https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance ... pson_book)
Nope, just the new ideology being pushed by the center-left that may work in high demand cities but absolutely does not work in a low demand city like St. Louis.
Nope, just the new ideology being pushed by the center-left that may work in high demand cities but absolutely does not work in a low demand city like St. Louis.
Opinion: NorthPoint exit is a warning about city's development myths
https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/column ... 0b6a8.html
https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/column ... 0b6a8.html
- 1,794
And what are those myths? Most of us don’t pay to read the PD’s slop. Especially editorials
NorthPoint Development’s decision to withdraw from a $120 million development on the corner of Kingshighway and Oakland Avenue is a major disappointment for St. Louis. Lurking behind NorthPoint’s decision are a set of norms and policies that are disastrous for the future of the city St. Louis. ("St. Louis apartment project is dead. Unpredictable tax breaks are to blame, official says." Post-Dispatch, Oct. 30.)
Without change, the revitalization of the central corridor, the bright spot in the city’s economic performance in the past two decades, will end and the city’s 70-year continuous population decline will continue.
The proposed NorthPoint development was on a vacant site passed by every car traveling north from I-44 to the Science Center, Forest Park, the Washington University/ BJC Medical Center or the Central West End. For well over 20 years, local leaders have hoped for redevelopment of the site. Before NorthPoint, however, no developer proposed a feasible plan that garnered community support.
NorthPoint proposed more than 300 housing units, targeted to the younger professional population that has increasingly moved into Forest Park Southeast. Located within blocks of one of the region’s largest centers of employers and connected to that job center by a pedestrian bridge, the site is uniquely positioned for housing density.
Several years ago, NorthPoint was awarded an 80% tax abatement for the project for 10 years. NorthPoint built its economic models and recruited its investors assuming these incentives. Then city leadership changed the deal. According to Alderman Michael Browning, NorthPoint pulled out because the city and members of the Board of Aldermen were asking for additional concessions from the company.
Why would the city and Board of Aldermen change the deal? There are multiple possible reasons, none of which holds water, and all of which reflect flawed urban development myths held by many St. Louisans:
• Increased development in the central corridor of St. Louis is not important to the future of the city. This is wrong. For St. Louis to prosper, population must grow to must increase the tax base. Our infrastructure is simply too large to be supported by 285,000 people. Population and tax base can be most easily achieved in the central corridor, the sole area of the city that has seen population growth in the past twenty-five years.
• City developers have such deep pockets and high profits that they won't walk away from pending projects. This is just not true, as NorthPoint proves. Being a large-scale developer in St. Louis has far more often led to bankruptcy than great profits.
• Projects in attractive neighborhoods are attractive to developers without tax incentives. We all wish this were true, but it is not.
Rents are higher in the western suburbs and Clayton than the city, while the cost of building is higher in the city than the suburbs. Without tax incentives that reduce the cost of developments, no rational private developer would be interested in city projects. All development, in St. Louis and elsewhere, has been hit with tariffs, labor shortage and cost inflation. Public help is needed to make almost all projects work.
• Requiring affordable housing in market-rate projects can be achieved without large subsidies. There are great reasons to build more affordable housing in neighborhoods in St. Louis near job opportunities, retail and better schools — but it cannot be paid for by developers without assistance. The profit margins on urban projects are just too small.
• City development goals are best achieved through negotiation rather than through a clear, transparent policy framework that offers predictability and sets reasonable expectations up front. This practice rewards negotiation skill, leads to developers not being upfront on the real economics of their projects, penalizes outside developers who don’t ”know the game” and invites corruption.
St. Louis has a desperate need to redevelop the north and parts of the southeast sides of the city. It needs to improve public schools. It needs more mixed-race mixed-income neighborhoods. But obstructing redevelopment of the central corridor does not address any of these problems.
To their credit, Mayor Cara Spencer and St. Louis Development Corp., the city's independent economic development agency, have promised reform in the city’s development policies and programs. Let’s see if those reforms can be realized.
Webber is managing partner at Urban Impact Advisors and executive vice chancellor emeritus at Washington University in St. Louis.
Without change, the revitalization of the central corridor, the bright spot in the city’s economic performance in the past two decades, will end and the city’s 70-year continuous population decline will continue.
The proposed NorthPoint development was on a vacant site passed by every car traveling north from I-44 to the Science Center, Forest Park, the Washington University/ BJC Medical Center or the Central West End. For well over 20 years, local leaders have hoped for redevelopment of the site. Before NorthPoint, however, no developer proposed a feasible plan that garnered community support.
NorthPoint proposed more than 300 housing units, targeted to the younger professional population that has increasingly moved into Forest Park Southeast. Located within blocks of one of the region’s largest centers of employers and connected to that job center by a pedestrian bridge, the site is uniquely positioned for housing density.
Several years ago, NorthPoint was awarded an 80% tax abatement for the project for 10 years. NorthPoint built its economic models and recruited its investors assuming these incentives. Then city leadership changed the deal. According to Alderman Michael Browning, NorthPoint pulled out because the city and members of the Board of Aldermen were asking for additional concessions from the company.
Why would the city and Board of Aldermen change the deal? There are multiple possible reasons, none of which holds water, and all of which reflect flawed urban development myths held by many St. Louisans:
• Increased development in the central corridor of St. Louis is not important to the future of the city. This is wrong. For St. Louis to prosper, population must grow to must increase the tax base. Our infrastructure is simply too large to be supported by 285,000 people. Population and tax base can be most easily achieved in the central corridor, the sole area of the city that has seen population growth in the past twenty-five years.
• City developers have such deep pockets and high profits that they won't walk away from pending projects. This is just not true, as NorthPoint proves. Being a large-scale developer in St. Louis has far more often led to bankruptcy than great profits.
• Projects in attractive neighborhoods are attractive to developers without tax incentives. We all wish this were true, but it is not.
Rents are higher in the western suburbs and Clayton than the city, while the cost of building is higher in the city than the suburbs. Without tax incentives that reduce the cost of developments, no rational private developer would be interested in city projects. All development, in St. Louis and elsewhere, has been hit with tariffs, labor shortage and cost inflation. Public help is needed to make almost all projects work.
• Requiring affordable housing in market-rate projects can be achieved without large subsidies. There are great reasons to build more affordable housing in neighborhoods in St. Louis near job opportunities, retail and better schools — but it cannot be paid for by developers without assistance. The profit margins on urban projects are just too small.
• City development goals are best achieved through negotiation rather than through a clear, transparent policy framework that offers predictability and sets reasonable expectations up front. This practice rewards negotiation skill, leads to developers not being upfront on the real economics of their projects, penalizes outside developers who don’t ”know the game” and invites corruption.
St. Louis has a desperate need to redevelop the north and parts of the southeast sides of the city. It needs to improve public schools. It needs more mixed-race mixed-income neighborhoods. But obstructing redevelopment of the central corridor does not address any of these problems.
To their credit, Mayor Cara Spencer and St. Louis Development Corp., the city's independent economic development agency, have promised reform in the city’s development policies and programs. Let’s see if those reforms can be realized.
Webber is managing partner at Urban Impact Advisors and executive vice chancellor emeritus at Washington University in St. Louis.
Lol can we get some citations on this stuff? There's a lot of "that's just not true" without much in the way of data. And the actual statistics he does bring up are kind of suspect, like comparing Clayton/West County rents to the whole City, as opposed to the Central West End/FPSE where rents are higher.
I actually do agree with the idea of a more transparent, standard process with development over negotiation, but he ignores how tax abatement isn't standard or transparent and a product of negotiation. Also kinda weird how he says we need to do this for the city's tax base in the same breath as advocating for tax abatements. I certainly can't be the only one concerned about quality construction which may leave these developments worth less than expected after a 10 year abatement.
Thanks Dan for pasting btw.
I actually do agree with the idea of a more transparent, standard process with development over negotiation, but he ignores how tax abatement isn't standard or transparent and a product of negotiation. Also kinda weird how he says we need to do this for the city's tax base in the same breath as advocating for tax abatements. I certainly can't be the only one concerned about quality construction which may leave these developments worth less than expected after a 10 year abatement.
Thanks Dan for pasting btw.
It's a P-D opinion piece shilling for out-of-town developers who didn't want 10% of their units on a $100M+ development to be affordable. Why would they ever cite their points?PeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025Lol can we get some citations on this stuff? There's a lot of "that's just not true" without much in the way of data. And the actual statistics he does bring up are kind of suspect, like comparing Clayton/West County rents to the whole City, as opposed to the Central West End/FPSE where rents are higher.
I actually do agree with the idea of a more transparent, standard process with development over negotiation, but he ignores how tax abatement isn't standard or transparent and a product of negotiation. Also kinda weird how he says we need to do this for the city's tax base in the same breath as advocating for tax abatements. I certainly can't be the only one concerned about quality construction which may leave these developments worth less than expected after a 10 year abatement.
Thanks Dan for pasting btw.
- 488
Our city would be better if more out of state developers built projects here. The best way to get affordable housing is to build market rate housing.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025It's a P-D opinion piece shilling for out-of-town developers who didn't want 10% of their units on a $100M+ development to be affordable. Why would they ever cite their points?PeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025Lol can we get some citations on this stuff? There's a lot of "that's just not true" without much in the way of data. And the actual statistics he does bring up are kind of suspect, like comparing Clayton/West County rents to the whole City, as opposed to the Central West End/FPSE where rents are higher.
I actually do agree with the idea of a more transparent, standard process with development over negotiation, but he ignores how tax abatement isn't standard or transparent and a product of negotiation. Also kinda weird how he says we need to do this for the city's tax base in the same breath as advocating for tax abatements. I certainly can't be the only one concerned about quality construction which may leave these developments worth less than expected after a 10 year abatement.
Thanks Dan for pasting btw.
If that was the best way, then St. Louis wouldn't be shedding thousands of low income residents every year.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Our city would be better if more out of state developers built projects here. The best way to get affordable housing is to build market rate housing.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025It's a P-D opinion piece shilling for out-of-town developers who didn't want 10% of their units on a $100M+ development to be affordable. Why would they ever cite their points?PeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025Lol can we get some citations on this stuff? There's a lot of "that's just not true" without much in the way of data. And the actual statistics he does bring up are kind of suspect, like comparing Clayton/West County rents to the whole City, as opposed to the Central West End/FPSE where rents are higher.
I actually do agree with the idea of a more transparent, standard process with development over negotiation, but he ignores how tax abatement isn't standard or transparent and a product of negotiation. Also kinda weird how he says we need to do this for the city's tax base in the same breath as advocating for tax abatements. I certainly can't be the only one concerned about quality construction which may leave these developments worth less than expected after a 10 year abatement.
Thanks Dan for pasting btw.
- 97
Most people would agree that the crime is the main driver of people leaving the city, specially as those low income residents mostly live in those crime-ridden neighborhoods.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025If that was the best way, then St. Louis wouldn't be shedding thousands of low income residents every year.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Our city would be better if more out of state developers built projects here. The best way to get affordable housing is to build market rate housing.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025
It's a P-D opinion piece shilling for out-of-town developers who didn't want 10% of their units on a $100M+ development to be affordable. Why would they ever cite their points?
This is a massive topic you don't wanna argue with me on, but the main drivers of crime are poverty and wealth inequality, exasperated by the extreme segregation seen in St. Louis.Rick Prieto wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Most people would agree that the crime is the main driver of people leaving the city, specially as those low income residents mostly live in those crime-ridden neighborhoods.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025If that was the best way, then St. Louis wouldn't be shedding thousands of low income residents every year.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Our city would be better if more out of state developers built projects here. The best way to get affordable housing is to build market rate housing.
You would see significant reductions in crime if the city's income demographics were more evenly spread across the city as opposed to middle and high income in central and south city and extremely poor in north city. Subsidizing market rate housing in places like the Grove has done nothing to reduce these core problems, requiring them to have income diversity would in theory start to solve this issue that STL has failed to even consider solving for the last 50 years.
So yes, people are leaving because of crime. But that crime is created by design and they are leaving the city because there are no alternatives they can afford in the desireable parts of the city.
Crime isn't the only reason low-income people leave the city. Can't boil it all down to that like local tv news would have you do.
It's complicated, but it's also true low-income folks in north city and greater dutchtown mostly rent from slumlords who are unconcerned with black mold, broken heat, a window shot through, etc. Providing some quality housing they can afford would be good. And the likelihood that building more public subsidized market rate housing will filter down to those bad living conditions over even the medium term I think is very low.
It's complicated, but it's also true low-income folks in north city and greater dutchtown mostly rent from slumlords who are unconcerned with black mold, broken heat, a window shot through, etc. Providing some quality housing they can afford would be good. And the likelihood that building more public subsidized market rate housing will filter down to those bad living conditions over even the medium term I think is very low.
The problem is that STL's rents are not inflated due to demand. So what they charge is a reasonable market rate, but low income people cannot necessarily pay that, meaning they need to be designated affordable or subsidized.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2025Crime isn't the only reason low-income people leave the city. Can't boil it all down to that like local tv news would have you do.
It's complicated, but it's also true low-income folks in north city and greater dutchtown mostly rent from slumlords who are unconcerned with black mold, broken heat, a window shot through, etc. Providing some quality housing they can afford would be good. And the likelihood that building more public subsidized market rate housing will filter down to those bad living conditions over even the medium term I think is very low.
And you're right, crime is not the only factor why poor people are leaving. Housing stock is also a major reason, and there's no profit to be made by these developers to provide good stock for low income people, which is why so much of the housing development that does happen in North city is done by non profits.
- 75
The main drivers of crime are criminals, obviously. Poverty does not drive people to become criminals.Auggie wrote:This is a massive topic you don't wanna argue with me on, but the main drivers of crime are poverty and wealth inequality, exasperated by the extreme segregation seen in St. Louis.Rick Prieto wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Most people would agree that the crime is the main driver of people leaving the city, specially as those low income residents mostly live in those crime-ridden neighborhoods.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025If that was the best way, then St. Louis wouldn't be shedding thousands of low income residents every year.
You would see significant reductions in crime if the city's income demographics were more evenly spread across the city as opposed to middle and high income in central and south city and extremely poor in north city. Subsidizing market rate housing in places like the Grove has done nothing to reduce these core problems, requiring them to have income diversity would in theory start to solve this issue that STL has failed to even consider solving for the last 50 years.
So yes, people are leaving because of crime. But that crime is created by design and they are leaving the city because there are no alternatives they can afford in the desireable parts of the city.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of us has a degree in criminology, the other is you.STLcommenter wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2025The main drivers of crime are criminals, obviously. Poverty does not drive people to become criminals.Auggie wrote:This is a massive topic you don't wanna argue with me on, but the main drivers of crime are poverty and wealth inequality, exasperated by the extreme segregation seen in St. Louis.Rick Prieto wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Most people would agree that the crime is the main driver of people leaving the city, specially as those low income residents mostly live in those crime-ridden neighborhoods.
You would see significant reductions in crime if the city's income demographics were more evenly spread across the city as opposed to middle and high income in central and south city and extremely poor in north city. Subsidizing market rate housing in places like the Grove has done nothing to reduce these core problems, requiring them to have income diversity would in theory start to solve this issue that STL has failed to even consider solving for the last 50 years.
So yes, people are leaving because of crime. But that crime is created by design and they are leaving the city because there are no alternatives they can afford in the desireable parts of the city.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah yes, which is why crime levels are the same in both poor and rich neighborhoods.
- 6,118
^To be completely fair, rich people do commit crimes, but they get away with it a whale of a lot more. Possibly because they largely control the crime enforcement mechanisms, and they prefer to prosecute poor people stealing stuff off the store shelves they own over themselves stealing wages out of the paychecks of the poor people they employ.
- 488
We could give them cheaper and nicer places to live.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025If that was the best way, then St. Louis wouldn't be shedding thousands of low income residents every year.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Our city would be better if more out of state developers built projects here. The best way to get affordable housing is to build market rate housing.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025
It's a P-D opinion piece shilling for out-of-town developers who didn't want 10% of their units on a $100M+ development to be affordable. Why would they ever cite their points?
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/ ... es-for-all
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlig ... -new-units
Buddy I'm aware of the theory behind it. Are you aware that this is what St. Louis has been doing for 20 years and it hasn't even put a dent in the loss of low income residents?mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025We could give them cheaper and nicer places to live.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025If that was the best way, then St. Louis wouldn't be shedding thousands of low income residents every year.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025Our city would be better if more out of state developers built projects here. The best way to get affordable housing is to build market rate housing.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/ ... es-for-all
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlig ... -new-units
- 488
Okay Pal.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Buddy I'm aware of the theory behind it. Are you aware that this is what St. Louis has been doing for 20 years and it hasn't even put a dent in the loss of low income residents?mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025We could give them cheaper and nicer places to live.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2025
If that was the best way, then St. Louis wouldn't be shedding thousands of low income residents every year.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/ ... es-for-all
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlig ... -new-units
Have we? We are really bad at doing that one thing if we are doing it less than we did 20 years ago and its the only thing we are trying.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/STLBPPRIVSA
Did you just send a link showing data for the entire MSA in an debate about a municipality that makes up 10% of the MSA's population?mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Okay Pal.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025Buddy I'm aware of the theory behind it. Are you aware that this is what St. Louis has been doing for 20 years and it hasn't even put a dent in the loss of low income residents?mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2025We could give them cheaper and nicer places to live.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/ ... es-for-all
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlig ... -new-units
Have we? We are really bad at doing that one thing if we are doing it less than we did 20 years ago and its the only thing we are trying.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/STLBPPRIVSA
And you don't even know what my point was. My point was that the city has been giving tax breaks for non-affordable housing for decades and the number of low income residents leaving has not slowed.
- 502
I think a balance with market rate and affordable housing can and should be had, but in order to get to that point, incentives need to be reformed. When the cost to build an affordable unit is similar in price to a market rate, you’ll be at a loss meaning it’s junk in the eyes of investors. Even market rate in St. Louis struggles because of construction costs and returns.
Biggest thing the city needs to do is market neighborhoods where they haven’t become expensive to appeal to more people. Get investments in there. Use incentives wisely to do this. What the city shouldn’t do it what KC requires (any incentive for new buildings requires 20% of units to be set aside as affordable for tenants making up to 60% AMI. This has resulted in new residential developments from being brought forward or brought through agencies separate from municipal government (like PortKC). It’s a very fine line to walk because social policy says one thing, but reality says something else. There’s likely a little gray area to work with, but it requires collaboration.
I think Hyde Park, Old North, West End, Academy, Fountain Park, Carondelet, Gravois Park and Dutchtown are all prime for experiments that retain its affordable housing options and adding mixed-income while improving safety. I choose these areas because they’re either done falling apart and have stabilized, or are showing signs of promise.
Biggest thing the city needs to do is market neighborhoods where they haven’t become expensive to appeal to more people. Get investments in there. Use incentives wisely to do this. What the city shouldn’t do it what KC requires (any incentive for new buildings requires 20% of units to be set aside as affordable for tenants making up to 60% AMI. This has resulted in new residential developments from being brought forward or brought through agencies separate from municipal government (like PortKC). It’s a very fine line to walk because social policy says one thing, but reality says something else. There’s likely a little gray area to work with, but it requires collaboration.
I think Hyde Park, Old North, West End, Academy, Fountain Park, Carondelet, Gravois Park and Dutchtown are all prime for experiments that retain its affordable housing options and adding mixed-income while improving safety. I choose these areas because they’re either done falling apart and have stabilized, or are showing signs of promise.
I agree a balance needs to be made, and I agree that a one-size-fits-all approach like KC has apparently done is not the correct answer.Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Nov 25, 2025I think a balance with market rate and affordable housing can and should be had, but in order to get to that point, incentives need to be reformed. When the cost to build an affordable unit is similar in price to a market rate, you’ll be at a loss meaning it’s junk in the eyes of investors. Even market rate in St. Louis struggles because of construction costs and returns.
Biggest thing the city needs to do is market neighborhoods where they haven’t become expensive to appeal to more people. Get investments in there. Use incentives wisely to do this. What the city shouldn’t do it what KC requires (any incentive for new buildings requires 20% of units to be set aside as affordable for tenants making up to 60% AMI. This has resulted in new residential developments from being brought forward or brought through agencies separate from municipal government (like PortKC). It’s a very fine line to walk because social policy says one thing, but reality says something else. There’s likely a little gray area to work with, but it requires collaboration.
I think Hyde Park, Old North, West End, Academy, Fountain Park, Carondelet, Gravois Park and Dutchtown are all prime for experiments that retain its affordable housing options and adding mixed-income while improving safety. I choose these areas because they’re either done falling apart and have stabilized, or are showing signs of promise.