Hey guys, this thing looks very cool! Modern design and corten steel, with retail.



https://nextstl.com/2017/04/morgan-ford ... d-project/

If they don't announce a donut shop for the retail space I'm going to oppose this with all my might. (I've always wanted to play a NIMBY but donuts will get me every time.)

I think it is a good project


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always look at this lot when leaving Amsterdam or another place nearby and think how ripe for development this lot seems to be. This is pretty much what I pictured (I figured 4 or 5 stories with ground level retail). I am surprised it took this long to develop, honestly. I'm sure there's more to it, but if I see this as an obvious development opportunity, it must be very obvious since I am not a developer nor am I creative. Here's to hoping this jump starts some additional development in the area.

Looks great. Wonder if they're asking for subsidies.

Megan greens ward right? I'm sure she practices what she preaches /s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipz wrote: ↑

Apr 19, 2017

Looks great. Wonder if they're asking for subsidies.

I think I saw they haven't decided yet if they'll ask for subsidies... if they do I hope Megan asks for a give-and-take along the lines of 5 or 6 units for subsidized prices or a PILOT to SLPS.

I wrote this up on the subject of this building yesterday. my family owns Prop Perth in the neighborhood and openly welcome this.

http://www.buildingstlnews.com/the-blog ... rove-south

This project is being threatened by petty politics:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7d7a5.html

framer wrote: ↑

Oct 13, 2017

This project is being threatened by petty politics:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7d7a5.html

I don't have a ton of sympathy for Green since this seems like exactly the sort of thing she would try to do if the situation was reversed. Also, Roddy is right, there needs to be established guidelines for which neighborhoods get which level of incentives, and he is also right that St. Louis needs to create a plan for development instead of the haphazard way we have been doing things.

St. Louis is a totally dysfunctional city. We haven't had a city plan since the 1940s and we wonder why we have lost so much population. The city needs a well thought out and publicly engaged city-wide redevelopment plan. All tax credits, public money, tax abatements, etc. that are passed in the city should conform to the broader vision for our city. This should include things like mixed-use zoning, transit oriented development, streetscapes, and form based codes. I mean look at downtown, maybe the reason developers and companies are not so bullish on the central city is because we have such a haphazard vision. What are they really investing in? Where is the context? I think what was done on Washington Avenue 20 years ago, was a good example of how vision and planning attracts investment, but the city treated it more of as a novelty than a model of how to reinvigorate the rest of downtown. Look at the streetscapes around the city, look at the housing developments with different setbacks than their historical counterparts, look at the general lack of vision or context when development happens in the city, it's freaking ridiculous. It seems like development and investment kicked up a notch when CWE and FPSE adopted form based redevelopment plans, sure proximity to the booming medical center definitely helps, but in my opinion the vision these neighborhoods had for a broader development definitely promotes investment.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Oct 13, 2017

framer wrote: ↑

Oct 13, 2017

This project is being threatened by petty politics:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7d7a5.html

I don't have a ton of sympathy for Green since this seems like exactly the sort of thing she would try to do if the situation was reversed. Also, Roddy is right, there needs to be established guidelines for which neighborhoods get which level of incentives, and he is also right that St. Louis needs to create a plan for development instead of the haphazard way we have been doing things.

I 100% agree. If the tables were turned she would be fighting this tooth and nail. But now that it is in her ward it must be passed now. Is the developer going to pull out if they have to wait one more week to see the new guidelines? Or is Green pushing this through because she know the new guidelines will hurt this project?

What makes you think the new guidelines come out in a week? It sounds like the entire process of their drafting and review is completely bogged down.

wabash wrote: ↑

Oct 13, 2017

What makes you think the new guidelines come out in a week? It sounds like the entire process of their drafting and review is completely bogged down.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7d7a5.html

Roddy said he hoped to have a hearing on the guidelines next week and pass them this month.

So can the developer wait one week till the hearing on the new guidelines and see if their tax abatement follow the new guidelines. My feelings is that they do not want to wait and want to get the abatement before the guidelines are changed.

^So Roddy HOPES to have them in a month. Got it.

Nothing wrong with making developers a pawn in a political game and leaving them in limbo for a month at least. Can't imagine that encouraging them to site their next project west of Skinker.

wabash wrote: ↑

Oct 13, 2017

^So Roddy HOPES to have them in a month. Got it.

Nothing wrong with making developers a pawn in a political game and leaving them in limbo for a month at least. Can't imagine that encouraging them to site their next project west of Skinker.

I'm not saying that this should be done at all, I think the project is great and should receive "some" help. All I'm saying that if Green was trying to pass the new guidelines, she would be doing the same thing as Roddy. I have no sympathy for her in this situation.

Sounds like Megan Green got quite an earful from her fellow aldermen. Tax breaks, hypocrisy, aldermanic courtesy, etc.:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 10ab6.html

Im not a huge fan of alermanic courtesy - but yeah she seems like she would rather yell about an incentive on twitter and meetings then work out a city wide system that is to be referenced with input from everyone.

I'd have probably told her the same thing.

In my experience with Megan, that couldn't be further from the truth. Megan would love to work out a city wide platform.

Most bloviating, poseur politicians are hypocrites.

framer wrote: ↑

Nov 10, 2017

Sounds like Megan Green got quite an earful from her fellow aldermen. Tax breaks, hypocrisy, aldermanic courtesy, etc.:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 10ab6.html

The part that I don't agree with for any city if I understand right is that the proposed community agreement will provide $60k to a housing affordable non-profit group as part of the tax deal.

I think a x dollar agreement to neighborhood tangible improvements say new sidewalks, lighting, new playground or park improvements is one thing as well as very much able to audit/verify on as well as something that offset tax lost if negotiated dollars up vs down.. But to me the community agreement as proposed to a non-profit group is a very grey area for any city alderman to advocate as it becomes one step away from paying off activists or advocates even though the argument is made that the agreement doesn't involve the city.

As I see it, this proposed community agreement basically gives money to group with real no stipulations and will cover someone's payroll or non-profit legal fees or a consultant fees for a year or so to advocate with no clear goal or benefit to the community.. but a clear benefit to a individual(s). That is terrible policy and hurting this development IMO

jstriebel wrote: ↑

Nov 10, 2017

In my experience with Megan, that couldn't be further from the truth. Megan would love to work out a city wide platform.

Great! I would love if she does. I dont see the value of her calling out other projects alderperson's and expecting them to be nice when you propose one.

Passed out of committee. On to the full Board.

What passed is the modified agreement, which is no community benefits agreement, but instead 90% abatement vs 100%, right?

I actually prefer that arrangement, and I let Megan Green know that as well. While it may give the neighborhood less control over those dollars, it's a simpler model and it begins to chip away at abatement levels. Obviously 90% is still very high, but it's 10% lower than 100%. So I'll take it.

^Yep.