Mayor Jones has expressed interest. I think we will see parking mins eliminated during her time in office.STLrainbow wrote:Hopefully there's a solid discussion of the overall climate in Cortex as we're starting to emerge from a pandemic... was over there last week and it was rather ghostly, although I expect we'll see more folks returning to work in the near future. (Personally I think return to brick-n-mortar should be mandated for Cortex workers... we gotta get that Lion's Choice back open!) Anyway, I assume there is an anchor tenant for the office building; I can't believe they'd be moving forward without one. But what's the status of the sandcrawler project and heath of existing office? Also, what's up with the status on the mixed-use proposal on the Cortex One parking lot? The TIF hearing is coming at a illuminating time.
As for parking, there also should be a solid discussion on this crucial piece of the overall district. For one, whether Cortex is living up to its TIGER grant commitment to build less parking if it got the station... I don't believe there is any kind of clawback, but still. And beyond Cortex, I hope the city does away with parking minimums, and I believe Mayor Jones has mentioned interest in it. If a project can't get financing for a project that's one thing, but it shouldn't be a thing for the city itself to be a barrier to creating a more vibrant, sustainable, and less car-choked future.
The building permit application for the sandcrawler was canceled last July, so I guess it's stalled.STLrainbow wrote: ↑May 22, 2021But what's the status of the sandcrawler project and heath of existing office? Also, what's up with the status on the mixed-use proposal on the Cortex One parking lot? The TIF hearing is coming at a illuminating time.
framer wrote: ↑May 22, 2021Lose the parking and the owners would lose most of their prospective tenants.
that's the refrain. been singing it through decades and decades of population loss.^ & ^^ I'm with Framer on this one, But no worries guys the new mayor will probably want to negotiate a payoff on this project just like she will probably want to do with Armory phase II. What do all three projects provide the city? - add structures, new residential, jobs and residences all paying into the city and supporting services. What choices do the developers do? Walk away from any future development and you get what exactly? Mayor doesn't get her payoff and you don't have to worry about structure parking added to an area that was once warehousing, light and heavy industry.
Don’t worry, WashU/bjc is planning a 2000 spot garageurban_dilettante wrote: ↑May 22, 2021another 610 parking spaces. jfc. not even baby steps. never gonna get there.
One would hope, but a developer can very quickly walk away from planned projects in an area where they've already invested if their sources of capital dry up.addxb2 wrote: ↑May 27, 2021STLs big projects are typically developers who have already invested millions in the area. Walking away really isn’t an option for them because they’ve invested big $$ in neighborhood level redevelopment strategies. They have to keep investing or the whole thing could collapse.
Green Street for example isn’t going to easily walk away from projects in the grove. Could they eventually? Sure. But a little negotiating over incentives isn’t enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good point but I believe they are about to lose their Square lease and Crawler came to a standstill after the tracks were built but no structure. Plus a lot of big investment of late is Wash U/Institutional. In addition, look at rest of the vacancy market for the region and their is some competition out there for better or worse.SouthCityJR wrote: ↑May 27, 2021Just to play Devil’s Advocate here, if Cortex is so successful that it had a 1% vacancy, why does it need any tax subsidy at all?
They were seeking a property tax abatement. It's currently tax exempt. Also if the ground floor gets a tenant, there would be sales taxes. A property tax abatement is taxes forgone. TIF is taxes diverted to pay off bonds that were issued to raise funds to help finance the development.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑May 27, 2021I absolutely get the push back on some of the residential projects that were seeking TIFs, like the one for Jesuit Hall.
There's a huge difference between local developers and national developers. One of the city's biggest obstacles has always been in attracting national developers to an area that was previously an afterthought for them. The city was finally seeing some progress on that front again after a long drought: Mac Properties, Ventas, Opus, and others, as well as regional developers like Pearl. But they like predictably and have little patience for local bullsh*t, which is a major reason why they avoided St. Louis in the first place...addxb2 wrote: ↑May 27, 2021STLs big projects are typically developers who have already invested millions in the area. Walking away really isn’t an option for them because they’ve invested big $$ in neighborhood level redevelopment strategies. They have to keep investing or the whole thing could collapse.
Green Street for example isn’t going to easily walk away from projects in the grove. Could they eventually? Sure. But a little negotiating over incentives isn’t enough.
I feel as though we're forgetting that SLU plans to move the residents to a new building, which would presumably also be tax exempt. Do we know where that new building is? Was its site on the tax rolls before? Sure, this is property that's been off the rolls for a long time coming back on, but that doesn't mean it's precisely free money. Genuinely curious as that's a detail I've missed in the previous reporting.quincunx wrote: ↑May 27, 2021They were seeking a property tax abatement. It's currently tax exempt. Also if the ground floor gets a tenant, there would be sales taxes. A property tax abatement is taxes forgone. TIF is taxes diverted to pay off bonds that were issued to raise funds to help finance the development.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑May 27, 2021I absolutely get the push back on some of the residential projects that were seeking TIFs, like the one for Jesuit Hall.
