that could negate what has been happening over the last year. Unless you have Bill Gates backing a project with the full faith and credit of his billions, you have to use a bank, and changing interest rates can change the effectivity of any business plan.
Also, by putting up a new level of government oversight, it would continually delay projects, as there are more hoops to jump through. Such governmental layers, and the backup they cause, would make StL appear to be a poor climate for business. Meanwhile, changing market conditions still mean that the projects have to deal with choppy waters, with nothing guaranteed.
So does this imply the project is DEAD or "Mostly" Dead.
(like wesley)
(like wesley)
jlblues wrote:Can you give an example of public funding "given/spent on these now failing projects" that could have been spent elsewhere?ttricamo wrote:Question: what happens to all of the public funding that was given/spent on these now failing projects? Would it have been better spent on, say, a couple of the condo developments plus some infrastructural construction (expansion of the Link, more bike paths, enticing small business, you name it)
Yes: If Skyhouse received a TIF or any other tax credits for their proposed building/development. That money (or the TIF itself) could have been re-appropriated to another, more successfull proposed project. Rinse, Wash, Repeat this example for any other (or soon to be) project that hangs (or will hang) in limbo.
Or another way to look at it: Instead of allocating the TIF to 100% condo redevelopment spread across a multi-block district, perhaps you allocate 50% to residential construction and entice other business with the remaining 50% to create a stable living environment in a smaller "sub-district". Maybe you TIF by block if need be.
My personal opinion? Search the pockets for loose change.phoaddict wrote:So does this imply the project is DEAD or "Mostly" Dead.
(like wesley)
-RBB
ttricamo wrote:jlblues wrote:Can you give an example of public funding "given/spent on these now failing projects" that could have been spent elsewhere?ttricamo wrote:Question: what happens to all of the public funding that was given/spent on these now failing projects? Would it have been better spent on, say, a couple of the condo developments plus some infrastructural construction (expansion of the Link, more bike paths, enticing small business, you name it)
Yes: If Skyhouse received a TIF or any other tax credits for their proposed building/development. That money (or the TIF itself) could have been re-appropriated to another, more successfull proposed project. Rinse, Wash, Repeat this example for any other (or soon to be) project that hangs (or will hang) in limbo.
Or another way to look at it: Instead of allocating the TIF to 100% condo redevelopment spread across a multi-block district, perhaps you allocate 50% to residential construction and entice other business with the remaining 50% to create a stable living environment in a smaller "sub-district". Maybe you TIF by block if need be.
TIF's are generally done on a project level anyway, and you can not reallocate a TIF from a project that doesn't happen. TIF's are based on increased tax revenue from that project (Tax Increment Financing). Some incentives can be reallocated, others never exist until a project is actually built.
You can do a district wide TIF, but they are generally not offered until a developer asks for them in the first place, or there is some sort of plan. That is typically how the project mix is determined.
They often are used for non-condo buildings, in fact more so than they are for condos.
To sum it up, no public financing was actually spent on Skyhouse, because the project never happened. Public financing like tax credits always comes after the project is complete, and is reviewed for compliance to the original plan. Or in the case of a TIF, the bonds are not issued until the project is starting.
They often are used for non-condo buildings, in fact more so than they are for condos.
I assume because it is easier for the developer to extract the increment from non-condo buildings than from condo's?
It's based on sales and property taxes, so there is obviously a bigger increment of taxes in a retail structure. It is 100% abatement of property taxes and 50% of Economic Activity Taxes (Sales, Utility, etc). That is why it is abused so horribly in the suburbs.
Quick primer from the city on TIF here.
Quick primer from the city on TIF here.