^It is an important issue in an important spot in St. Louis...But don't say that! Given what Mills has done in Skinker-Debal, Downtown West, and other points throughout the region, they deserve a little slack IMO...Tho I don't have to walk by the West Nile Virus Incubator in the summertime, so that's easy for me to say...
- 11K
I don't think "a little slack" should equal 3 years on non-enforcement. Can you imagine if I had a code violation on my home and said, "hey, I'm working on some big things here, give me three years"?RobbyD wrote:^It is an important issue in an important spot in St. Louis...But don't say that! Given what Mills has done in Skinker-Debal, Downtown West, and other points throughout the region, they deserve a little slack IMO...Tho I don't have to walk by the West Nile Virus Incubator in the summertime, so that's easy for me to say...
To my mind, the mistake was made years ago when the Doctor's Building was demolished with the promise of future construction that, predictably, has been delayed for years. I would prefer the empty building, with the possibility of reuse, to the eyesore there now. Maybe with the economic downturn that's occurred since Mills bought the property, he would have preferred to sell the building or renovate it rather than being caught in financing limbo, and we wouldn't have a festering wound in the middle of the CWE.
Would it possible, at either a city level or some more local level, to require developers to have financing, at least up to a certain percentage, in place for the replacement building before the existing building can be demolished? Would that be too onerous from the perspective of a developer? If a flat-out requirement would be detrimental to growth, how about some sort of mechanism to incentivize owners to maintain existing buildings until they can actually begin construction on the replacement? I don't know how that would work or what it would look like, I just find myself wishing we had an old building rather than a hole in the ground.
Would it possible, at either a city level or some more local level, to require developers to have financing, at least up to a certain percentage, in place for the replacement building before the existing building can be demolished? Would that be too onerous from the perspective of a developer? If a flat-out requirement would be detrimental to growth, how about some sort of mechanism to incentivize owners to maintain existing buildings until they can actually begin construction on the replacement? I don't know how that would work or what it would look like, I just find myself wishing we had an old building rather than a hole in the ground.
I agree...Of course the law should be enforced equally...I don't know Bruce Mills personally, but I do know enough about him from others who do know him to say that he's likely the person most upset with the current situation and is likely very grateful for the cooperation he is receiving from City Hall...This guy is not a slum lord we need to go after...1. He's not currently making any money off the property 2. It's hurting his reputation 3. His M.O. has been to buy and improve in St. Louis 4. The Great Recession impacted the real estate market in ways unseen for almost a century causing many disruptions to business as usual...Alex Ihnen wrote:I don't think "a little slack" should equal 3 years on non-enforcement. Can you imagine if I had a code violation on my home and said, "hey, I'm working on some big things here, give me three years"?RobbyD wrote:^It is an important issue in an important spot in St. Louis...But don't say that! Given what Mills has done in Skinker-Debal, Downtown West, and other points throughout the region, they deserve a little slack IMO...Tho I don't have to walk by the West Nile Virus Incubator in the summertime, so that's easy for me to say...
I understand the frustrations of CWE residents and am frustrated too...It's a bad situation...Maybe City Hall, or whoever is responsible for enforcement here, realized that enforcement of the relevent codes wouldn't change anything on the ground and might result in the hole being in the ground for an even longer time? The best and quickest shot at getting something off the ground is the Mills project, it seems to me...And that's the real endgame here, not another 10 g's (or whatever the penalty is) in City coffers...
That's my take...but I also have no issue at all with those screaming for Mills to get something done here!!
- 11K
^ It's not about whatever the fine would be. It's about selective enforcement of city codes. Yes, St. Louis needs the Bruce Mills' of the world and he's been a quality developer. I'm all for a little slack, a year or so, but this has simply gone on too long. The problem is that developers and often politicians have a very relaxed view of development. For instance, I've been told in one case that demolition of homes for a parking lot is OK because 10 years from now the lot will be valuable and be redeveloped. If you live next to or near something like, it's not OK to say, OK, fine, as long as you think there will be something better there in 10years. That's crap.
Walking by the other day I saw some new piles of dirt next to the "lake." Any news on this?
- 592
With no news on HUD financing, it's down to one month before codes enforcement is supposed to tell Mills to fill in the hole and pull down the fences, and I'm thinking that nobody will actually pull the trigger on it.
When I first moved to St. Louis as a measly grad student, the Doctor's Building had just come down. I used to tell my friends who came out that summer that it wouldn't be long before a new building went up. Then it became an ice pond. Then a cesspool. Then an ice pond again, and a cesspool again and so forth. Now I'm married and own a house, and it's still a cesspool. Three years is long enough. There are two apartment buildings that have direct views of that hole. The Hotel Indigo (or whatever it is now) faces that hole. The collective cost to nearby property values and the image of St. Louis is far greater than Mills' cost of 20 dumptrucks of dirt and a few days to pull down the fences, which was the company's responsibility in the first place. This could have been fixed in a week if St. Louis pols had actually wanted it done.
When I first moved to St. Louis as a measly grad student, the Doctor's Building had just come down. I used to tell my friends who came out that summer that it wouldn't be long before a new building went up. Then it became an ice pond. Then a cesspool. Then an ice pond again, and a cesspool again and so forth. Now I'm married and own a house, and it's still a cesspool. Three years is long enough. There are two apartment buildings that have direct views of that hole. The Hotel Indigo (or whatever it is now) faces that hole. The collective cost to nearby property values and the image of St. Louis is far greater than Mills' cost of 20 dumptrucks of dirt and a few days to pull down the fences, which was the company's responsibility in the first place. This could have been fixed in a week if St. Louis pols had actually wanted it done.
- 11K
If and when the codes remain unenforced after 3 years, the person to contact will be 17th Ward Alderman Joe Roddy. You're right, the countdown is on. It's ridiculous that codes have not been enforced for three years - try getting away with that as a homeowner. The playing field may not just be tilted...it's like a different field and different game altogether.
- 2,929
OK, we have 8 days until "(selective) code enforcement" as per the West End Word. Any news or updates?
I wouldnt be surprised if we hear something before the code enforcement. Recently they have been liquidating condos to free up capital. Im optimistic.
- 592
Earlier today CSB had no information on whether there would be code enforcement (filling in the hole) on deadline day of June 15, which makes me think one of two things:
1) Mills has financing and will announce it Monday
2) Mills has no financing but has enough influence that the city has no intention of actually enforcing the codes in spite of the deadline
1) Mills has financing and will announce it Monday
2) Mills has no financing but has enough influence that the city has no intention of actually enforcing the codes in spite of the deadline
CSB likely would not have that info, sine they don't do actual code enforcement, just make sure complaints are correctly routed. My guess would be Building Division.
- 214
This morning I noticed that the southern end of the hole at Euclid and West Pine has been filled to ground level with broken masonry and other demolition debris, and a large dump truck filled with more of the same was waiting to make its contribution. Meanwhile, at the northern end of the hole, a pump was being set up to drain off the accumulated water.
So, it looks like construction of CityWalk on Euclid isn't going to begin anytime soon, but the mosquitoes will have to find somewhere else to propagate themselves this summer.
So, it looks like construction of CityWalk on Euclid isn't going to begin anytime soon, but the mosquitoes will have to find somewhere else to propagate themselves this summer.
- 2,386
^I wasn't holding my breath for construction.
I'm sure these guys are trying as hard as they can for the city, but sometimes I think it is a shame that prime lots like this fall into control of amateur developers (yeah, I would consider Mills an amateur on a national scale) and languish under their control for so long. (This, Bottle District land, BPV) I'm not saying there are national development companies lining up to bite at these parcels (although there might be, we would never know), but it certainly seems to kill development.
I'm sure these guys are trying as hard as they can for the city, but sometimes I think it is a shame that prime lots like this fall into control of amateur developers (yeah, I would consider Mills an amateur on a national scale) and languish under their control for so long. (This, Bottle District land, BPV) I'm not saying there are national development companies lining up to bite at these parcels (although there might be, we would never know), but it certainly seems to kill development.
I wouldn't go that harsh on a company that has succeeded in what it has done to date and one of the more respectable local developers. Just look at their willingness to tackle downtown recently.newstl2020 wrote:^I wasn't holding my breath for construction.
I'm sure these guys are trying as hard as they can for the city, but sometimes I think it is a shame that prime lots like this fall into control of amateur developers (yeah, I would consider Mills an amateur on a national scale) and languish under their control for so long. (This, Bottle District land, BPV) I'm not saying there are national development companies lining up to bite at these parcels (although there might be, we would never know), but it certainly seems to kill development.
The reality is that almost all of the recent residential development has happened with either HUD loans, union backed loans, assorted tax credits and such or all the above on structures already in place (big plus on the construction side of money - reduced costs and quicker turnaround). Mills is literally trying to convince private financers to come to bat on new construction in a lousy credit market when their was plenty of other deals out their with a host of risk adverse money involved. I don't believe a national company would do any better with this lot.
I believe things will pop for new residential contruction, either this project or Forest Park TOD or in FPSE if 1) Pharmacy/Nursing schools announce desired expansions 2) Shriners hospital finally breaks ground 2) CORTEX announces a new wet lab building or is able to draw in a new client/firm in the immediate future.
- 11K
All of that is fine, but Mills should have just filled the hole 2+ yrs ago.
Can't disagree on that point.Alex Ihnen wrote:All of that is fine, but Mills should have just filled the hole 2+ yrs ago.
Not trying to defend the hole. Just trying to defend the fact that having a prime location doesn't necessarily equate to a slam dunk in development. Especially after a real estate burst. Unfortunately the swing from one extreme gave a swing to another extreme.
as of today (July 1) heavy equipment is digging the hole deeper and deeper
So did the hole get bigger? Assumed Mills would have made announcements once financing clearedhebeter wrote:as of today (July 1) heavy equipment is digging the hole deeper and deeper
The excavator might have been fishing for debris while its there. In other words, ask the operator to dig around between trucks to make sure this isn't any unexpected debris (landfill bound) that might be easier to take away piecemeal when you have empty trucks leaving the site. Then it is just matter of shuffling the rest of the fill to different site when you do excavate the foundation. Contractors start to get creative when they have to move fill onto or off a site to another to minimize costs. Otherwise, they find themselves having to pay tipping fees on a lot more tonnage to get rid of undesireable material.