I think Shadrach makes a fair point. Maybe not all the projects but two projects that seem to have trouble getting across finish line and ground broken is Optimist and Engineering club proposals when it comes to Preservation Boards. Two nice mixed use adding density to walkable area.. Add in local committees and alderman blessings that seem to hold up two other good projects in regards to Opus 14-stroy at Delmar & Skinker as well Cortex M. Four projects that would add to the pipeline, add local construction jobs and at end of day be a plus for the city.
Yes, my 'sweeping comment' was laser focused on Optimist and Engineering Club. That those two were denied is a travesty and probably made a lot of developers shake the head and rethink doing business with the city.
The redesigned Optimist proposal never came before the Preservation Board. It's just sitting in the Cultural Resources Office waiting.shadrach wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2022Yes, my 'sweeping comment' was laser focused on Optimist and Engineering Club. That those two were denied is a travesty and probably made a lot of developers shake the head and rethink doing business with the city.
It isn't well known but development proposals really need 6-12 months to sit in a bureaucratic marinade before they are ready to go.shadrach wrote: ↑Jan 28, 2022Just sitting? Waiting? For what? It keeps getting better.
Time to start spending or at least impression you get from BizJournal article on status of City Re-store funds. A lot of ReStore funds still to leverage.
Can't help but think that maybe the city could offer say a grant based incentive program for developers on per housing unit basis with a higher number for affordable housing but tie it to reduced tax incentives, reduced tax abatements. Essentially, help w upfront cots to get units built but at same time make sure you see more tax revenue sooner instead later as you have with typical tax abatement incentives. Could also use some of the funds for small rehab projects grants, mortgage assistance and shore up existing public owned properties, Yes, an argument would be made that none of ReStore funds should go to developers but the reality is city is slow growth, low demand and land rich w a lot of non tax generating lots. I see one time funding opportunity as a way to give one time incentives in order to drive more private investment resulting in long term tax generation. Not ideal but city essentially given the funds with a very wide latitude..
Another way to put it I see Housing as one of the three big buckets that would provide long term benefits back to city. Housing, Workforce Development and City owned infrastructure (parks, streets, trails, etc..)
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... funds.html
In August 2021, the Board of Aldermen passed a bill appropriating around $135 million dollars of federal pandemic relief. The money came to the city as part of American Relief Plan Act. This is just the first slice of relief funds, with the city set to receive a total of $498 million.
Can't help but think that maybe the city could offer say a grant based incentive program for developers on per housing unit basis with a higher number for affordable housing but tie it to reduced tax incentives, reduced tax abatements. Essentially, help w upfront cots to get units built but at same time make sure you see more tax revenue sooner instead later as you have with typical tax abatement incentives. Could also use some of the funds for small rehab projects grants, mortgage assistance and shore up existing public owned properties, Yes, an argument would be made that none of ReStore funds should go to developers but the reality is city is slow growth, low demand and land rich w a lot of non tax generating lots. I see one time funding opportunity as a way to give one time incentives in order to drive more private investment resulting in long term tax generation. Not ideal but city essentially given the funds with a very wide latitude..
Another way to put it I see Housing as one of the three big buckets that would provide long term benefits back to city. Housing, Workforce Development and City owned infrastructure (parks, streets, trails, etc..)
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... funds.html
In August 2021, the Board of Aldermen passed a bill appropriating around $135 million dollars of federal pandemic relief. The money came to the city as part of American Relief Plan Act. This is just the first slice of relief funds, with the city set to receive a total of $498 million.
- 9,539
The slow pace of spending money isn’t new, the city and any government has so many steps needed to spend money to make sure it’s not wasted that it takes forever to get it spent. I’ve made a case that we waste more money making sure it’s not wasted. Example anything over $500 takes 3 bids, so If you want a $700 printer you need to get 3 bids. To get 3 bids supply division probably wastes $2000-3000 in labor
Here is a win win id like to see, city spends some
of this money to buy all the empty SLPS buildings, a win for SLPS (more $) and invest money to convert the buildings into work force housing.
Here is a win win id like to see, city spends some
of this money to buy all the empty SLPS buildings, a win for SLPS (more $) and invest money to convert the buildings into work force housing.
Delays could yield more money if it's in an interest bearing account. Hope that's the case.
Not when interest bearing accounts yield 0-1% and inflation is 6-7%.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Feb 10, 2022Delays could yield more money if it's in an interest bearing account. Hope that's the case.
This, specifically, isn't true, but...the rest of this post is true too often.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 10, 2022[...]so If you want a $700 printer you need to get 3 bids
yep, the city is way off better paying down debt/bonds and or moving up infrastructure projects like the Compton bridge or some capital expenditures. Paying off bonds clears the future interest payments at what 3 to 4% to 5% guessing (have no idea what most city are paying on their muni bonds) thus freeing up future tax revenues or simply accelerating infrastructure spending so that are not incurring the future inflation costs on materials which is now very relevant.
StlToday - Jim Roos was not popular in City Hall, but backers say his push for affordable housing in St. Louis has merit
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... bcf5a.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... bcf5a.html
- 1,607
Interesting code I had no idea existed. Impressed we are the 4th city to put energy requirements on large buildings and first in Midwest.
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/ne ... n-37421728
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/ne ... n-37421728
Contractor to help Jones administration revamp St. Louis development incentive process
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... the-latest
https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... the-latest
StlToday - Missouri cities and counties could tap new state fund for ‘revitalization’ efforts
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... ff7a6.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... ff7a6.html
StlToday - Bombshell indictments may change how St. Louis handles incentives, land sales
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 89940.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 89940.html
I'm a developer and recently had 4 projects in concept for sites throughout DT and DTW, but have shelved 3 of them for now. Regarding the 4th one, here's a scenario and ultimately a question for the group (as it's a real world scenario we have been penciling out for weeks):
On a prominent corner, we have an opportunity to infill a surface parking lot. Our original concept was for 124 units over 5 stories (4 floors of stick over concrete podium) and 6,800 SQ FT of retail with strong amenity package. As the cost to secure tax abatements has risen, we started looking at what it would look like to build this with no incentives, which lowers hard costs without comitting to prevailing wage, WMBE, AMI restrictions, contributions to AHT, etc... Ultimately, the return on cost (year 1 untrended NOI / total development cost) proved this was just not financeable. However, building 32 units, 3 stories, surface parked behind, with about 2,500 SQ FT of retail with few amenities could work with no incentives.
So the question is, if you had to choose, would you prefer to see more density with subsidy (at least an 80% abatement for 10 years), or less density without any subsidy.
On a prominent corner, we have an opportunity to infill a surface parking lot. Our original concept was for 124 units over 5 stories (4 floors of stick over concrete podium) and 6,800 SQ FT of retail with strong amenity package. As the cost to secure tax abatements has risen, we started looking at what it would look like to build this with no incentives, which lowers hard costs without comitting to prevailing wage, WMBE, AMI restrictions, contributions to AHT, etc... Ultimately, the return on cost (year 1 untrended NOI / total development cost) proved this was just not financeable. However, building 32 units, 3 stories, surface parked behind, with about 2,500 SQ FT of retail with few amenities could work with no incentives.
So the question is, if you had to choose, would you prefer to see more density with subsidy (at least an 80% abatement for 10 years), or less density without any subsidy.
- 9,539
32 unit would look fine at 1801 Washington considering everything in the 1900 block is also 25-40 units spanning the entire city block and i think the same across the street the for current residential building but the corner one will be i think 80?
ideally id scrap both plans and go big- line Washington and Lucus back to back with these and sell them. at 330 feet lot length you can fit 6 (2units each) on each side for a total of 24 and probably sell them for $400-500K
ideally id scrap both plans and go big- line Washington and Lucus back to back with these and sell them. at 330 feet lot length you can fit 6 (2units each) on each side for a total of 24 and probably sell them for $400-500K
Much rather have more 2-3 story buildings in Dt and Dt west than just more surface parking also would make for a more interesting urban space than more 5/1s in my mind.
1801 Washington is fully engineered and breaking ground shortly, but the sentiment is appreciated.
We also do not have the risk appetite (nor do any lenders) to build for-sale units in greater Downtown. However, we have another site under contract and need to decide whether/how to proceed. The other piece of the development puzzle is obviously land cost. It's expensive AF to buy parking lots, so limiting density drives the land-cost-per-unit, per-SQ-FT, etc almost infeasible. However, this one particular site may be able to sustain the "medium density" referenced by Walker.
We also do not have the risk appetite (nor do any lenders) to build for-sale units in greater Downtown. However, we have another site under contract and need to decide whether/how to proceed. The other piece of the development puzzle is obviously land cost. It's expensive AF to buy parking lots, so limiting density drives the land-cost-per-unit, per-SQ-FT, etc almost infeasible. However, this one particular site may be able to sustain the "medium density" referenced by Walker.
Sounds like the abatement would pay off. Over 30? years.. What are the relative value of the buildings? Assuming equal per unit value.
0.2+1+1+1 = 3.2 plus increment in earnings taxes from construction workers plus 2.72x sales taxes (assuming same sales per sq ft)
0.25+0.25+0.25+0.25 = 1
0.2+1+1+1 = 3.2 plus increment in earnings taxes from construction workers plus 2.72x sales taxes (assuming same sales per sq ft)
0.25+0.25+0.25+0.25 = 1
The original project would have been $23m. The 32-unit project would be $5m.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 13, 2022Sounds like the abatement would pay off. Over 30? years.. What are the relative value of the buildings? Assuming equal per unit value.
0.2+1+1+1 = 3.2 plus increment in earnings taxes from construction workers plus 2.72x sales taxes (assuming same sales per sq ft)
0.25+0.25+0.25+0.25 = 1