Only thing worse then the argument the mls group is making is when people draw blocks on someone else’s land and say why didn’t they do it here.....because maybe MoDOT wants more for the interchange land? Maybe union station won’t sell their parking lot?wabash wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020If only there were other, even larger empty spaces close to the stadium with easy highway access that could accommodate such a garage with no demolition required. Like two on land controlled by the team or one that is under 100 yards from the stadium's main entrance and could also serve a hotel, aquarium and emerging entertainment district that could free up space under the train shed for additional outdoor attractions/dining.... in the post-coved era. But I guess that'd be asking too much and/or would make too much sense.
- 9,561
We get it. It's the same as the 300 tower. But who knows what/if they've even pursued other more common sense placement strategies and instead went for the lowest hanging fruit. That's the frustrating part.
I'd been wondering if pissing off their target market (given their marketing) was a bad idea, but I guess they aren't.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020^ the only thing they care about is potential loss of revenue due to bad publicity. given that most of their fans are suburbanites who couldn't care less about these buildings, i also doubt they give a sh*t about the signatures.
And why exactly would MoDOT insist on the land - much of which has already been handed to the MLS group to accommodate surface lots - being empty green space and how is that preferable to demolishing historic structures 1/4 mile further into the DT core?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020Only thing worse then the argument the mls group is making is when people draw blocks on someone else’s land and say why didn’t they do it here.....because maybe MoDOT wants more for the interchange land? Maybe union station won’t sell their parking lot?wabash wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020If only there were other, even larger empty spaces close to the stadium with easy highway access that could accommodate such a garage with no demolition required. Like two on land controlled by the team or one that is under 100 yards from the stadium's main entrance and could also serve a hotel, aquarium and emerging entertainment district that could free up space under the train shed for additional outdoor attractions/dining.... in the post-coved era. But I guess that'd be asking too much and/or would make too much sense.
What kind of dialogue has the MLS group had concerning partnering on a garage along 20th Street? Seems like there's a lot of synergy and opportunity there. DB, if you had to guess, how do you think Lodging Hospitality is doing right now? Would you say post-covid that they're in a position to not entertain $5+ million cash offers to partner on new infrastructure that could better serve their interests?
Maybe better to just default to demolition than to find creative solutions though?
If this surface lot is intended to replace the parking spaces on the stadium site, then it doesn't matter how many are actually being used. The owner of 1831 Chestnut is contractually obligated to provide X number of proximate parking spaces to their tenants. If they can't, they are potentially breaking the lease and/or could be liable for damages, or at the very least have to discount the rent, depending on how the lease was written, of course.quincunx wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020Aren't a good fraction of BCBS employees working from home? Whatever excuse works, I guess.
So youcre beholden to your leasee even if your property get eminent domained? Or is it that the team buys the lot for the stadium and they're stuck with the lease terms?
Has anyone seen any confirmation that the team owners still plan on any below-grade parking under the training fields? The only parking I have seen mentioned lately is parking for team players and officials, but those comments are always pretty vague. I suspect they are just referring to spaces under the team HQ building and/or under the stadium plaza, and the fields themselves will be built on fill, but I haven't seen any evidence either way...
I don't know the specifics of the city's ED ordinance, but eminent domain laws generally require (and the Missouri constitution specifically requires) that the property owner receive "just compensation". That includes fair market value for the "highest and best use" of the property, and consequential damages for owners or tenants. Those would be determined through arbitration or the courts if no agreement between the parties is reached.quincunx wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020So youcre beholden to your leasee even if your property get eminent domained? Or is it that the team buys the lot for the stadium and they're stuck with the lease terms?
- 9,561
First Q -Yesquincunx wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020So youcre beholden to your leasee even if your property get eminent domained? Or is it that the team buys the lot for the stadium and they're stuck with the lease terms?
Second Q- no
^^And to clarify, eminent domain damages could include everything from reduced value of the remaining property, business losses for owners and tenants, to any expenses related to relocation and reestablishment of any portion of said businesses. Total compensation is determined by a board of commissioners appointed by the judge, but either party can request a jury trial, and the jury is not bound by, or even informed of, the commissioners' decision.
The property can not be disturbed until all of the parties reach an agreement, or this process is completed, and the owner and tenants have received the full amount of the determined, or awarded, compensation.
Any of the above could apply to this situation. The result is uncertain when juries are involved, and the process could drag out while racking up legal expenses, so you can see why the team owners would be willing to pay a substantial premium for the 19xx Olive block.
The property can not be disturbed until all of the parties reach an agreement, or this process is completed, and the owner and tenants have received the full amount of the determined, or awarded, compensation.
Any of the above could apply to this situation. The result is uncertain when juries are involved, and the process could drag out while racking up legal expenses, so you can see why the team owners would be willing to pay a substantial premium for the 19xx Olive block.
- 210
Would it help to write a story on how this demo went down? Process wise, and who pulls the strings and who rubber stamps it? Seems like this could be an ongoing thing with the MLS stadium construction, more speculators looking for surface parking. It would be good to summarize exactly who was involved in this case and how it happens. Anyone here in the know want to work on pulling something together for NextSTL or my website or anywhere else to beat the drum? PM me if interested.
TKFC already owns most of those two yellow blocks at the bottom of the image.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020Only thing worse then the argument the mls group is making is when people draw blocks on someone else’s land and say why didn’t they do it here.....because maybe MoDOT wants more for the interchange land? Maybe union station won’t sell their parking lot?wabash wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2020If only there were other, even larger empty spaces close to the stadium with easy highway access that could accommodate such a garage with no demolition required. Like two on land controlled by the team or one that is under 100 yards from the stadium's main entrance and could also serve a hotel, aquarium and emerging entertainment district that could free up space under the train shed for additional outdoor attractions/dining.... in the post-coved era. But I guess that'd be asking too much and/or would make too much sense.
We're on a one-block per year pace for protected bike lanes.quincunx wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2020What a nice enhancement for the parking lot next to 20th
20200914_175033.jpg
Hope it's cool to take our motorized wheelchairs in them in whatever year we have something resembling a network of good bike lanes.
^ The full Jefferson/20th cycle-track is funded. Running from Chouteau to St. Louis Avenue with a connection to NGA on N. Market I believe.
Not sure where the idea came from that they’re only going to build one block a year...or maybe that was just a bad joke. But between this, the funded Tower Grove/Vandy track, the coming track on the new Compton viaduct, a potential track on Tucker, and future Brickline connections...I’d say the future looks a lot better now. It’s not gonna happen overnight though.
Not sure where the idea came from that they’re only going to build one block a year...or maybe that was just a bad joke. But between this, the funded Tower Grove/Vandy track, the coming track on the new Compton viaduct, a potential track on Tucker, and future Brickline connections...I’d say the future looks a lot better now. It’s not gonna happen overnight though.
From this tweet, it only indicates a cycle track for three blocks (20th from Market to Olive). It continues beyond that?
^ That’s just a typical cross section. See the light blue line on his first map that runs from Market to St. Louis Ave. The other section will be built in conjunction with the MLS and MoDot improvements south from Market along (I think) 21st under the new interchange, connecting to the Jefferson viaduct and ending at the Chouteau bike lane.
I think the structures getting razed is done deal one way or another, maybe not this year but the group can easily put on hold for a good year or two year and with minimal effort to maintain as is
I believe it has nothing to do with parking because at the end of the day the ownership group is looking over a couple decades or more and probably has visions of a Soccer Village on par with BPV & you are simply not going to much of return on investment or interest from capital markets for that matter with existing structures as you would with a clean slate. At some point the powers to be will go along because BPV generated investment in terms of hundreds of millions and will buy into the same here. Simple cold hearted development based on long term return, nothing more, nothing less. Will it be a win in long term? maybe but in near term not.
I believe it has nothing to do with parking because at the end of the day the ownership group is looking over a couple decades or more and probably has visions of a Soccer Village on par with BPV & you are simply not going to much of return on investment or interest from capital markets for that matter with existing structures as you would with a clean slate. At some point the powers to be will go along because BPV generated investment in terms of hundreds of millions and will buy into the same here. Simple cold hearted development based on long term return, nothing more, nothing less. Will it be a win in long term? maybe but in near term not.
DB, does this language not indicate that their plan is for structured parking?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 10, 2020Here is the letter. Surface parking it is.
- Master Redevelopment Agreement anticipates establishment of a Transportation Development District (TDD) for multiple transportation purposes, including structured parking [ul]
- TDD petition field in June, 2020 includes City Block 901 within TDD geography
- Applicant indicates intent to pursue construction of mixed-use parking structure in City Block 901