Latest Mississippi River Bridge Proposal Getting Warmer

In the past I’ve been a vocal critic of the mammoth Mississippi River Bridge proposal that originally was going to exceed a billion dollars. Recent revisions shaved that down to $900 million and some change. Besides the cost, I was not happy with the implications of the bridge ramps cutting into the near North side.

Thankfully Missouri has refused to fund their share of the project. Missouri has said the only way we can afford the project is if tolls are collected. Illinois complained it would then prove too costly for their residents as they would end up paying twice — once to fund Illinois’ portion and second as the main users paying tolls.

The stalemate has forced what may be a logical compromise. From yesterday’s Post-Dispatch:

Illinois is moving forward with an alternative to a new Mississippi River bridge – one that’s about half as big, about half as expensive, and would get around Missouri’s efforts to pay for the structure with tolls.A source familiar with the idea said the Illinois Department of Transportation has a conceptual plan in hand for a coupler bridge beside the existing Martin Luther King Bridge. The additional structure would carry four lanes of traffic, all of them westbound. Crews would renovate the existing King Bridge to carry three lanes, all eastbound. Currently, the bridge carries four narrow lanes.

I like the concept! It increases the lane capacity across the river yet without breaking the bank or decimating neighborhoods (well, hopefully not). This is, of course, the plan they should have come up with back in 2001. It might well be under construction at this point had they not gone off the deep end with such a wild scheme.

As with prior concepts, I-70 would be directed to this new bridge coupler. The idea being it would reduce traffic along the stretch of highway between downtown and the Arch as well as reduce traffic on the Poplar Street Bridge (I-64). I’m just not sure what this new concept will do to Laclede’s Landing.

With a new bridge built North of the existing King Bridge it opens a number of questions. How close to the current King bridge and what is in the way?

If immediately to the North of the existing King Bridge you’ll find an existing hotel as well as the horrible new casino project, under construction, in the path. Both are ugly so I suppose I wouldn’t mind. The dock for the President Casino is also a visual travesty so no loss there. However, I can’t see much savings by having to buy out these properties.

So will Illinois propose the new Westbound bridge land somewhat to the North such as inline with Carr or Biddle Streets? If so, this has some pros and cons. On the plus side it avoids having to buy out some expensive real estate. On the con side it further divides an area that has potential to become a real neighborhood. Keeping all the traffic confined near the existing King bridge would allow the area to the North to become more defined and a cohesive neighborhood with access to the North Riverfront Trail.

Here are some related prior posts:

Laclede’s Landing, December 2004 (includes rendering of casino and foul language)

Mississippi River Bridge, January 2005

Riverfront makeover, July 2005

Riverfront, I-70 lid and Mississippi River Bridge; August 2005

Mayor Slay on Bridge, August 2005

Mississippi River Bridge, November 2005

Mississippi River Bridge, the numbers, November 2005

I’ve written a lot more on this subject than I realized! Nothing gets me going like a billion dollars being spent on bad auto-centric planning. I’m just really curious to see what the proposal looks like on both the Missouri and Illinois sides. What are your thoughts on this latest twist?

– Steve

New ‘Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority’ to Benefit Ballpark Village?

Just when you thought we didn’t have enough authorities, boards and commissions the City of St. Louis has decided to add yet another: the Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority. This is authorized by the State of Missouri through the Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Act or MODESA for short.

Under the city we’ve got the Planning Commission, Preservation Board, Board of Adjustment, and probably a few others. Under the St. Louis Development Corporation board (SLDC) we have the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), St. Louis Local Development Company (LDC), Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA), Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA), Tax Increment Financing Commission (TIF) and the St. Louis Port Authority. Trying to find out information on these is a challenge as with only one exception are the members names listed and agenda published online.

So do we really need another authority charged with economic development? Sadly, I think the answer is yes.

I attended the Board of Aldermen’s Housing, Urban Design & Zoning (HUDZ) committee meeting recently where Barb Geisman, the Deputy Mayor for Development, presented BB#6 to create the authority. The first thing I found interesting was the bill was sponsored by Fred Wessels, committee chair, rather than one of the aldermen representing most or some of downtown.

Ms. Geisman talked about the new state law allowing counties & cities to create this authority which can utilize state funds collected from two sources: state sales tax and state payroll taxes. She did a great job of explaining the complicated requirements and I’ll do my best to pass along how it will work as well as links to the legislation so you can play along at home.

The condensed idea is to attract new business to the downtown area as defined by the authority. If the development plan meets all the various criteria a portion of the state sales tax and earnings tax generated from new business can be applied toward development costs.

Defining new business is the tricky part. Moving the Hooters from Union Station to the old Mike Shannon’s site does not constitute new business. Even something like opening a new grocery store downtown may not count as the state will argue that it is not generating new state taxes — any sales would simply be at the expense of another grocer already located in Missouri.

In describing the process Geisman mentioned they were thinking of this authority for three “related” projects, St. Louis Center, the former Dillard’s building and Jefferson Arm’s. First, Jefferson Arm’s is only related to the other two because of the same developer, Pyramid Companies. Physically, the projects are a good 5+ blocks apart. But, that is not the issue. This Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority looks at projects generating state taxes — sales and payroll. The residential uses planned for St. Louis Center, Dillard’s and Jefferson Arms don’t even begin to meet the criteria. Sure, new businesses located at street-level may well qualify under the state’s terms but I can’t imagine that would generate much.

I think mentioning these projects was a bit of a smoke screen. My bet is this new authority is being put into place to help offset development costs for the Ballpark Village. You’ll recall recent flap over the developer, Cordish, seeking TIF financing and the city refusing to do so (see Biz Journal story). In all the years it took to get the new stadium deal put together and all the talk about the Ballpark Village I find it highly unlikely that TIF financing never came up in discussions until just recently. Does this mean a TIF is out? No, one of the tricks of the MODESA state law is that it must always accompany a TIF.

Mark my words — we’ll see the Ballpark Village get a TIF as well as help from this new Downtown Economic Stimulus Authority. I wouldn’t rule it out for other projects such as St. Louis Center and the Bottle District (aka Gateway Village).

Related links:
•

BB#6 (ignore summary as it is wrong but the PDF has the right bill)
•Missouri Development Finance Board/MODESA
• Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 99 (see 99.921 – 99.980)

– Steve

Charles Jaco on Ballpark Village

Fox 2 News reporter Charles Jaco will be doing a piece on Ballpark Village during their 6pm news tonight. I was asked to give my urban perspective on the project. At issue is the developer seeking a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) for the project and the city saying no.

On a side note, the cameraman was a neighbor of mine back in the early 90’s when I lived on Sullivan in Old North St. Louis. It was nice to reminisce at bit.

[UPDATE 5/24/06 @ 5pm – I got a call a bit ago letting me know that due to some developing stories his time for this piece was cut — and so was I. It happens, I’ll live. In fact, he said the story may get bumped altogether for tonight’s 6pm broadcast.]

– Steve

McGowan|Walsh Opens New Sales Center

McGowan|Walsh Historic Renovators today opened their new “Sales & Presentation Center” to more than 300 REALTORS®. We were first treated to a “nuts & bolts” seminar on loft selling and lunch down the street at Windows on Washington.

Sadly, many in my profession don’t get the renaissance in urban living. Today’s presentation did a great job of explaining what it is all about. Kevin McGowan asked his wife Erin to talk about a typical day for them. The McGowan’s have a 3-year old as well as twins that are less than a year old. Erin talked about a mom’s group where her son (age 3) is the oldest. The point, families do live downtown.

McGowan|Walsh will be doing something new with all their upcoming projects: Opening sales to those customers represented by buyer’s agents for a full two weeks prior to just taking contracts from those not represented. So, if you are looking to place a contract on one of their projects get with an agent (such as myself) so you can pick the unit you want and get pre-construction pricing.

M|W will be giving each purchaser of a new loft a new scooter as well (updated 5/30/06 – Packard & Motor Lofts only at this point). Kevin McGowan mentioned he has had recent talks with city officials about scooter parking as he wants to make sure his customers have a place to park their new scooters when visiting local businesses and friends. I addressed this issue in a post entitled St. Louis Region Needs to Address Scooter & Motorcycle Parking on April 6, 2006.

Kevin McGowan & partner Nat Walsh are also mixing up the selections scene a bit. Light fixtures, bathroom fittings and kitchen casework is being sourced from Blue Boat Designs located at 1607 Washington Ave. Their products are not the run of the mill loft finishes we’ve seen for the last 5 years.

Look for the West Downtown area to really take off in the next 3-5 years as these buildings become occupied and as new construction begins. Kevin McGowan and I discussed their plans for the remaining Cupple’s buildings near the new Busch Stadium being marketed as the Ballpark Lofts. He indicated they’ve had an amazing amount of interest from office interests as well as national retailers. Looks like at least one of the buildings may go entirely office with street-level retail.

A few additional photos are available on Flickr.

– Steve

Urban Review Takes a Day Off…sorta

I took the day off today and attended my first game in the new Busch Stadium. I’ve already done an extensive review of the ballpark and how it relates to the city (prior post) so here I just want to share a few thoughts now that I’ve had a chance to attend a game.

I like it.

I think they’ve done a great job overall. The place has a nice open feel to it and the view to downtown from the stands is spectacular. From other parts of the stadium you get wonderful city views. I think people in the stadium will have a greater connection to the city beyond the stadium walls. It will be interesting to see the relationship between the stadium and ballpark village as it is being constructed and once complete.

Since this is bike to work week I thought it best I leave my car & scooter at home. I picked my Cannondale hybrid bike (I have 5 bikes) as it is a good commuter bike. Not wanting to arrive completely worn out I biked a mile over to a bus stop along the #40 Broadway route. I got off at Soulard Market and biked another mile to the stadium. Following the game, I biked the full 4.6 miles home.

Celebrity sightings included promoter Don King and a boxer I did not recognize. I managed to find a couple of food places that had a surprisingly good garden burger which was reasonable at $4. The beverage prices were quite high so after I finished my first $4.50 bottle of water I filled it up at the drinking fountains.

I took quite a few pictures, many of our streets and buildings around the stadium. See all of them on Flickr.

Oh yeah, we won the game!

– Steve