And not a single one of these is in Clayton!beer city wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025Potential high rises (actual real high rises) under construction in the next 4 years -
- Albion
- AHM in Downtown West
- Millennium tower
- BPV Phase III
That is about 2 decades worth of high rise construction for the city in 4 years
- 1,794
Clayton hasn’t proved it can support it. Look at the poor occupancy rates of its recent “luxury” developments.
Maybe if the new one on central does well we’ll hear about more high rise apartments in Clayton
Maybe if the new one on central does well we’ll hear about more high rise apartments in Clayton
- 1,607
What people?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025The people buying it were in contact with the owner since 2023.
I remember the threat of imminent domain got this one moving in the right direction as well. Please share so the whole class can understand.
My point exactlyurban_dilettante wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025responsive to whom? if the Jones admin was in talks with the owner, they should have shared that info. the property wasn't listed for sale until after ED was floated. you're really contorting yourself to make this look like some kind of blunder on Cara's part, which it clearly wasn't. it was impelling at best and benign at worst.
“We are in favor of moving forward with an eminent domain resolution,” said Zach Wilson, vice president of economic development incentives at the St. Louis Development Corporation at last month’s meeting. “Anywhere else this would be prime real estate to be developed immediately.”https://www.stlpr.org/economy-business/2024-04-23/st-louis-millennium-hotel-eminent-domain-threats-developmentIt appears the city’s posture may be working. Since the possibility of eminent domain first came up in March, the property has been listed for sale with commercial real estate firm JLL leading the efforts to sell the property.
- 9,545
- 3,762
^ cool, but as clearly stated in the article i linked, ED had been under discussion since March. and what was your response to Cara? and why would anyone take a text message from you as gospel?
^ and why did you blur Cara's image/name in the text message after initially posting it unblurred? you should have blurred the date, too.
If eminent domain or the threat of it is required then the seller by definition is not actively working to sell.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025Because the owner of millenium was being responsive and actively working to sell it and the owner of railway wasn’t.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025^ agreed that the Tishaura hate is not necessary here, matguy. likewise, DB, can we not drag the propaganda into every f*cking thread? Cara's bill was in response to the owner not being responsive, not unlike in the Railway case. why is it okay for Tishaura to pursue ED but not okay for Cara to propose it? don't be a hypocrite.
Text messages are pretty easily manipulated.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025^ cool, but as clearly stated in the article i linked, ED had been under discussion since March. and what was your response to Cara? and why would anyone take a text message from you as gospel?
- 3,762
^ i don' think DB would go that far, but I think he's trying to save face after taking a stupid swipe at Cara.
- 9,545
It wasn’t required. They were actively working to sell it since 2023. The ED bill spooked them. You have to remember these folks are in Singapore. They aren’t following what happening in a place they have no active hotel. They were negotiating with someone and then the Ed discussion startedSTLAPTS wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025If eminent domain or the threat of it is required then the seller by definition is not actively working to sell.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025Because the owner of millenium was being responsive and actively working to sell it and the owner of railway wasn’t.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025^ agreed that the Tishaura hate is not necessary here, matguy. likewise, DB, can we not drag the propaganda into every f*cking thread? Cara's bill was in response to the owner not being responsive, not unlike in the Railway case. why is it okay for Tishaura to pursue ED but not okay for Cara to propose it? don't be a hypocrite.
It was in response to a ridiculous comment above. And I gave 2 examples of major 8th ward projects with no alder involvement. The $350m att project where the alder from the 14th appears to be more involved and this one.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025^ i don' think DB would go that far, but I think he's trying to save face after taking a stupid swipe at Cara.
- 9,545
Which was after November 2023 when the owner was open to sellingquincunx wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025The March 26, 2024 LCRA Board agenda. Says eminent domain.
LCRA 2024-03-26 Agenda Millennium.png
Also April 10 where i say I know of at least one party working to buy it is 3 days before the site was listed for sale
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vacant-m ... 35479.html
I don't see a Spencer bill for eminent domain of the Millennium. Here's the Railway Exchange one.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=16340
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=16340
- 9,545
Because it never moved forward, since it wasn’t necessaryquincunx wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025I don't see a Spencer bill for eminent domain of the Millennium. Here's the Railway Exchange one.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=16340
- 144
These plans need local corporate backing too. Even if a local big name can bring a satellite office of some sort never mind the HQ that would be a win. No more co-working spaces, we need buy in.
- 9,545
Cordish has had talks with firms for the office spacesSuburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025These plans need local corporate backing too. Even if a local big name can bring a satellite office of some sort never mind the HQ that would be a win. No more co-working spaces, we need buy in.
- 595
You guys are killing the excitement of this proposal with more jones vs Spencer discussions. Can we please get back on track to the awesome news of this once in an every decade or so project & leave the Jones & Spencer talks in the mayoral thread. I know proposals are just proposals but I hope that this doesn’t see any cut backs/revisions specially with the big tax abatement it’ll receive. I think the city wants something truly skyline changing & this fits the bill. Keeping fingers crossed. 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably.chris fuller wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2025no 20yr tax abatement given would that kill this deal?
- 502
So, if the LCRA already approved of a 20-year, 90% tax abatement for this property, aren’t all they doing next week is designating Cordish as the redeveloper of the property? They might grill Cordish (and I have heard from someone close to some LCRA members that this will be the case), but it just seems like a procedural vote.
- 1,794
I assume Cordish will be grilled because it’s yet to make good on the generous subsidies granted for the BPV development? Assuming that’s the case, it would be so fun to see Cordish throw Cardinals ownership under the bus at the hearing even if subtly.
- 733
I can’t believe we’re agreeing on this but I want this badly. Then an alderman can bellow out some good points about DeWitt being cheap. And ask whether the franchise is for sale.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Feb 20, 2025I assume Cordish will be grilled because it’s yet to make good on the generous subsidies granted for the BPV development? Assuming that’s the case, it would be so fun to see Cordish throw Cardinals ownership under the bus at the hearing even if subtly.