^Then again, the issue is not correlated to urban integration design but about geographic locations of developments. City Hall could always add conditions regarding urban integration design going forward. But, the issue here is the current use of economic development incentives in the central corridor, and whether or not City Foundry had the most positive design considerations, the issue at hand remains.
I bet they reduce incentives by 5 to 10 percentage points and commit 10-25% of residential units to 70% AMI households. She’s catching projects before they go out the door and hoping to get a better deal. She’ll get it. Congrats to St. Louis.
If our economic situation is as strong as some of us like to bolster then it’s time the city ask for the upfront fiscal benefits vs. theorized trickle down neighborhood development.
P.S. Some need to give up on this hypothetical “she’s only serving Twitter” narrative. There are MAYBE a handful of people consistently discussing incentive use on Twitter. There are however thousands of families watching the school system struggle to fund itself.
If our economic situation is as strong as some of us like to bolster then it’s time the city ask for the upfront fiscal benefits vs. theorized trickle down neighborhood development.
P.S. Some need to give up on this hypothetical “she’s only serving Twitter” narrative. There are MAYBE a handful of people consistently discussing incentive use on Twitter. There are however thousands of families watching the school system struggle to fund itself.
That is my point. Tax incentives should correlate with urban integration. Since the current process of economic incentives allowed a hulk of bland concrete along what should have been prime frontage on forest park avenue and a garage anus pointing at the new investments across the street, the conversation needs to evolve.gone corporate wrote: ↑May 20, 2021^Then again, the issue is not correlated to urban integration design but about geographic locations of developments. City Hall could always add conditions regarding urban integration design going forward. But, the issue here is the current use of economic development incentives in the central corridor, and whether or not City Foundry had the most positive design considerations, the issue at hand remains.
I hope City Hall does add conditions. Tax incentives should come with an in-depth assessment of impact on the pedestrian realm along project boundaries (among other things).
I agree on the pitchforks comment. I have no intention of running the new mayor out before she's even gotten a breath in her lungs development wise. It's been a little over a month since inauguration, ya know?
Urban integration.. we have no form based code, or any sort of real urban plan going forward. Well, other than the studies and fancy presentations thrown around that might be 25% implemented in the next decade. And a really soft 'abatement recommendation map'. Though, at this point, at least on a few projects in the central corridor, it seems it's being regarded
Urban integration.. we have no form based code, or any sort of real urban plan going forward. Well, other than the studies and fancy presentations thrown around that might be 25% implemented in the next decade. And a really soft 'abatement recommendation map'. Though, at this point, at least on a few projects in the central corridor, it seems it's being regarded
I think most people are ignoring or conveniently forgetting when it came to the Foundry development is that their couldn't be a structure blocking the view of the Foundry itself for a minimum of five years if not mistaken. Heck, most of already forgotten the Target big box strip mall proposal with its back to FPP.
I believe the more success the Foundry development sees/gets developed from Phase II residential tower to the office component to the CORTEX East space the more likely the garage itself will go away in the future. As most noted, its a prime spot. Instead I would argue when it comes to Foundry and Armory that Mayor Jones primary focus should be about getting or using Fed funds to redevelop FPP & Grand as an at grade intersection & extend Greenway trail from trestle to I64 crossing to Grand metrolink station as well as landing jobs in CORTEX. Mayor should not squeeze too hard as between Foundry and Armory the next phases add a significant residential component in area that can very walkable, bike, transit friendly in a jobs rich area if the city can leverage federal funds for the right infrastructure investments.
I believe the more success the Foundry development sees/gets developed from Phase II residential tower to the office component to the CORTEX East space the more likely the garage itself will go away in the future. As most noted, its a prime spot. Instead I would argue when it comes to Foundry and Armory that Mayor Jones primary focus should be about getting or using Fed funds to redevelop FPP & Grand as an at grade intersection & extend Greenway trail from trestle to I64 crossing to Grand metrolink station as well as landing jobs in CORTEX. Mayor should not squeeze too hard as between Foundry and Armory the next phases add a significant residential component in area that can very walkable, bike, transit friendly in a jobs rich area if the city can leverage federal funds for the right infrastructure investments.
I'm not a Jones supporter, and I disagree with her on many issues (County resident, no vote). But I respect the fact that she was fairly elected, on a plainly stated platform, and that the majority of City residents want to try new ways of doing things. So be it. Let's give her a chance, see how things work out, and review things in four years.
I was also skeptical of Wesley Bell when he took over as County Prosecutor, but I've been pleased with his performance so far.
I was also skeptical of Wesley Bell when he took over as County Prosecutor, but I've been pleased with his performance so far.
Stltoday - New alderman, St. Louis Mayor Jones push for City Foundry contribution to north city redevelopment
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 3f4bb.htmlPihl wants the City Foundry developer to redirect about 10% of the $17 million in tax increment financing incentives allocated for the second phase of the Midtown development, according to people familiar with the matter.
^
City Foundry developer Steve Smith declined to discuss specific dollar amounts involved in the negotiations but confirmed he was working with Pihl and the Jones administration to find a way to use the strength of the central corridor to “jump-start” development in areas such as north city, a philosophy he said he agrees with.
There’s not currently a model for doing that in St. Louis, he said, but he is “confident that we’re going to get to an exciting pilot program” and that he and the city soon would be able to share more details.
“We have a common and agreed-upon goal, and all the debate is how we get there,” Smith said in an interview. “We are 100% committed to the city of St. Louis. The aspirations of the new administration, we are supportive of.”
There are some good comments, but much of the discussion re: tax incentives on the last couple pages could go here. Just saying...
Nobody is forgetting that. The issues are that they went ahead and built a structure which blocks the view of the Foundry anyway. But then, instead of something which is inviting, pulls people in (and out), and begins to bring activity to the desolate Forest Park Ave. streetscape, they threw up something that's not only dismissive of good urban design, but for which the effect, and seemingly the intent, is to actively, and permanently, discourage a pedestrian-oriented, active streetscape. What is most irritating, for some of us, is that they did this quite deliberately, and not because of any mandate from the NPS or anyone else, but yet that latter narrative persists, and is encouraged.dredger wrote: ↑May 20, 2021I think most people are ignoring or conveniently forgetting when it came to the Foundry development is that their couldn't be a structure blocking the view of the Foundry itself for a minimum of five years if not mistaken. Heck, most of already forgotten the Target big box strip mall proposal with its back to FPP.
That parking garage cost the developer nearly $20 million. It provides a base for the main entrance to the Fresh Thyme grocery store and the office space below it, as well as the second floor of the Alamo Drafthouse. It supports the walkway which will ostensibly someday connect to the rail trestle/greenway. It provides directly-adjacent covered parking for the main anchor tenant (Alamo), and is directly connected through a driveway, and possibly additional parking, under their building.dredger wrote: ↑May 20, 2021I believe the more success the Foundry development sees/gets developed from Phase II residential tower to the office component to the CORTEX East space the more likely the garage itself will go away in the future. As most noted, its a prime spot.
The parking garage is not going away. It is as permanent as any parking garage can be.
^ exactly. Once you build a parking garage in this town it stands till the day it crumbles. Case in point, the only part of forest park hospital complex that was saved was ...... the garage 
I'll give it to Alderwoman Pihl, her pushing for the 10% of the TIF to go to stuff on the Northside is beneficial. It's remaining squarely pro-development, but also pro-community and pro-Northside. I hope this succeeds and if this is what needs to be done to keep tax incentives being issued in the "hot" parts of the Central Corridor, go for it. I just really disliked the "veto this tax abatement/incentive because it's in the Central Corridor" mindset coming out of Tishaura's office. It seemed and seems very trivial to kick off your first term by sending what seemed a message of, "greedy developers are to blame for the City's financial burden and continued exodus and disinvestment" while ignoring the fact that population loss, red lining, and questionable policies have taken it's toll on this City far more than any developer has.
What Tina Pihl is doing is exactly what should be done and I'm glad to see that she is pushing it and Tishaura is "following the leader" in that. Still though, my concerns remain over the message that Tishaura's actions have sent to prospective developers already. It's early in her term. I get that. But even though some of you see these as a small bump in the road in the greater scheme of things, it has consequences that many don't yet realize or see.
It's taking a new Alderwoman to take an honest and level headed approach to incentive reform to benefit the Northside as well as keep development rolling in the Central Corridor. If this keeps up, I know for sure that developers will be willing to work with something like this, but just up to a point. I assume that the same thing will attempt to be done at Cortex K, and that's ok. For tax abatements, I think that there's room to change some things and I made my thoughts clear on that (the risk-merit system).
So I applaud Tina Pihl for taking the lead here and I appreciate Steve Smith's willingness to work with it. As for Tishaura, we'll see. I dislike her (if you can't tell that by now) and she has a lot to prove before I even consider giving her props for anything. The consequences from her actions will be felt after the first year that she's in office.
What Tina Pihl is doing is exactly what should be done and I'm glad to see that she is pushing it and Tishaura is "following the leader" in that. Still though, my concerns remain over the message that Tishaura's actions have sent to prospective developers already. It's early in her term. I get that. But even though some of you see these as a small bump in the road in the greater scheme of things, it has consequences that many don't yet realize or see.
It's taking a new Alderwoman to take an honest and level headed approach to incentive reform to benefit the Northside as well as keep development rolling in the Central Corridor. If this keeps up, I know for sure that developers will be willing to work with something like this, but just up to a point. I assume that the same thing will attempt to be done at Cortex K, and that's ok. For tax abatements, I think that there's room to change some things and I made my thoughts clear on that (the risk-merit system).
So I applaud Tina Pihl for taking the lead here and I appreciate Steve Smith's willingness to work with it. As for Tishaura, we'll see. I dislike her (if you can't tell that by now) and she has a lot to prove before I even consider giving her props for anything. The consequences from her actions will be felt after the first year that she's in office.
The school system is struggling thanks to the exodus of over 550,000+ from the City limits in a 70 year timespan. 550,000+ people, with many of those being children and people with families, that once contributed to the tax base and filled the schools. Blame incentive usage for the struggling school system (as that's the current narrative) if you'd like, but I'm sticking with my belief that population loss and reduced tax revenue as a result has caused far more of a burden on the school system than anything else.addxb2 wrote: ↑May 20, 2021P.S. Some need to give up on this hypothetical “she’s only serving Twitter” narrative. There are MAYBE a handful of people consistently discussing incentive use on Twitter. There are however thousands of families watching the school system struggle to fund itself.
^ it does not have to be one or the other. Most issues like these are complex. Yes the desegregation-motivated exodus impacted many things including schools but the deep hole left behind will certainly not be helped by diverting future tax dollars away from them.
You attribute the potentially positive outcome to Tina Pihl but would this have happened at all had TJ not sparked the dialogue in the first place? Maybe this is a collaborative move between the two?
Challenging the status quo is never easy or pleasant and only those who lead with conviction are able to sustain it.
Your frustration with the political rhetoric aside, you’ve got to admit this is a better result for the city than before.
You attribute the potentially positive outcome to Tina Pihl but would this have happened at all had TJ not sparked the dialogue in the first place? Maybe this is a collaborative move between the two?
Challenging the status quo is never easy or pleasant and only those who lead with conviction are able to sustain it.
Your frustration with the political rhetoric aside, you’ve got to admit this is a better result for the city than before.
Keep in mind if the TIF amount is the same, that's still future revenue being diverted from the school district, etc. If the funds go to present needs with enough ROI, it could be worth it. Affordable housing, lead abatement, Prop NS, etc?
In the case of the U City TIF the TIF amount was inflated in order to provide funds for the 3rd Ward now. Might we see that in future TIFs? A developer figures they need X, and there's room within the 23 years max to pay off the bonds with the incremental revenue, then tack on some more to help out other areas of the city. But you're diverting tax revenues in those last few tears to spend today.
In the case of the U City TIF the TIF amount was inflated in order to provide funds for the 3rd Ward now. Might we see that in future TIFs? A developer figures they need X, and there's room within the 23 years max to pay off the bonds with the incremental revenue, then tack on some more to help out other areas of the city. But you're diverting tax revenues in those last few tears to spend today.
I think that incentive reform would've started to happen regardless of the outcome of the previous election. Both Tishaura and Cara were open to it. If either were elected, in the case that Tishaura was, the Mayor's office would push for a different usage of incentives. If the Board of Aldermen didn't flip to a Progressive Majority, then the Mayor's office would've pursued incentive reform. But with the BOA flipping to the Progressive side, and a Mayor who's on the same side, you have a more equal mindset between the two to help get reform done quicker.imran wrote: ↑May 22, 2021^ it does not have to be one or the other. Most issues like these are complex. Yes the desegregation-motivated exodus impacted many things including schools but the deep hole left behind will certainly not be helped by diverting future tax dollars away from them.
You attribute the potentially positive outcome to Tina Pihl but would this have happened at all had TJ not sparked the dialogue in the first place? Maybe this is a collaborative move between the two?
Challenging the status quo is never easy or pleasant and only those who lead with conviction are able to sustain it.
Your frustration with the political rhetoric aside, you’ve got to admit this is a better result for the city than before.
I attribute this potentially positive outcome to Tina Pihl since it's the first instance I've seen that shows what a reasonable incentive reform looks like. It's not big and brash like the veto of the Jesuit Hall project, and it has the developer on board since he agrees with what's going on here. In my view, Tina is the first of the newly elected leaders to prevent a model that can keep development flowing and benefit under-invested neighborhoods. Looking at Tishaura's website, she talks about how she would push for incentive reform, but her ideas are vague and nothing is really explained how it would be done. She has good intentions, but a firm plan of how she would reform incentives would've been nice instead of waltzing into the mayors office and doing what she has done so far. We need a Tina Pihl approach more often than the Tishaura approach we've seen so far.
And, the Mayor can be involved in some discussions about incentives with the developers, but I'd personally leave that job to the Aldermen and SLDC. I don't recall Mayor Krewson or Slay being involved in the incentive process for projects. It just seems like an unnecessary third step in the incentive approval process when the responsibility and job of this should fall on the SLDC and Aldermen.
It's a better result thanks to a number of factors. Tishaura is a small piece of the puzzle at this point. I could see a firm incentive reform plan coming as a result of collaboration among the aldermen, developers, community/neighborhood leaders, and the Mayor's office. Find a solution that works for the benefit of everyone but keeps a pro-development mindset.
Affordable housing mandates in exchange for incentives can be looked at, but the move KC made on that front pissed developers off and led to a last minute rush for applying for incentives before the cutoff date. Now there could be a slowdown of projects there or the introduction off projects that don't seek incentives to get around the affordable housing component. I think in St. Louis, a balance could be struck between the two so developers don't have to fear over one or the other. But I'd be welcome to the idea of requiring affordable housing units in exchange for incentives since it makes sense in some neighborhoods.quincunx wrote: ↑May 22, 2021Keep in mind if the TIF amount is the same, that's still future revenue being diverted from the school district, etc. If the funds go to present needs with enough ROI, it could be worth it. Affordable housing, lead abatement, Prop NS, etc?
In the case of the U City TIF the TIF amount was inflated in order to provide funds for the 3rd Ward now. Might we see that in future TIFs? A developer figures they need X, and there's room within the 23 years max to pay off the bonds with the incremental revenue, then tack on some more to help out other areas of the city. But you're diverting tax revenues in those last few tears to spend today.
I can see the point being made by you that if the $17 Million TIF was spent on affordable housing, lead abatement, Prop NS and other things it could be worth it, but not on private projects such as this (Foundry) or Cortex K. I don't disagree there. To me, and I've put this out there on this Forum recently, I think TIF should be limited for private real estate projects to only cover the public infrastructure improvement costs (so leave out the subsidized garages and focus on sidewalks, sewers, water lines, electrical lines, and street trees/greenery).
The U-City TIF is on another level of wack in my mind since it pushes businesses and people out for parking lots and a Costco. IIRC, it's a majority minority owned business and resident area, so land clearance of the minorities like we've seen so often in St. Louis over the years, just in 21st Century form.
To be clear I meant what the 10%, $1.7M might be spent on. We shouldn't lose sight that the $1.7M is being diverted from future tax revenues that would go to schools, city, etc, which has been a top criticism of incentives. So that needs to be weighed against what it's spent on. Like adding to the affordable housing fund, lead abatement, Prop NS, etc, and/or, infrastructure needs like streets, sidewalks, lights, etc, or cleaning up type things like dumping, LRA lawnmowing, forestry, etc in struggling neighborhoods.
Affordable units within an incentivized development is another tact that could be pursued of course.
Affordable units within an incentivized development is another tact that could be pursued of course.
- 2,430
I love the way Mayor Jones is starting her administration out on subsidy reform. 10 out of 10. There's been a lot of talk on creating a more equitable development regime but this is the first time I think we can say there is some confidence in seeing real action and execution, These are exciting times and absent a sharp national downturn things look bright for Saint Louis.
- 289
Totally agree. If this happens on all Central Corridor development and the City builds up a North City fund, they need to have a good plan and documented strategy for how it will be deployed. I don’t want to see those $ haphazardly sent around Northside without any plan. They need to do things like leveraging $ from Prop NS and other existing northside plans like this new North Central Corridor plan to build up whole neighborhoods at a time. I don’t want them spending $ to renovate the one house still standing on an otherwise bulldozed block for example.quincunx wrote: ↑May 22, 2021To be clear I meant what the 10%, $1.7M might be spent on. We shouldn't lose sight that the $1.7M is being diverted from future tax revenues that would go to schools, city, etc, which has been a top criticism of incentives. So that needs to be weighed against what it's spent on. Like adding to the affordable housing fund, lead abatement, Prop NS, etc, and/or, infrastructure needs like streets, sidewalks, lights, etc, or cleaning up type things like dumping, LRA lawnmowing, forestry, etc in struggling neighborhoods.
Affordable units within an incentivized development is another tact that could be pursued of course.
- 2,929
This is a very smart move to set a new standard for attracting funding to economically unviable parts of STL. The line is that the amount of monies to be dedicated to something else, someplace else, is that it has to not be too deep a cut that it torpedoes a project like City Foundry.
So far, Mayor Jones looks like she's playing chess. She's already taken down funding for two other developments, the Jesuit Hall apartment conversion and that smaller Janssen project. But, Janssen's not going anywhere whether that one project got fully funded or not, and the Jesuit Hall second phase wasn't necessarily guaranteed while being proffered by a relatively smaller, newer developer. Here, she's dealing with City Foundry; she's dealing with Lawrence Group, New + Found, and Steve Smith. This group is dedicated towards the long-term economic revitalization of the City and move in similar circles as the Mayor, all while Smith's combined resources / scale as an established developer can readily fund new stuff in economically unviable STL. I'm not sure she could do this with just any developers; it has to be Smith to cooperate with her to get such a thing done. Plus, with Alderwoman Pihl (my alderwoman) doing the ask, with City Hall subsequently giving Pihl's actions its full support, it shows a multi-faceted new approach to doing real estate development in the City, one that positions partially funding economic revitalization in the grimier underbelly as the price to pay for getting something big and shiny done in the Central Corridor, and one that Mayor Jones' office seems to oversee while it is being conducted by the progressive progeny in the BofA.
I'm still keeping my eyes firmly open on this deal. But, it's less out of fear that City Foundry Phase Two will get torpedoed, and instead to see if Mayor Jones can really get developers to commit to funding development in economically unviable parts of STL. If she can get done a 10/1 split, where every $10 in subsidy directly correlates to the developer supporting $1 towards lesser real estate developments, then that'd be a game changer. And, I think it could be greater than 10/1, although that in itself would be something to cheer.
So far, Mayor Jones looks like she's playing chess. She's already taken down funding for two other developments, the Jesuit Hall apartment conversion and that smaller Janssen project. But, Janssen's not going anywhere whether that one project got fully funded or not, and the Jesuit Hall second phase wasn't necessarily guaranteed while being proffered by a relatively smaller, newer developer. Here, she's dealing with City Foundry; she's dealing with Lawrence Group, New + Found, and Steve Smith. This group is dedicated towards the long-term economic revitalization of the City and move in similar circles as the Mayor, all while Smith's combined resources / scale as an established developer can readily fund new stuff in economically unviable STL. I'm not sure she could do this with just any developers; it has to be Smith to cooperate with her to get such a thing done. Plus, with Alderwoman Pihl (my alderwoman) doing the ask, with City Hall subsequently giving Pihl's actions its full support, it shows a multi-faceted new approach to doing real estate development in the City, one that positions partially funding economic revitalization in the grimier underbelly as the price to pay for getting something big and shiny done in the Central Corridor, and one that Mayor Jones' office seems to oversee while it is being conducted by the progressive progeny in the BofA.
I'm still keeping my eyes firmly open on this deal. But, it's less out of fear that City Foundry Phase Two will get torpedoed, and instead to see if Mayor Jones can really get developers to commit to funding development in economically unviable parts of STL. If she can get done a 10/1 split, where every $10 in subsidy directly correlates to the developer supporting $1 towards lesser real estate developments, then that'd be a game changer. And, I think it could be greater than 10/1, although that in itself would be something to cheer.
Deal on City Foundry subsidies imminent after Jones pushed for north city investment
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... u5F_NirOeM
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... u5F_NirOeM
Steve Smith, CEO of New + Found, said in an email Thursday that the talks have been "positive and constructive."
He and a spokesman for Jones, Nick Dunne, said they'd have more to share on a deal, as early as next week.
Dunne did not provide specific details of the discussions, but confirmed that they included redirecting some investment into north city.
"We're in the final stages of an agreement," Dunne said.
- 6,123
^Glad to hear talks are progressing in a constructive and hopefully polite manner. This might well be a winner for all of us.
Positive news to hear the developer and city are close to a new agreement.sc4mayor wrote: ↑May 27, 2021Deal on City Foundry subsidies imminent after Jones pushed for north city investment
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... u5F_NirOeMSteve Smith, CEO of New + Found, said in an email Thursday that the talks have been "positive and constructive."
He and a spokesman for Jones, Nick Dunne, said they'd have more to share on a deal, as early as next week.
Dunne did not provide specific details of the discussions, but confirmed that they included redirecting some investment into north city.
"We're in the final stages of an agreement," Dunne said.
If Jones can find ways to get these jobs still done in their original scope and size, AND the City gives out less incentives / gets a better deal for schools and/or future developments, it's a major win for all involved.
TIFs and other funding totally have their use, but if you're building in a proven area, like the Central Corridor, do you really need to subsidize every development like if it was in North City or Gravois Park?
Now if you ask so much that the developers start to pull out and cancel projects, it's a problem, but it seems like it's being done in a great way that developers are OK with.