I wouldn't be so sure. The site has been on the market for over a year. We need a City wide form based code that provides developers the clarity on permitting and what can and can't be done. The goal post is always being moved.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025As with the WF Advisors hotels, Keeley or another developer will be back. And it won’t be very long.
I am not super familiar with CWE form based code. For whatever reason I thought it started north of West Pine. It would be great if someone familiar with the code to outline what requirements exist that would cost the developer 1M in pre development costs.quincunx wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025There is a FBC for this site.
- 1,800
That’s because the market has sucked the last 2-2.5 years not because of permittingSTLAPTS wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025I wouldn't be so sure. The site has been on the market for over a year. We need a City wide form based code that provides developers the clarity on permitting and what can and can't be done. The goal post is always being moved.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025As with the WF Advisors hotels, Keeley or another developer will be back. And it won’t be very long.
Indeed. Macro economic conditions are a hurdle. It is a hurdle that is beyond our control especially at a local level. The inconsistency in permitting and the city approval process is within our control and shouldn't be a hurdle. Unfortunately that is not currently the case. Hopefully we see some real change sooner rather than later.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025That’s because the market has sucked the last 2-2.5 years not because of permittingSTLAPTS wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025I wouldn't be so sure. The site has been on the market for over a year. We need a City wide form based code that provides developers the clarity on permitting and what can and can't be done. The goal post is always being moved.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025As with the WF Advisors hotels, Keeley or another developer will be back. And it won’t be very long.
You are interested in promoting conspiracies with no evidence rather than pragmatic solutions that would actually improve the city.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025You’re just interested in yelling at the city
Agreed, I found his caption to be kind of weird. And I feel like he is going to point to this project the next time a developer comes along and wants to demo a building before having a plan for its replacement. Á la Laclede Frisco Hospital. "Look at what happens when we don't pre-clear the site for the developer!" I mean, maybe this example does give that argument some validity, but not sure I totally buy it.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025I'm sorry to see this development go but I don't love Michael's recent pattern of just repeating whatever a developer blames for a project not working out. What on earth could the city have wanted them to do that cost $1 million? I want specifics.
- 1,800
Which conspiracy? The conspiracy that Tishuara Jones has done a decent job or that the relationship of the suburbs to city is not one of mutually inclusive benefit?
Your recent post in The State of Downtown is one of many.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2025Which conspiracy? The conspiracy that Tishuara Jones has done a decent job or that the relationship of the suburbs to city is not one of mutually inclusive benefit?
- 1,800
Yeah what a huge conspiracy. Suburbs operating like suburbs. I’ve really got my tin foil hat on with that one.
- 1,628
This wasn't NIMBYs, it was city processes that got in the way.
The entire clip is alderman Browning talking about how long the permit process takes and how time is money for developers.
Did you even watch it?
The entire clip is alderman Browning talking about how long the permit process takes and how time is money for developers.
Did you even watch it?
Yes I did. But having seen all the things the NIMBYs have done before, all they did was use the tools (city process) they have at their disposal.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Mar 11, 2025This wasn't NIMBYs, it was city processes that got in the way.
The entire clip is alderman Browning talking about how long the permit process takes and how time is money for developers.
Did you even watch it?
Why does nobody explain exactly what they have an issue with? I didn't watch the video but I read the article and nowhere do they explain what they'd change or what they want changed. I 100% think there's red tape that can be cut, but they lose a lot of credibility when they just don't explain anything. Seems like they just want the headlines and want to shift blame.
Yeah, sketchy excuse. If the $1M is such a deal-breaker, then they need to make a better case for it. How about asking for $1M in incentives to offset the cost?
Their worry is spending the $1M and not getting approvals to move forward.
Sounds like a made-up excuse to cover themselves for bailing on a project.
Was that stated somewhere? It seemed to me like it was more the "cost of time" as opposed to potentially being denied the permit.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 11, 2025Their worry is spending the $1M and not getting approvals to move forward.
Aldi Browning - "The developer stated that the city's process for approving demolition of the current building required pre-development costs in excess of $1 million."
Why worry about spending $1M that you have to spend anyways to build a building unless you think there's a good chance you'll be denied?
Why worry about spending $1M that you have to spend anyways to build a building unless you think there's a good chance you'll be denied?
- 2,430
Yeah, it would be nice to have some more specifics on what the issues are here.
I infer from the report that there's two broad areas of concern -- preservation board review (which I don't think was specifically mentioned) and permit process time -- but it would be helpful to have more specifics. I'm curious for example about the preservation review costs.... there's already some site plans/renderings but how much more would have to be spent to get to the point of a thumbs up or down on preliminary approval for demo with condition of building permits issued?
I infer from the report that there's two broad areas of concern -- preservation board review (which I don't think was specifically mentioned) and permit process time -- but it would be helpful to have more specifics. I'm curious for example about the preservation review costs.... there's already some site plans/renderings but how much more would have to be spent to get to the point of a thumbs up or down on preliminary approval for demo with condition of building permits issued?