975
Super MemberSuper Member
975

PostOct 03, 2025#226

Auggie wrote:
Oct 03, 2025
I think the city needs a broad, long term redevelopment plan for the parts of Downtown, Downtown West, and LaSalle Park around Chouteau and 8th Street, south of the train tracks.

I don't know how we can seriously imagine a "thriving" downtown in our future when we have complexes like the Purina HQ having a total accessed value of ~$34.5M or about $1.07M/acre. For reference, my parent's single family home in South City is $2.4M/acre. Metropolitan Square is ~$36M/acre. This is the story across this entire area, very very horribly utilized land generating very little tax revenue.

If there is something I would like to see Spencer do, it would be to put together a top down redevelopment plan that includes business relocations, new built infrastructure, and new construction using some Rams money, ideally Spencer being "business friendly" should help getting the private sector on board. Obviously this is all mostly wish casting from me, but I still don't see a future where STL is thriving and we have this black hole between downtown and Lafayette Square/LaSalle Park, etc.

My thrown together idea would be to:

1) Incentivize Ameren and Purina to move across to real downtown, probably leasing space or buying buildings. This would retain the companies and employees, improve downtown's office numbers, improve downtown's economy, and give a much needed shot to downtown. It would also make their sprawling office complexes vacant and ready to redevelop.

2) Relocate other businesses that will not work with the broder redevelopment plan, which would focus on residential, retail, and small office, while keeping those that fit with the plan.

3) Demolish buildings not suitable for the broader plan while maintaining buildings that can be redeveloped in line with the plan.

4) Rebuild the street-grid and rebuild utility infrastructure to make the area ready and primed for redevelopment.

5) Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to downtown via 8th Street, Tucker Bridge, 14th street bridge, and 18th Street bridge with new lighting, protected cycle tracks, and protected sidewalks.

6) What would the plan even look like? I imagine keeping the historic buildings that remain, probably keeping most of Ameren and Purina's buildings with the goal of mixed use redevelopment. Apartmemt complexes and town homes I think would look great here, some parks as well. The area would be split into many different plots and in theory, multiple developers could come in and build in different areas.

Again, I'm aware I am wishcasting, I'm aware that Ameren and Purina are not seeking new HQs, I'm aware none of our leaders have any vision, all I'm saying is that this area is a massive burden on the city and downtown and there *should* be a broad top down redevelopment plan for a long term vision.

The area I'm talking about is ~188 acres, much of which are surface parking lots. Nearby ongoing/proposed developments include the new apartments at LaSalle and Missouri, Gateway South, and the Clinton-Peabody redevelopment.
I agree with the overall point you are making and I like the vision. It’s just not within the realm of possibility for Purina certainly, and I wouldn’t think for Ameren either.
Remember that Purina has a fair amount of plant/manufacturing on their campus too.
The one benefit to Purina and Ameren’s set up is owning that land and those buildings helps shore up their commitment to staying downtown. I wouldn’t want them to move to leasing.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostOct 03, 2025#227

Debaliviere91 wrote:
Oct 03, 2025
Auggie wrote:
Oct 03, 2025
I think the city needs a broad, long term redevelopment plan for the parts of Downtown, Downtown West, and LaSalle Park around Chouteau and 8th Street, south of the train tracks.

I don't know how we can seriously imagine a "thriving" downtown in our future when we have complexes like the Purina HQ having a total accessed value of ~$34.5M or about $1.07M/acre. For reference, my parent's single family home in South City is $2.4M/acre. Metropolitan Square is ~$36M/acre. This is the story across this entire area, very very horribly utilized land generating very little tax revenue.

If there is something I would like to see Spencer do, it would be to put together a top down redevelopment plan that includes business relocations, new built infrastructure, and new construction using some Rams money, ideally Spencer being "business friendly" should help getting the private sector on board. Obviously this is all mostly wish casting from me, but I still don't see a future where STL is thriving and we have this black hole between downtown and Lafayette Square/LaSalle Park, etc.

My thrown together idea would be to:

1) Incentivize Ameren and Purina to move across to real downtown, probably leasing space or buying buildings. This would retain the companies and employees, improve downtown's office numbers, improve downtown's economy, and give a much needed shot to downtown. It would also make their sprawling office complexes vacant and ready to redevelop.

2) Relocate other businesses that will not work with the broder redevelopment plan, which would focus on residential, retail, and small office, while keeping those that fit with the plan.

3) Demolish buildings not suitable for the broader plan while maintaining buildings that can be redeveloped in line with the plan.

4) Rebuild the street-grid and rebuild utility infrastructure to make the area ready and primed for redevelopment.

5) Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to downtown via 8th Street, Tucker Bridge, 14th street bridge, and 18th Street bridge with new lighting, protected cycle tracks, and protected sidewalks.

6) What would the plan even look like? I imagine keeping the historic buildings that remain, probably keeping most of Ameren and Purina's buildings with the goal of mixed use redevelopment. Apartmemt complexes and town homes I think would look great here, some parks as well. The area would be split into many different plots and in theory, multiple developers could come in and build in different areas.

Again, I'm aware I am wishcasting, I'm aware that Ameren and Purina are not seeking new HQs, I'm aware none of our leaders have any vision, all I'm saying is that this area is a massive burden on the city and downtown and there *should* be a broad top down redevelopment plan for a long term vision.

The area I'm talking about is ~188 acres, much of which are surface parking lots. Nearby ongoing/proposed developments include the new apartments at LaSalle and Missouri, Gateway South, and the Clinton-Peabody redevelopment.
I agree with the overall point you are making and I like the vision. It’s just not within the realm of possibility for Purina certainly, and I wouldn’t think for Ameren either.
Remember that Purina has a fair amount of plant/manufacturing on their campus too.
The one benefit to Purina and Ameren’s set up is owning that land and those buildings helps shore up their commitment to staying downtown. I wouldn’t want them to move to leasing.
Oh I agree that they will not be moving anytime soon, for sure. I just think so long as this area is a parking lots suburban campus hellscape, downtown is not going to be able to thrive like some peer downtowns.

1,877
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,877

PostOct 06, 2025#228

Debaliviere91 wrote:
Oct 03, 2025
Auggie wrote:
Oct 03, 2025
I think the city needs a broad, long term redevelopment plan for the parts of Downtown, Downtown West, and LaSalle Park around Chouteau and 8th Street, south of the train tracks.

I don't know how we can seriously imagine a "thriving" downtown in our future when we have complexes like the Purina HQ having a total accessed value of ~$34.5M or about $1.07M/acre. For reference, my parent's single family home in South City is $2.4M/acre. Metropolitan Square is ~$36M/acre. This is the story across this entire area, very very horribly utilized land generating very little tax revenue.

If there is something I would like to see Spencer do, it would be to put together a top down redevelopment plan that includes business relocations, new built infrastructure, and new construction using some Rams money, ideally Spencer being "business friendly" should help getting the private sector on board. Obviously this is all mostly wish casting from me, but I still don't see a future where STL is thriving and we have this black hole between downtown and Lafayette Square/LaSalle Park, etc.

My thrown together idea would be to:

1) Incentivize Ameren and Purina to move across to real downtown, probably leasing space or buying buildings. This would retain the companies and employees, improve downtown's office numbers, improve downtown's economy, and give a much needed shot to downtown. It would also make their sprawling office complexes vacant and ready to redevelop.

2) Relocate other businesses that will not work with the broder redevelopment plan, which would focus on residential, retail, and small office, while keeping those that fit with the plan.

3) Demolish buildings not suitable for the broader plan while maintaining buildings that can be redeveloped in line with the plan.

4) Rebuild the street-grid and rebuild utility infrastructure to make the area ready and primed for redevelopment.

5) Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to downtown via 8th Street, Tucker Bridge, 14th street bridge, and 18th Street bridge with new lighting, protected cycle tracks, and protected sidewalks.

6) What would the plan even look like? I imagine keeping the historic buildings that remain, probably keeping most of Ameren and Purina's buildings with the goal of mixed use redevelopment. Apartmemt complexes and town homes I think would look great here, some parks as well. The area would be split into many different plots and in theory, multiple developers could come in and build in different areas.

Again, I'm aware I am wishcasting, I'm aware that Ameren and Purina are not seeking new HQs, I'm aware none of our leaders have any vision, all I'm saying is that this area is a massive burden on the city and downtown and there *should* be a broad top down redevelopment plan for a long term vision.

The area I'm talking about is ~188 acres, much of which are surface parking lots. Nearby ongoing/proposed developments include the new apartments at LaSalle and Missouri, Gateway South, and the Clinton-Peabody redevelopment.
I agree with the overall point you are making and I like the vision. It’s just not within the realm of possibility for Purina certainly, and I wouldn’t think for Ameren either.
Remember that Purina has a fair amount of plant/manufacturing on their campus too.
The one benefit to Purina and Ameren’s set up is owning that land and those buildings helps shore up their commitment to staying downtown. I wouldn’t want them to move to leasing.
@dbInSouthCity seems to have some news on that front:



-RBB

2,674
Life MemberLife Member
2,674

PostOct 06, 2025#229

I feel like Purina and Ameren could lead a massive campus effort that includes offering a new office product for other companies to dip their toes into moving back downtown.

The benefit of lots of land under single ownership, you can drive it very quickly to be a competitive and attractive space.

Getting the activity back, even there, could be the fastest way to getting DT moving faster.

2,620
Life MemberLife Member
2,620

PostOct 06, 2025#230

Filling the area between Chouteau and the train tracks with mixed use development would be by far the most impactful thing those entities could do for Downtown. I hope whatever they build has really seamless connectivity to the bridges carrying 14th and Tucker. It would almost make sense to just turn the area between 14th and Tucker into a subterranean parking area and build a new surface level for the development at grade with the bridges. 

65
New MemberNew Member
65

PostOct 11, 2025#231

It was probably at least 20 years ago that Purina also had a plan to connect their campus over the train tracks to downtown, hope it gets done this time.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostOct 14, 2025#232

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... louis.html

Spencer says she wants City Hall to say "yes" to development "by default".

This could either be really good or really bad depending on how you want to look at it. Obviously, saying yes to new housing by default is good, but saying yes to people like Paul McKee, urban renewal, demolition, and data centers by default is exactly why St. Louis is where it is today.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostOct 14, 2025#233

Gotta engage on the zoning update. I'm curious who ends up on the advisory cmte.

732
Senior MemberSenior Member
732

PostOct 30, 2025#234

This bizjournal interview with Otis is so sad and frustrating.

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... ulled.html

2,674
Life MemberLife Member
2,674

PostOct 30, 2025#235

Multiple things can be true. Williams is correct that the city’s development process is not modern and the make-up (private vs institution or nonprofits) of permits is often overlooked. I have been disappointed in the slowdown of private developer projects since 2023 but I am not sure what amount of that is the incentive scorecard versus overall inflation.

Anecdotally, I’m less optimistic about real estate in the City than I have been in ten years (excluding the bottom of COVID). Looking back 2016-2019 felt like the heyday of new construction apartment projects.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostOct 30, 2025#236

Which central corridor projects lost tax subsidies?

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostOct 30, 2025#237

quincunx wrote:
Oct 30, 2025
Which central corridor projects lost tax subsidies?
I think he's implying that the change in tax incentives policy deterred developers from even seeking projects. Of course, there was also massive inflation that dried up building across the country. But that's not as important when you're just there to provide more tax support for private developers.

PostOct 30, 2025#238

addxb2 wrote:
Oct 30, 2025
Multiple things can be true. Williams is correct that the city’s development process is not modern and the make-up (private vs institution or nonprofits) of permits is often overlooked. I have been disappointed in the slowdown of private developer projects since 2023 but I am not sure what amount of that is the incentive scorecard versus overall inflation.

Anecdotally, I’m less optimistic about real estate in the City than I have been in ten years (excluding the bottom of COVID). Looking back 2016-2019 felt like the heyday of new construction apartment projects.
I feel like the non-profit part is overblown. Reality is that a large % of STL's economy is BJC, SLU, WashU Medical, and SLU Hospital. Those will always be large employers and are a pretty good base of the city's economy.

The real test is going to be developments like the AT&T Building, Millennium, and to a lesser extent, Wainwright.

9,530
Life MemberLife Member
9,530

PostOct 30, 2025#239

This is a far bigger issue then incentive predictability
IMG_3226.jpeg (713.2KiB)

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostOct 31, 2025#240

Incentives and a transparent predevelopment process are very important. However, real estate development is profoundly influenced by marco economic conditions. Specifically interest rates and access to credit markets.  Interest rates started running in 2023 and credit markets tightened in lock step.  That is the reason for the slow down.  Especially in cities like St. Louis where you need everything to go right for major projects to get out of the ground.  

1,092
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,092

PostNov 04, 2025#241

2 boarding homes/SROs per block were quietly legalized 2 years ago, apparently: https://www.stlmag.com/news/solutions/s ... ng-houses/

I sure hope these increase options for the very low income & decrease homelessness. I do wonder if NIMBYs will be able to gum up the approvals process set up for them.

9,530
Life MemberLife Member
9,530

PostNov 04, 2025#242

"Another way to manage SROs is like any other hotel or motel, though for that to succeed, managers must be competent and the city must hold them accountable when they’re not—and neither outcome is guaranteed. Downtown has at least two legacy residential hotels: the Lincoln Hotel, on Olive at 23rd, and the Mark Twain Hotel, on 9th at Pine. The latter, which as of last week was renting rooms for $145.50 per week, is viewed by some as a source of disorder. Denis Beganovic, who has lived in the neighborhood since 2017, says it’s undeniable that many people who reside there and hang out on the front sidewalk are dealing with addiction and mental-health problems. The solution, he says, is tighter management and better access to help for those residents. “There’s a place for these,” he says, “but they have to be actively run by a reputable firm.”

216
Junior MemberJunior Member
216

PostNov 05, 2025#243

DB... on the clipped statement above about prevailing wage, did you write that or what is the source?  I think it is great summation of a major issue. 

Also, not mentioned is the on-site and off-site logistics, time and effort involved in just tracking various construction employment and wage requirements such as prevailing wage, MWBE, apprenticeship, and city residency. As a result many GCs and subs just won't deal with a project in the city.  This is especially true for many smaller firms that we are trying to support, because the logistical burden is just not worth the effort when there are plenty of projects in the county and other cities.

9,530
Life MemberLife Member
9,530

PostNov 05, 2025#244

something I wrote for LinkedIn after feedback from various developers 

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostNov 06, 2025#245

Wait a minute . . . why are so many so quick to embrace this new (old) trend? 

Weren't boarding houses considered the scourge on healthy urban environments? When did that change? What kind of protections will prevent abuses (of both the built environment but also of the SRO tenants themselves? How was this pushed through with so little publicity? Who was behind this? 

6,118
Life MemberLife Member
6,118

PostNov 07, 2025#246

^I assume it changed when we realized parking lots are the scourge of the healthy urban environment, and that density is key to walkability and affordability, and that working class people matter. I've had several friends who lived in such facilities. I considered one myself when I was between apartments after dropping out of my first attempt at college. They're not necessarily the worst thing ever. They give people who might otherwise end up on the street a place to live in relative safety and security. In Columbia they housed an interesting mix of single grad students and folks working part time and low paying jobs. (Like stagehands in a non-union town, say.) One of my friends was a janitor. The other sold books. They both worked for the University, oddly, but neither seemed all that interested in chasing status or dating or any of the conventional stuff. They wanted to sit around and read or play games on their off time, and they could do that just fine in a single room cluttered with too many books and not enough furniture.

Another acquaintance lived in a larger one for a while that was a converted Stephens dorm. He was in town on an exchange, but apartment space at the university was always in short supply. (And generally expensive.) So if you were trying to save a buck the old dorm was a good option. That one was heavily grad students and a little younger, but still open to the general public. (The janitor friend lived in it for a time too, before moving into a room in a converted house.)

There are definitely problems associated with places of the sort, but they're predictable and you can manage them. And while the demand for places like that right now probably isn't huge, it will always be non-zero. There will probably always be folks who prefer spending their time reading and generally nerding out to the typical grind for whatever reason. There will always be starving artists and introverted janitors. And folks coming out of worse situations, honestly, who could use a second chance. Yeah, we need to make sure things like that are safe, but that's what building inspections are for. And if the provide rent, tax dollars, productivity, activity, they seem like a positive to me. I never had a problem with one or anyone living in them, and I was around a fair few of them. All of this is anecdotal, of course, and we could use some solid data, but I'm instinctually in favor of them. And you know what? A building that gets converted into an SRO can be converted back a lot more easily than a burned out shell of an abandoned building can be restored.

1,092
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,092

PostNov 07, 2025#247

^Agreed. Also informal SROs are very common in HCOL cities, if you look on craigslist in DC for example you'll find hundreds of listings for rooms for rent, that's how most people under 35 find a way to live there.

I don't much see a risk of like Central West End or Lafayette Square mansions being converted to seedy rooming houses like its the 30s/40s/50s again, at its best it will provide housing for folks who just want a roof over their head in STL City and don't care for much more, like the folks SP encountered.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostNov 07, 2025#248

Are the rents high enough to get developers building yet?

Stltoday - Rents soar across St. Louis region, especially where investors buy homes

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 408bf.html

PostNov 10, 2025#249

What do you think?
Is Ian a member of the forum? He's certainly on the urbanist team.


Screenshot_20251110-174440.png (1.06MiB)

9,530
Life MemberLife Member
9,530

PostNov 11, 2025#250

Ridiculous that I wasn’t selected

Read more posts (66 remaining)