urbanSTL

Reading all of the comments here and elsewhere, Cullinan might as well cancel this project and walkaway. Also, SLU shouldn’t issue a new RFP.

Clearly a grassy lot is better to all of you, and others, than a development like this. The city seems to think that way too. It’s not of use to defend this project when it will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

Most people have hated this project since it was unveiled because of the design, open space, street layout and other things. Christ, can we not have nice things in this city?

There’s a reason why incentives are requested and issued. We are not at the point where rent can offset the cost of construction in a reasonable amount of time. The gap is too wide right now. Incentives help narrow or eliminate the gap. If it weren’t for incentives, a good percentage of the projects built in this boom would’ve have happened because they wouldn’t be viable. A project of the size of Iron Hill is another example. This isn’t feasible without incentives.

So, pick apart the garage, parking space count, incentive requests, design of buildings, and overall plan. Attack me over my comments too. It’s not like I’ll convince any of you to change your minds on this project. You’re set in your own ways.

Farewell.

Chris, I appreciate your views and participation on this board, but frankly, you seem very emotionally connected not just this project, but this iteration  of the project. Why? 

Also, and I don't mean to be preachy, the automobile is the single greatest threat to public health on earth. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see eye to eye with the you or the developer as to the meaning of "nice things."

I think the majority of us here are generally in support of this project. Seems to be the same vocal few who are always griping about stuff. 

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Feb 12, 2020

Like Chriss752, I remain a fan of this development, creating new life at a forgotten, hard-to-develop corner; b

Curious why you think it's hard to develop? It's already cleared with single owner. There's some environmental remediation for which they're applying for $1M in brownfield tax credits. If it's hard to develop, how is the land worth $15M?

As one of the gripers, I stand by my main point - slow growth regions, more than any other region, need to be very very careful when subsidizing commercial/retail/residential developments with tax $.   $80MM for this is far far too large. 

The tax money aside, there are still problems with the design of the development. 

The land is tax exempt, so no property taxes.

From the plan the estimated infrastructure costs are
Parking garage $37.285M
Road improvements and Off Site $9.043M
Other Site Improvements $4.9M
Remediation and Demo, Borwnfields Eligible $1M
Infrastructure Contingency $4.083M
Infrastructure Soft Costs $11.262M
Total $67.575M

There are three contingency lines
Infrastructure Contingency $4.083M
Hard Cost Contingency $16.542M
Soft Costs Contingency $3.326M
Total  $23.591M
Is it ever the case that if all of the contingency isn't needed that the difference goes to reduce the TIF?

Land Acquisition $15.2M
Did that come from an appraisal? Might SLU sell for less, whatever they have in it? They've enjoyed tax free ownership and are an edu institution. The price is contributing to tax base being shifted from another  edu institution (SLPS).

^Roads, stoplights, streetlights, sidewalks, plantings, sewers, even utility relocations... I get the case for some public subsidy/involvement as they are (more or less) truly public. 

But let's not lump privately owned developments' parking garages in with legitimate "infrastructure".

For those who don’t have this Biz Journal:

Several members of the city of St. Louis' Tax Increment Financing Commission pushed back Wednesday on a request for more than $80 million in tax incentives for a 14-acre redevelopment between Saint Louis University's north and south campuses.

Peoria, Illinois-based Cullinan Properties, which is developing an 869,000-square-foot project with office, retail and multifamily components called Iron Hill, presented its proposal to the TIF Commission. The developer outlined a request for a $60.7 million TIF, a $10.3 million community improvement district (CID) and a $10.3 million transportation development district (TDD) for the $334.5 million project. The TDD would be used for the project's streets, which would be privately owned. The figures were revised from the proposal the developer had submitted to the board ahead of the meeting, in which Cullinan had requested a $63.8 million TIF and no TDD, according to city documents.


Cullinan officials said they believed Iron Hill's retail mix would be able to draw shoppers from the south and north side of Delmar Boulevard, a longtime divider between white and black city residents. They also said their project would spur further development and help with connectivity within Midtown. The developer currently has the 14 acres under contract from St. Louis Midtown Redevelopment Corp., a joint effort between SLU and SSM Health that has master developer rights for the area.

However, TIF Commission Vice Chair Phillip Klevorn and commission member Christina Bennett challenged Cullinan's request after learning the developer wants the entire $60.7 million TIF at the start of its multiphase project — expected to break ground spring 2021 — and that its CID and TDD request would push the sales tax in the area to 12%.


"You're talking (SLU's) north campus, not North City with a 12% sales tax," Bennett said. "I'm subsidizing middle class living."

She added, "Why should taxpayers take this on for (SLU and SSM) who don't pay taxes?" Bennett also took issue with the developer's uncertainty as to whether it could guarantee free parking for city residents at the garage, which would have 1,200-1,500 spots.

Rob Lochner, Cullinan's vice president of development, countered that the majority of the TIF will be used for infrastructure improvements, including adding a traffic signal at Grand Boulevard at the eastern entrance to Iron Hill that is "imperative" for Cullinan securing its undisclosed retail anchor. Those infrastructure improvements, Lochner said, would benefit the region, not just SLU or SSM.

Dale Ruthsatz, director of commercial development for St. Louis Development Corp., which oversees the commission, added that the CID and TDD lower the amount of TIF requested and that the TIF activation at the start of the project is similar to what was done at Cortex, the nearby tech district.

Ultimately, the TIF Commission overwhelming approved a motion to set a public hearing for Cullinan's project, at 8 a.m. on April 15, with Klevorn voting yes and Bennett voting no.


Meanwhile, Cullinan officials said the company will not be developing the hotel component of the project and is early in the process of selecting a developer for that. It's likely Cullinan will move forward with an extended stay hotel, or a hotel with that option, given Iron Hill's proximity to the new $550 million SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital, slated to open this fall.

Cullinan Properties brought a team of supporters to the meeting, having members of its design-build contractor, Clayco, speak in favor of the project as well as Brooks Goedeker, executive director of St. Louis Midtown Redevelopment Corp.

Cullinan also is the owner and developer behind The Streets of St. Charles, a 27-acre, $150 million complex that includes 500,000 square feet of retail space, as well as medical and office space.

Iron Hill team

Developer: Cullinan Properties
Design/build: Clayco and Lamar Johnson Collaborative
Legal: Richard Joseph of Miller, Halls & Triggs; Francis Slay, Robb Preston and Brad Cytron of Spencer Fane
Economic development consultant: Development Strategies
Engineer: Stock & Associates
Office leasing: Colliers' Rocky Stenger, Carrie Herrmann and Justin Moses
Retail leasing: Kathleen Brill and Patty Kueneke of Cullinan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can pay for their own damn parking garage. That puts us at roughly $43 mil in subsidies, an amount most can probably live with. Its still an ugly superblock that's pretending to be urban that needs to go back to the drawing board. 

We've been a slow growth metro for decades yet over that same time frame our suburbs have seen massive development and expansion. I just don't think the argument that we can't have this level of development in our central core and continue to be a slow growth metro holds water. It's certainly possible if we can stop the stupid westward expansion and it seems as if developers have taken notice and we are seeing the trend towards urban developments like Iron Hill. I think we'll see a lot of new residents in midtown but they may not be from out of town.

While we are tossing out opinions - St. Louis city needs to be competitive with its neighbors.  The Streets of St. Charles, The Boulevard.  This might not be what we want on that corner but it is something that is happening elsewhere and does show signs of success.  I would be happy to see someone wanting to invest in the corner and help bridge a dead zone between South Grand and North Grand.  Urban, dense development doesn't happen everywhere overnight.  It happens in stages, and this might be the first step 

I'm not here to characterize or judge anyone. I see all of your opinions and take them in different ways. Whether I agree with them or not is known by me only. However, the comments seen here are just all over the place at this point in time. Sure, the TIF request is a little high and it may (and most likely will) come down after some negotiating. Creating a deal is vital to getting this project done. I believe that a deal will be reached that TIF watchdogs can be happy with. Infrastructure is expensive. If the City had the money in an infrastructure fund to offset some of these costs, then developers wouldn't request so much assistance. A good chunk of development we are getting recently is building entirely new infrastructure or replacing aging and deteriorating infrastructure, so incentives are needed to offset the cost a bit. In an ideal world, the City would be proactive in this and would be working incredibly hard to make St. Louis "build-ready". If that were the case, incentive requests would be minimal and probably would be limited to tax abatements to narrow the gap I talked about earlier. It's just not possible though since we don't have the money due to a smaller tax base.

As for people who don't like the design elements of this project, I don't know what to tell you. There's a lot more to this than what is seen in the renderings or in the TIF application document. To be honest to everyone, the design of the buildings will change or be tweaked prior to the construction of Phase 1 and future phases, so the chances of getting better-looking buildings with higher quality materials are high. The parking garage serves a purpose both for this development and future things regarding this and elsewhere. It is not my responsibility to tell you all what those future things are. Let's just say they are important to the future of Midtown. I'll leave that portion at that.

Regarding the hotels, which haven't been mentioned here much, we could end up with a better hotel product than most of us think. Leaving it up to another developer could be a good thing for this project. SLU's MRC would have oversight and Cullinan has probably already set rules for how the hotel or hotels should be designed and set up. If we get two hotels (are a dual-brand) at this site, it will be a win since that means more hotel rooms and people to patronize (hopefully local) businesses that open up at Iron Hill.

Regarding office space, it's interesting to note that the TIF document mentions the Block 400 office building being a little different than we know it already as. It will be 2 floors of office and 2 floors of retail space. 2 floors of retail space could mean an anchor or two in that one building. That opens the door to something truly great. The reduced office space in this building is also a win since it means that Block 400 could rise sooner rather than later. Less office space to rent out means a faster timeframe to get the thing built. 

I do want to mention retail tenants. Based on what I know, we could hear some news regarding exciting tenants planning to open up here or have made leases. I haven't been told who they are, but I have been told that they'll make this development a centerpiece in the Midtown revitalization and will attract people from all over. Take that however you want, but it's nice to hear that we could be getting some unique stores or restaurants to open here. I'm still hoping for a City Target. Truly a prime location with the two major nearby interstates, the SLU medical campus, SLU itself, the changing Gate District neighborhood, the evergrowing "Grove" neighborhood, and easy access to the MetroLink (which allows students at WashU, BJC, and the residents of areas along the Metro line to come and visit this development).

To end this post, I do want to make it clear that I do not support the widening of Grand and Chouteau. As I said in an earlier post, they're wide enough. Just repave them and restripe them to meet the needs requested. With a hopeful future of a streetwall on either side of Grand, it's important to not make these streets more of a traffic mess than they are. 

I just think they can develop it in chunks by not a sweeping 'district' type developer.  Let it happen organically, subsidize it in chunks as necessary, but as minimally as possible as the market realizes the potential of the area and let innovation take hold, if there is indeed market demand.  Tired of district-by-district developments.  They just seem to take bites at other ones.  Sell off one or two parcels for apartment anchors and see if others bite.  That would, in my estimation, be a solid indicator of success for other developers.  Just playing devil's advocate.  Of course this is a grassy lot on a prominent corner, but they've had plenty of opportunities to sell the land for a long time now, at a profit, as a tax free institution.  One apartment project would cement some momentum here instead of a bunch of meandering, somewhat directionless and odd infill sizes and lackluster inspiration just to fill a big hole in development.

^ here here. I would love if they added through streets to make the lot a bit more manageable and then let smaller development happen organically. 

To me one of the worst elements of developments in STL is that, too often, the leaders and residents roll with the POV that something is better than nothing, then hand out tax subsidies like candy and mostly accept whatever the developer offers as a site plan.  (yes, I'm generalizing and being dramatic to make a point)

The folks in this forum almost always desire, if not fight for, more urban developments but I can assure you that we are in the minority.

As a point of comparison, I offer the Field Food development in Lafayette Square. Like Iron Hill, that plot was a grassy nothing for years. I drive by it daily and it drives me nuts. I'm almost OCD about it.  It's a suburban-style development among thriving, dense, urban neighborhoods.   When I wrote the Alderwoman when it was announced, I begged for a more urban-friendly site plan, pointing out how many people in the area WALK places.  I was basically told that the sea of parking makes it ready for future development. "Don't worry citizen, if this development succeeds, other business will build atop the parking lot make it more dense like you desire."  Years, later, nothing. The Tim Hortons is out of business and 75% of the plot it simply unused.  I just don't see it ever being used.  Worse, while I know that the FF/Walgreen development got loads of tax subsidies, I have no idea how many as it's intentionally opaque. When i ask the new alderperson about the tax subsidy and when the CID will be retired, crickets.  I suspect he doesn't even know.

So, bringing it back to Iron Hill - this truly is an incredible opportunity to build in a wonderful area BUT we need to fight for a better urban design and fewer tax subsidies.  We can't trust our leaders to do that for us.  Whatever is built here will be there for a long long time....let's not mess it up.

Yeah, we can be a picky lot around here. We're all like-minded and want to develop a better, more active city. Some of us may have different ideas about how to achieve that, but in the end, we all want the same basic thing. And yes, this is the place for exchanging ideas. 

That being said, this is a dense, mixed-use project on a major corner. It's contemporary design. It will add to the critical mass of the Central Corridor, and help anchor the revitalization of a previously overlooked area (The Mill Creek Valley and Chouteau Corridor). These are goods things. 

Bottom line is, we're all entitled to express our opinions, and hopefully we can steer the powers-that-be in a smarter direction.  But until it's our own money on the line, our online ranting counts for little. The professional bankers, investors, and developers who actually do this for a living undoubtedly know better than we do what it takes to make a successful project. 

I'd agree with that a strategy to develop the site in a more phased/piecemeal method is a viable alternative when the ask is so exorbitant. Considering a parking garage that effectively serves solely this development a form of "infrastructure" that needs to be subsidized should be rejected full stop. If the sales pitch is that it will have long term, yet-to-be-unveiled benefits down the road, then they should outline what those are. The other elements are at least ones you could effectively argue considering the challenges at that site.

Just my opinion, but I don't see how a Streets of St. Charles lifestyle concept works in an area like this. It's a regional draw in St. Charles because there is nothing else that replicates the urban environment, but the polar opposite is true here. Within spitting distance you have the Grove, CWE, soon to be Foundry, Midtown, Lafayette Sq.etc.

I'm not embedded in the office/hotel world, but speaking from a retail standpoint, they may land a few names out of the gate (and I'd be certain they and Foundry are chasing the same type of chain users) but long term I think it will be a major struggle to keep the 100,000sf they are proposing leased up. Bringing shoppers in from north of Delmar is pretty pie-in-the-sky.  City Target is even more of a fantasy. The retail spots in the back buildings with no clear visibility to either road will be very tough to keep full after the first generation tenants turn over and expecting to attract numerous 5,000sf+ restaurants when those are becoming more and more rare is wildly optimistic.

I think a decent comp is the Highlands/Cortana area at the old Arena site. It's been a solid standalone project from a residential and office side. Retail along Oakland has been spotty, but if they had built retail on the interior it would be vacant today because there is zero ancillary traffic that interacts with the development. Even the restaurant under the hotel has flipped multiple times.

jbacott wrote: ↑

Feb 13, 2020

Just my opinion, but I don't see how a Streets of St. Charles lifestyle concept works in an area like this. It's a regional draw in St. Charles because there is nothing else that replicates the urban environment, but the polar opposite is true here. Within spitting distance you have the Grove, CWE, soon to be Foundry, Midtown, Lafayette Sq.etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't think people visit the Streets of St. Charles (or any place) simply to experience an urban environment. They go there for the businesses that are there. If the development didn't exist and all of those businesses were scattered elsewhere within a few miles in some random stripmalls, people would still visit them. The success of Iron Hill depends on the shops and restaurants that will eventually fill the spaces.

Now, in response to the numerous complaints about this project. In terms of parking, I say... the more the merrier. The vast majority of people in this car-centric region aren't going to visit a place if there isn't reasonable parking, especially if they can go somwhere else to find an identical or comparable business WITH parking. For instance, if a typical St. Louisan lives equally between Shake Shack in the CWE and the future Shake Shack in Ladue, they're going to choose the Ladue location because a stripmall will have better parking and they couldn't care less about the "urban environment" that you get when you visit Shake Shack in the CWE.

This is just a sad reality that urbanists in St. Louis have to accept. We can't expect people to abandon their cars, hop on the train, get off at the Grand station, and walk to Iron Hill. St. Louis will continue to be car-centric because its current light-rail system is only two lines and a big chunk of it goes through farmland in Illinois. If we had a system like New York, Chicago, or DC, then the proposed parking for Iron Hill would be a fraction of what it is.

All in all, I look forward to seeing this thing get built, even if the NIMBYs in this forum disagree.

I don't get why the entire site has to be built out all at once. Just build the apartments and maybe the main retail anchor and see how it does before committing to a bunch more retail and office space. And for God's sake, build it on a rectilinear street grid.