It’s not a lie that the market changed or that they weren’t able to get the deal together at the end of the day. Not really our problem that they haven’t started (it’s not like incentives are a cash grant or something).JaneJacobsGhost wrote:They’ve had their incentives for 18 months and not a gd thing.
Certain folks on this board need to stop slurping developer lies
- 1,793
No no no. Local media and posters on this board were adamant city bureaucracy was all that stood between this development and completion.
For one or both hotels?
Suuuuuuure.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2025They are finishing up financing
Saw some signs that said "construction starting in the fall" on both hotels.
Ha. True that. Coming soon!!MattnSTL wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2025If you don't put a year, your signage is always current.
Hampton House, the liquor store at the end of my street, has been planning to reopen in March per its signage... since 2015
BB169 would increase the tax abatement for the Kimpton Hotel from 10 years at 75% to 10 years at 90%
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=16814
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=16814
Bump. Seriously, why are we - The City -giving developers better incentives package when they bait and switched from two hotels to one and significantly reduced their own investment?
- 9,525
I don’t think you folks understand the impossibility of building ground up here even with incentives
Us folks are not the ones who proposed a development we knew wouldn't work and we didn't ask for ton of incentives and we didn't tear down a building for our development that we knew was impossible.dbInSouthCity wrote:I don’t think you folks understand the impossibility of building ground up here even with incentives
What us folks do understand is that developers are mostly idiots.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
- 9,525
The numbers worked when it was proposed. City’s action caused multiple delays and now it has to pay for those delaysStlAlex wrote: ↑3:27 PM - Feb 18Us folks are not the ones who proposed a development we knew wouldn't work and we didn't ask for ton of incentives and we didn't tear down a building for our development that we knew was impossible.dbInSouthCity wrote:I don’t think you folks understand the impossibility of building ground up here even with incentives
What us folks do understand is that developers are mostly idiots.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
- 1,793
You don’t actually believe this project as originally envisioned is going vertical today if the alderman had passed the incentives in March of 2024 instead of April of 2024, do you?
If they can't make a hotel adjacent to a sports stadium, Wells Fargo company, a major university, a small university, several large government offices, and walking distance from Union Station, maybe the market is just too saturated? There's already several hotels in the area. You can't just demand the government subsidize you until your failing project works. That's not market capitalism.dbInSouthCity wrote:The numbers worked when it was proposed. City’s action caused multiple delays and now it has to pay for those delaysStlAlex wrote: ↑3:27 PM - Feb 18Us folks are not the ones who proposed a development we knew wouldn't work and we didn't ask for ton of incentives and we didn't tear down a building for our development that we knew was impossible.dbInSouthCity wrote:I don’t think you folks understand the impossibility of building ground up here even with incentives
What us folks do understand is that developers are mostly idiots.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
I'm with DB here. Developer's share their numbers with SLDC. Those numbers can easily be vetted based on prior projects, industry data, and contacts. They will show the tax impact in their presentation to the LCRA and HUDZ committee.
Interest rates and construction costs have both increased signficantly since the original bill. A development forward city wouldn't quibble over a couple of % points, putting the project at risk. The last thing the developer wants to do it come back begging for those same % points, but they have underwriting bench marks they have to hit to attract institutional investment to a 2nd/3rd tier city. If the city wants good stuff, they need to be a true partner, not an obstacle.
Interest rates and construction costs have both increased signficantly since the original bill. A development forward city wouldn't quibble over a couple of % points, putting the project at risk. The last thing the developer wants to do it come back begging for those same % points, but they have underwriting bench marks they have to hit to attract institutional investment to a 2nd/3rd tier city. If the city wants good stuff, they need to be a true partner, not an obstacle.
Dude the city approved a massive tax break for this project lol. I'm sure the inflation of 2022-2023 made this project far more expensive than they ever wanted, but there's absolutely nothing the city can do about that. In fact, in 2024 when this was last discussed at legnth, they were well aware of the impact of inflation.TalkinDev wrote:I'm with DB here. Developer's share their numbers with SLDC. Those numbers can easily be vetted based on prior projects, industry data, and contacts. They will show the tax impact in their presentation to the LCRA and HUDZ committee.
Interest rates and construction costs have both increased signficantly since the original bill. A development forward city wouldn't quibble over a couple of % points, putting the project at risk. The last thing the developer wants to do it come back begging for those same % points, but they have underwriting bench marks they have to hit to attract institutional investment to a 2nd/3rd tier city. If the city wants good stuff, they need to be a true partner, not an obstacle.
At the end of the day, the market says this project won't work without massive government subsidy, subsidy the city should not be giving away for free in areas that need it less than others. And again, it reflects very poorly on the developers that they need this much subsidy for an area as flush with activity as this area.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
- 1,793
Well tbf rich people have never believed in market capitalism.StlAlex wrote: ↑6:50 PM - Feb 18If they can't make a hotel adjacent to a sports stadium, Wells Fargo company, a major university, a small university, several large government offices, and walking distance from Union Station, maybe the market is just too saturated? There's already several hotels in the area. You can't just demand the government subsidize you until your failing project works. That's not market capitalism.dbInSouthCity wrote:The numbers worked when it was proposed. City’s action caused multiple delays and now it has to pay for those delaysStlAlex wrote: ↑3:27 PM - Feb 18Us folks are not the ones who proposed a development we knew wouldn't work and we didn't ask for ton of incentives and we didn't tear down a building for our development that we knew was impossible.
What us folks do understand is that developers are mostly idiots.
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk
They demand the tax payer subsidize the security of their investments with huge defense spending, the training of their workforce with public universities, the construction of their transport networks, etc. etc.
- 2,620
What confuses me is how we are still building so many new hotels while recently finished hotels downtown (IE The Last, the Home2, and Indigo) are completely closed or are in receivership.
The Last I specifically wonder about, it's a perfectly good hotel. Seems like if somebody wants to open a hotel they could just pick up where they left off. Any news/rumors about this?
The Last I specifically wonder about, it's a perfectly good hotel. Seems like if somebody wants to open a hotel they could just pick up where they left off. Any news/rumors about this?
I mean.....we aren't really. Just the Jefferson Arms Marriott i think. Part of the reason this development will not go forward is because the market says it shouldn't but the city is gonna get blamed for not subsidizing them to an insane degree.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:What confuses me is how we are still building so many new hotels while recently finished hotels downtown (IE The Last, the Home2, and Indigo) are completely closed or are in receivership.
The Last I specifically wonder about, it's a perfectly good hotel. Seems like if somebody wants to open a hotel they could just pick up where they left off. Any news/rumors about this?
Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk