OT: SLU Medical Office

[SLU21]

When SLU puts this 75MM investment in Chesterfield and the Pevley building sit there unused for another 10 years it will be a flawless victory for the "preservation crowd".

[TheA_Bomb]

The greenspace is terrible. You're probably from a small town so I will explain this to you. That real estate is too valuable to put grass on. If not for that grass and those trees there would be a viable and most likely really cool business in that space. SLU needs to get with it and begin to develop roof-top green space, parks and gardens. The gardens would produce all the organic vegetables necessary for the consumption of residents and workers. That would increase the sustainability of the community. To go with that sustainability the area could really use a dairy. Now if they only had saved that old beautiful livery building it would've been a perfect place for such a venture.

article regarding urban roof-top agriculture: http://seedstock.com/2011/05/06/sustainable-agriculture-market-roofto/

I haven't read the entire thread but about all that green space near the research building..... I heard (and could be completely wrong) that the green space cannot support any more structures due to a series of caves and caverns/underground water... Anyone else hear this? I am a grad student (and did my undergrad at slu) in the physical therapy program so I am down on that campus everyday all day.

But if that is not the case, I agree it is just a waste of space.

[davidnark]

Because you put the word FEDERAL in all caps. No one had previously mentioned it. SLU (as far as we all know) pays no CITY property taxes (and elsewhere gets CITY tax benefits like the TIF used to pay part of the bill for Chaifetz).

Joe, I don't believe that is entirely accurate. I believe that SLU has to pay a small pro-rata amount of property taxes for those portions of its property that are used by for-profit businesses (e.g. Subway, Barnes and Noble, etc.).

[davidnark]

The greenspace is terrible. You're probably from a small town so I will explain this to you. That real estate is too valuable to put grass on. If not for that grass and those trees there would be a viable and most likely really cool business in that space.

What is the basis for this statement? The supply of available spaces in the city greatly exceeds the demand right now. For over 7 years, SLU has been trying to line up a private developer for arguably the most prominent site in all of midtown. http://www.slu.edu/readstory/more/4703 http://www.bizjourna...4.html?page=all When no one can make the economics work for a "highly dense, mixed-use project" at the corner of Grand and Lindell, why do you think there would be a cool business willing to invest in this lot?

CORRECTION: In re-reading your post, I believe you were being sarcastic. \

[Pistol]

Wow, this topic has become a lightning rod.

By the way, can someone clarify this for me: this medical center, is it intended to replace the Doctors Office Building on Vista?

[2010andBeyond]

The greenspace is terrible. You're probably from a small town so I will explain this to you. That real estate is too valuable to put grass on. If not for that grass and those trees there would be a viable and most likely really cool business in that space. SLU needs to get with it and begin to develop roof-top green space, parks and gardens. The gardens would produce all the organic vegetables necessary for the consumption of residents and workers. That would increase the sustainability of the community. To go with that sustainability the area could really use a dairy. Now if they only had saved that old beautiful livery building it would've been a perfect place for such a venture.

article regarding urban roof-top agriculture: http://seedstock.com/2011/05/06/sustainable-agriculture-market-roofto/

Hahaha. This is what many seem to not understand. There was a serious post on the previous page that claimed this was prime real estate. It absolutely is not.

[bonwich]

Joe, I don't believe that is entirely accurate. I believe that SLU has to pay a small pro-rata amount of property taxes for those portions of its property that are used by for-profit businesses (e.g. Subway, Barnes and Noble, etc.).

There's an acronym for this, I think -- or for what a nonprofit pays as a substitute for property taxes, I think often dedicated to picking up what would have been paid to a school district.

[davidnark]

There's an acronym for this, I think -- or for what a nonprofit pays as a substitute for property taxes, I think often dedicated to picking up what would have been paid to a school district.

The acronym you are thinking of it PILOTS (payments in lieu of taxes). PILOTS are paid by private developers as part of tax abatement deals.

[TheA_Bomb]

The basis for this statement is that we don't see this kind of green space in the middle of Manhattan, Chicago, or San Francisco and that is what STL should strive to emulate.

I'd love to see the building used as a hub for the arts. I could see it being a dual use facility where the vibrant culture of Slam Poetry is practiced in those tiled rooms. Imagine the acoustics of the rhymes as they bounce off the aging tiles. The juxtaposition of the place formerly a sterile environment churning out white milk now used to encourage expression in a vibrant urban center is poetry.

What is the basis for this statement? The supply of available spaces in the city greatly exceeds the demand right now. For over 7 years, SLU has been trying to line up a private developer for arguably the most prominent site in all of midtown. http://www.slu.edu/readstory/more/4703 http://www.bizjourna...4.html?page=all When no one can make the economics work for a "highly dense, mixed-use project" at the corner of Grand and Lindell, why do you think there would be a cool business willing to invest in this lot?

CORRECTION: In re-reading your post, I believe you were being sarcastic. \

[Cowboy]

Because you put the word FEDERAL in all caps. No one had previously mentioned it. SLU (as far as we all know) pays no CITY property taxes (and elsewhere gets CITY tax benefits like the TIF used to pay part of the bill for Chaifetz).

SLU has gotten City tax incentives in the past. Didn't it get a big lump for the Arena? I'm not questioning SLU's tax status as a non-profit.

We can even pull the tax discussion out altogether, and the fact remains the same: SLU bought a property with restrictions. THAT is what keeps it from doing whatever it wants with the site.

-i understand SLU pays no or little CITY property tax, i took the comment made by pistol that part of the reasoning SLU lost its bid to take down the bldg was because the tax payers were sticking it to the non profit

[JMM28]

The basis for this statement is that we don't see this kind of green space in the middle of Manhattan, Chicago, or San Francisco and that is what STL should strive to emulate.

I'd love to see the building used as a hub for the arts. I could see it being a dual use facility where the vibrant culture of Slam Poetry is practiced in those tiled rooms. Imagine the acoustics of the rhymes as they bounce off the aging tiles. The juxtaposition of the place formerly a sterile environment churning out white milk now used to encourage expression in a vibrant urban center is poetry.

Has any developer looked into a series of skyscrapers in Forrest Park? This is an atrocious waste of land. All that green space for nothing! And it isn't even suitable farm land.

Again, what is the historical significance of this building? And what is to stop someone from letting a property fall into disrepair until it is condemned or falls down?

[TheA_Bomb]

I think forest park is on a historical registry.

Has any developer looked into a series of skyscrapers in Forrest Park? This is an atrocious waste of land. All that green space for nothing! And it isn't even suitable farm land.

Again, what is the historical significance of this building? And what is to stop someone from letting a property fall into disrepair until it is condemned or falls down?

[Pistol]

-i understand SLU pays no or little CITY property tax, i took the comment made by pistol that part of the reasoning SLU lost its bid to take down the bldg was because the tax payers were sticking it to the non profit

Not what I said. I said SLU is going to be subject to the rules and regulations of operating within the City limits since it benefits from City taxpayers- and quite honestly, for the amount of development SLU has done, it has rarely met much resistance.

Even in this case, SLU has only been asked to keep 1 building and the smokestack and still has the green light to raze the other 4 buildings and use the rest of the land for any parking/greenspace breakdown it chooses. Not a terrible deal.

[Pistol]

A-Bomb, the constant sarcasm is unproductive and also not funny. Stick to your day job, whatever that is. Comedy isn't your thing.

Also, I've got some great ideas for improving the DFW metroplex, but I'll keep them to myself.

[davidnark]

I also find it interesting that so many in this thread who have made the case "SLU owns it, SLU can do whatever it wants" are not City residents. It's easy to voice such a simplistic, black-and-white opinion when you don't live in a larger, more complex city with larger, more complex problems that require more complex evaluation and solutions.

I live in a historic neighborhood (that is split City/U City), I work in the city, and my kids go to school in the city. Before my current home, I lived in a different historic city neighborhood, and before that I lived in the CWE for 5 years. Despite my allegiance to the city, I believe property owners should have the right to do what they want with their property within reason. As SShoe has pointed out, the Preservation Board has done a fairly nice job in the past in finding the right balance. I think it is healthy to have a public debate and process for considering the value of demoing long-standing structures. However, my personal opinion is that the Del Taco building and Pevely Building projects are examples of properties that hold little historical value and shouldn't be spared. They also shouldn't be legally equated to the Wainwright Building, the Old Courthouse, Old Post Office, Merchandise Mart, etc.

I also believe that urban density is the ultimate goal, but it cannot be forced by dictating preservation requirements and building codes. Density needs to evolve from a high-demand, and good urban planning can help facilitate the process. It is great to see the urban demand evolving in pockets downtown, but unfortunately vacant retail space probably still outweighs thriving retail downtown. For example, Ballpark Village hasn't been delayed/cancelled because the DeWitts are bad people; it has failed thus far because the demand cannot justify the project.

Many on here have criticized the grassy lots Biondi has created both on the medical campus and the frost campus; my observation is that they provide a safe, low-cost, and appealing means for holding a site until demand justifies a more dense, development. This is certainly the plan for the LIndell/Grand site.

[billslasttermdropout]

If you save the building and smokestack in question, be sure to save at least the other two buildings I've highlighted between Choteau and U.S. 40/I-64 for historical context. Other than that, have at it, I'd say.

Larger version sans highlight (click on the picture, than click view all sizes, than click download the larger version):

http://www.flickr.co...N02/6555025295/

[Cowboy]

Not what I said. I said SLU is going to be subject to the rules and regulations of operating within the City limits since it benefits from City taxpayers- and quite honestly, for the amount of development SLU has done, it has rarely met much resistance.

Even in this case, SLU has only been asked to keep 1 building and the smokestack and still has the green light to raze the other 4 buildings and use the rest of the land for any parking/greenspace breakdown it chooses. Not a terrible deal.

Taxpayers are a factor, true. SLU buys these buildings with little or no tax bill (does anyone have any rough numbers?), and often with tax incentives above and beyond a simple tax break. Look around Midtown and it's clear that the School has not been subject to much in the way of regulations, either. So when it runs into a roadblock here and there- and this certainly is one- that's part of the territory for a non-profit operating like a real estate developer with lower taxes. Sometimes they have to answer to the taxpayers and the rules they've already established, whether they like it or not.

-sorry i misread this, hopefully you can see how i got to where i did

[Pistol]

I live in a historic neighborhood (that is split City/U City), I work in the city, and my kids go to school in the city. Before my current home, I lived in a different historic city neighborhood, and before that I lived in the CWE for 5 years. Despite my allegiance to the city, I believe property owners should have the right to do what they want with their property within reason. As SShoe has pointed out, the Preservation Board has done a fairly nice job in the past in finding the right balance. I think it is healthy to have a public debate and process for considering the value of demoing long-standing structures. However, my personal opinion is that the Del Taco building and Pevely Building projects are examples of properties that hold little historical value and shouldn't be spared. They also shouldn't be legally equated to the Wainwright Building, the Old Courthouse, Old Post Office, Merchandise Mart, etc.

I also believe that urban density is the ultimate goal, but it cannot be forced by dictating preservation requirements and building codes. Density needs to evolve from a high-demand, and good urban planning can help facilitate the process. It is great to see the urban demand evolving in pockets downtown, but unfortunately vacant retail space probably still outweighs thriving retail downtown. For example, Ballpark Village hasn't been delayed/cancelled because the DeWitts are bad people; it has failed thus far because the demand cannot justify the project.

Many on here have criticized the grassy lots Biondi has created both on the medical campus and the frost campus; my observation is that they provide a safe, low-cost, and appealing means for holding a site until demand justifies a more dense, development. This is certainly the plan for the LIndell/Grand site.

I understand where you're coming from. Where I disagree is that SLU has gotten a green light to develop/demolish as it wants in the past largely on good faith. This has resulted in a disproportionately large amount of surface lots and "grassy lots" for the area. SLU's plans for the Pevely site calls for demolition of everything except the smokestack and the construction of a single building and - you guessed it - more surface and grassy lots, without any plan for future development of those because of their desired use to surround the new Medical Center.

I also understand that there's no need to develop without high enough demand. In SLU's case, however, there is high enough demand to develop a good number of those currently unused lots. For example, there is an insufficient amount of on-campus housing. The grassy lot at Laclede and Vandeventer was originally intended to be more Village apartments (correct me if I'm wrong) and the school ran out of money for that project. Is it still short by that much? How is it buying so much surrounding land and then not using all but a small amount of it? The time is ripe for more apartments or a dorm on that spot. And I can't accept that the corner of Grand and Lindell can't be used, either. Some of the lots farther from this corner and on side streets in the medical campus area- I can understand why those sit longer. But instead of just buying up more and more land, how about giving us some sort of plan or even broad vision at some point?

I appreciate that you are evaluating this and other projects on a case-by-case basis and not simply as a matter of an umbrella principle.

[davidnark]

Taxpayers are a factor, true. SLU buys these buildings with little or no tax bill (does anyone have any rough numbers?), and often with tax incentives above and beyond a simple tax break. Look around Midtown and it's clear that the School has not been subject to much in the way of regulations, either. So when it runs into a roadblock here and there- and this certainly is one- that's part of the territory for a non-profit operating like a real estate developer with lower taxes. Sometimes they have to answer to the taxpayers and the rules they've already established, whether they like it or not.

-sorry i misread this, hopefully you can see how i got to where i did

The taxpayer issue hasn't been significant for SLU because most of the properties it acquires are usually vacant and/or blighted and were providing little or no tax base. By contrast, Wash U acquires valuable property from Clayton, U City, and the city, which does have a significant, negative tax impact.

[bonwich]

By contrast, Wash U acquires valuable property from Clayton, U City, and the city, which does have a significant, negative tax impact.

Are you talking about the private residential that it's acquired, or something else?

[SpartanBilliken]

Not taking sides here, but I want to point out that all of the space that SLU buys up and turns into green space isn't always done so just to have green space. For the green space north and south of the research building, I have been told they wanted to keep this open for use in future years in which to potentially develop into buildings many years down the road.

As for the "structure park" at grand and lindell, there was an original plan in place to construct a development with condos, office space and retail space, but the plans fell through. Instead of leaving it an empty lot, SLU chose to turn it into the green space you see today.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2008/11/17/story4.html

For the empty gravel lot (parking lot) next to the law school, SLU was supposed to have already begun construction on the new and expanded version of the law school, but still have yet to raise the adequate funds. When they tore down the building that was there (that also saw opposition from the same/similar people who want pevely to stay), SLU expected that they would soon be building their new law school.

Then the economy tanked and the two previous projects were scrapped/put on hold.

As for all of the land that SLU is buying up, better to buy it now and leave it be and/or turn into green space than have someone else come in and buy it and SLU misses out on prime real estate.

[davidnark]

Are you talking about the private residential that it's acquired, or something else?

Yes. Wash U has acquired expensive businesses and homes adjacent to their campuses. Each time they do, the take a tax-generating property and move it into into a tax-exempt property. For this reason, there has been some vocal opposition in Clayton and U City. SLU doesn't typically face the same circumstance.

[TheA_Bomb]

B-Roy lauded my posts and that meant the world to me.

Shoot me an email with your DFW improvement suggestions. I actually work for a regional organization representing the 16 county area (when not activated for deployment). We have 6.5 million people here, the economy is better than in most of the rest of the country, the 3rd busiest Airport in the World. Super Bowl, World Series, NBA All Star Game, NBA Finals, NASCAR, 2 bowl games, 2 zoos, Presidential Library, multiple free art museums, multiple science centers, multiple Universities, no state income tax, low cost of living, our population is actually growing unlike some other cities, Metz, and more.... So we're doing alright but I'll pass your suggestions on. If they require never demolishing a building that housed cattle at one time or another we probably won't implement it because we'd have never built anything new and become a world class metropolitan area.

A-Bomb, the constant sarcasm is unproductive and also not funny. Stick to your day job, whatever that is. Comedy isn't your thing.

Also, I've got some great ideas for improving the DFW metroplex, but I'll keep them to myself.

[bleedtheblue]

The greenspace is terrible. You're probably from a small town so I will explain this to you. That real estate is too valuable to put grass on. If not for that grass and those trees there would be a viable and most likely really cool business in that space. SLU needs to get with it and begin to develop roof-top green space, parks and gardens. The gardens would produce all the organic vegetables necessary for the consumption of residents and workers. That would increase the sustainability of the community. To go with that sustainability the area could really use a dairy. Now if they only had saved that old beautiful livery building it would've been a perfect place for such a venture.

article regarding urban roof-top agriculture: http://seedstock.com...-market-roofto/

Yea. Not from a small town. I grew up in Chicago. In the city. Not sure why you directed this quote at me considering my post had nothing to do with the value of real estate. But I do agree with using that space for buildings as well as roof top gardens.

On that topic... when I was a freshman in reinert 4 years ago, the dorm senator/rep? wanted to turn the roof of reinert into a garden. I fully supported that but it fell through.

[GOSLU68]

Rooftop gardens like indoor swimming pools can

Cause other problems.

I'd like to see both wash u and SLU continue to

Expand but Wash u has certainly ruined their

Campus and SLU now has the advantage of poor neighbors that can be bought up and upgrade the extent and circumstance fitting the

Power they can be in medical research and education and drag along the undergrad and other grad programs someday SLU might be as well regarded as Wash academically