Are they not related / tied together?Kingb4 wrote: ↑Mar 03, 20254101 Manchester is owned by MATT Spencer. 4321 and The Dogwood (and many other properties) are owned by SEAN (and Kelly) Spencer.rbeedee wrote: ↑Mar 02, 2025Is this the right summary for the site?
Putting any sort of low-density use at such a prominent parcel along the commercial district seems like a non-starter to me. I know it is advertised as "temporary," but we have seen bait-and-switches before. I don't think this neighborhood needs more green/plaza space, there is already a neighborhood park and several playgrounds, not to mention close proximity to Forest Park and Tower Grove Park. Hard to believe a field would be a permissible use per the form-based code. This site is also potentially very valuable from both a tax perspective and an urban design perspective. I can't see any permissible use for this site other than commercial first floor, with 5+ floors of residential or commercial above. No one likes an ugly lot, but they do a much better job of keeping pressure on developers and politicos to do something productive, in a way that a landscaped field or derelict building does not. For example, there is essentially no public pressure to do something about the Arbor on Arco site since the existing buildings were demolished, despite that also being a potentially valuable site with a checkered proposal history.
- City issues RFP for the site (former city-owned surface parking lot) in 2016
- 3 proposals submitted for the site, and Spencer Development's is chosen in 2017. They pay $175,000 for the parcel, and the 2-year construction clock started counting down at this time
- Development proposed, awarded 10 years of tax abatement
- Multiple changes in rendering over the years, suggesting that submitted plan was not ready to be executed at the time of submission. Proposals generally propose commercial first floor with 5-6 floors of office/residential above
- Some site development work done, including removing the surface parking lot, excavation, and sinking piers
- Things go essentially silent mid-2019. This was pre-COVID19, so hard to pin all the blame on that
- Spencer Development lists the parcel for sale at $2.2 million in February 2024
- Spencer Development proposes a soccer field February 2025
Maybe it is time for the city to claw the parcel back since the developers have not met the terms of the agreement, coming up on 8 years now. Nothing against Spencer Development, I think they did good work at both 4321 Manchester and the Dogwood (I think both of those were theirs), but if they are not ready to build the appropriate building, it is time to give someone else a shot, rather than let them landbank. Does anyone have an estimate on how much the city would have to pay to cover the work already done on the property?
- 1,607
I just don’t think the real estate market is going to be strong enough to make a development feasible. I definitely don’t think the real estate market is going to be strong enough to fill the other sites available in the Grove.
Maybe start with the surface parking lot north of Chouteau.
I’m still
Maybe start with the surface parking lot north of Chouteau.
I’m still
I believe they are related from a familial perspective, but no business connection.
- 2,623
In a vacuum I honestly don't hate the use for this lot. It's a prominent location that will see nice levels of activity and bring people to the Grove.
The story behind this lot is definitely infuriating though, we should absolutely at least be clawing back back-taxes if not just outright taking the land back.
The story behind this lot is definitely infuriating though, we should absolutely at least be clawing back back-taxes if not just outright taking the land back.
- 2,053
^I agree - this is pretty frustrating from a backstory standpoint. However, there are 10 projects I can count from memory in that area that I would love to see developed too (Arco behind Gramophone, 2 big projects at the west end, Liberty Bell and the empty gas station across the street, Vandy/Sarpy, School behind Kaldi's, etc)...
Let's hope The Grove gets its development velocity back (which has really stalled lately) and starts infilling and maybe in 5-6 years it will be worth it to build that building ontop of the field... better than a parking lot!
Let's hope The Grove gets its development velocity back (which has really stalled lately) and starts infilling and maybe in 5-6 years it will be worth it to build that building ontop of the field... better than a parking lot!
Good to know they are separate entities. What other projects has Matt Spencer done?MattnSTL wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2025I believe they are related from a familial perspective, but no business connection.
addxb2 wrote: ↑Mar 03, 2025I just don’t think the real estate market is going to be strong enough to make a development feasible. I definitely don’t think the real estate market is going to be strong enough to fill the other sites available in the Grove.
Maybe start with the surface parking lot north of Chouteau.
I’m still
I am surprised at the skepticism about the ability to develop this lot. I am not a business or real estate guy so maybe I am way off, but I think there are strong signs that this lot is developable: the huge Monarch development on Kingshighway is moving forward as fast as the city's permitting will let it, AHM's proposed multimillion dollar development across the street received approval from Park Central and is moving through the works, and smaller infill projects in the neighborhood are under construction (Tower Grove and Vista townhomes, that renovation + infill new build ~4200 Manchester where the cougar wall sign was, and multiple single family homes, most of which don't go through Park Central if they don't need variances and so have a lower profile). I would also like to see the sites pattimagee mentions redeveloped, but 4101 Manchester seems much more prominent to me, at one of the entrances to the Grove, at the intersection of Manchester and Chouteau, surrounded by more density, and with some site work already done.pattimagee:
^I agree - this is pretty frustrating from a backstory standpoint. However, there are 10 projects I can count from memory in that area that I would love to see developed too (Arco behind Gramophone, 2 big projects at the west end, Liberty Bell and the empty gas station across the street, Vandy/Sarpy, School behind Kaldi's, etc)...
Let's hope The Grove gets its development velocity back (which has really stalled lately) and starts infilling and maybe in 5-6 years it will be worth it to build that building ontop of the field... better than a parking lot!
- 3,762
^ agree. i feel like "weak real estate market" is an attempt to rationalize this poor use of space. it hasn't been developed because the owner promised to develop it, bought it cheap, and then sat on it for 8 years. that's the only reason. the Grove and FPSE have exploded over the last decade+. there's no reason to think mixed use wouldn't kill there.
"Green Space" or activity space is almost always more expensive than a real estate investment. You'd have to sell a lot of wine in that patio bar to pay back the $3M investment.
I imagine they'll rent the space to leagues, and soccer programs, but that revenue will slow down in winter months.
I imagine they'll rent the space to leagues, and soccer programs, but that revenue will slow down in winter months.
- 2,053
I'm not saying its a weak real estate market (though 'development supply' has been weak because of rates), just throwing some hope out there that when/if all of these former projects kick back on, the value for this lot will eclipse the $3M investment...
There's a virtual Park Central Development meeting tonight about this: meeting agenda
Look, I'm in support of the project. We're talking about temporary soccer mini-pitch + food/bev concept on a vacant lot. Turning the lot into an activated district space until there is an approved proposal for a mix-use building in its place will benefit The Grove (and the neighborhood) in the meantime.
I think the concept will be a nice addition for local businesses. People coming to play and watch means more foot traffic for the district's businesses - especially during slower hours during the day or weekend mornings.
Activating this lot will transform the look and feel of this side of The Grove, turning an empty lot into a functional attraction with energy and movement - a welcoming (and much improved) impression when entering the neighborhood from its eastern side.
Also, love giving the neighborhood (and the patrons of the district) a fun and safe place to play and gather. Soccer adds extra reason to visit The Grove, as an activity to partake in (whether watching or playing) before, after, or in between checking out the many restaurants and bars. It gives you a sense that you can plan for a full day in the area.
The concept around soccer is just so on the nose for The Grove, too. Soccer is the most global and inclusive sport in the word - I think it's fitting for a neighborhood that prides itself as being a welcoming district where everyone feels like they belong.
Appreciate the investment in durability of the facility, as well. Whether here for a year or five, the lights, fencing and addition of a food/bev structure give the corner quality semi-permanence.
The space will be operated, activated, and maintained. It's turning an eye sore of a lot into an active space of play and gathering. I'd welcome this concept to any vacant or parking lot along the strip until the market demanded a better use for the space. Give me a 3+ residential structure any day. Unfortunately, that has not happened yet and under current/project market conditions, likely won't happen for a while.
I think the concept will be a nice addition for local businesses. People coming to play and watch means more foot traffic for the district's businesses - especially during slower hours during the day or weekend mornings.
Activating this lot will transform the look and feel of this side of The Grove, turning an empty lot into a functional attraction with energy and movement - a welcoming (and much improved) impression when entering the neighborhood from its eastern side.
Also, love giving the neighborhood (and the patrons of the district) a fun and safe place to play and gather. Soccer adds extra reason to visit The Grove, as an activity to partake in (whether watching or playing) before, after, or in between checking out the many restaurants and bars. It gives you a sense that you can plan for a full day in the area.
The concept around soccer is just so on the nose for The Grove, too. Soccer is the most global and inclusive sport in the word - I think it's fitting for a neighborhood that prides itself as being a welcoming district where everyone feels like they belong.
Appreciate the investment in durability of the facility, as well. Whether here for a year or five, the lights, fencing and addition of a food/bev structure give the corner quality semi-permanence.
The space will be operated, activated, and maintained. It's turning an eye sore of a lot into an active space of play and gathering. I'd welcome this concept to any vacant or parking lot along the strip until the market demanded a better use for the space. Give me a 3+ residential structure any day. Unfortunately, that has not happened yet and under current/project market conditions, likely won't happen for a while.
- 919
I’m sorry, the people for this on here are just soccer fans. This is not what the RFP called for and it will not add the residents and commercial needed to fill out the Grove.
^ good points. Not the highest and best use but as long as there are plans for that higher use eventually I'm down with this.
I tend to agree. While this would be a net positive and better than what's there right now, this land needs to be developed for either mixed use or residential.
I'm doubtful that there's any type of plan or vision for that when you're sinking $3M into it right away.
I'm doubtful that there's any type of plan or vision for that when you're sinking $3M into it right away.
I’d feel the same way about it if it were basketball or pickleball courts.
- 340
I really think they should have done pickleball courts instead. That is a much more inclusive sport. Not sure how many courts would fit on that lot, but you know there would be some gays, myself included, that would get together to play for a couple hours then cross the street to grab some drinks. I really think soccer is the poorest choice for this lot. I've never seen pick up soccer games at any of the parks I walk through.
Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk
- 1,607
Looking at the genesis of this all, and that they got the land for a song given their RFP response, I think they are claiming it’s a 3million dollar improvement when it’s no where near, to justify extorting a real developer for the lot in the future.
I’m pretty skeptical that this will operated, maintained, or even open to the non paying public. So, no thanks.
How much foundation work was completed before they stopped? I assume they may be including the previously completed work in the development cost for this project?
The soccer field is on the June 25 Board of Adjustment agenda.
Anyone happen to notice the vacant lot that recently had the soccer field proposal slated is now back up on the market? Guessing it might mean the plan died.
I think the soccer field proposal is still supposed to go before the Board of Adjustment tomorrow, so we'll see how that goes. In any case, it's only supposed to be a "temporary" use of that land, so I think they are still looking for a buyer with a longer-term plan regardless. $1.2 million still seems like quite a steep ask, IMO.