Building a Better Clayton Starts with The Crossing

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

The Crossing - Clayton, MO

It’s good to have a debate at tax incentives in St. Louis. This, however, isn’t what we have. In Clayton, a developer has dotted its “i’s”, crossed its “t’s”, been subject to no fewer than three levels of municipal review, been presented at numerous public meetings, and received near unanimous approval for a project. But now a small band of opponents and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have decided it’s time to show up to the conversation. Both groups misunderstand the issues and positions at play.

The Post-Dispatch became interested when tax abatement was approved by the Clayton city council for the 26-story, $72M project known as The Crossing on the southeast corner of Bonhomme and Meramec Avenues. While tax incentives, particularly Tax Increment Financing for suburban retail development, need more scrutiny, the paper seems to gleefully focus on high-rise residential infill and tax abatement in that easy foil of Clayton.

The paper’s most recent piece is its eighth story, and second editorial on the issue. Yet, they still get a lot wrong. “They gave in to a prospective developer who wants taxpayers to help finance a $72 million, 26-story luxury retail and residential tower.” This is simply wrong. Tax abatement does not equal taxpayer financing. But one needs to examine the details of a project to understand this.

The Post-Dispatch states that tax abatement isn’t necessary because “a variety of upscale residential buildings have been built in the city without help from the taxpayers.” The last significant residential development built in Clayton was Maryland Walk, which opened in 2006 and after a fast start, saw sales of the up to $1.4M units stall at the start of the Great Recession. A handful of units remained unsold for years. Other proposals, such as Trianon, have come and gone.

The paper contorts itself to justify the $22M tax abatement provided to Centene. “Jobs were at stake”! That abatement is nearly three times what has been approved for The Crossing. And it’s less than clear that an office building, parking garage and restaurants benefit Clayton more than adding ~400 residents to its downtown. While it may be easy to point and say there’s a market for development in Clayton, there are acres of vacant land, surface parking lots, and dozens of empty store fronts that tell a different story.

Opponents question weather the development will be successful. Who would live in a relatively small, expensive apartment near the MetroLink line (the project would include the relatively small number of 212 parking spaces)? It all seems rather un-Claytonlike, they think. NIMBYs like to play developer. Developments and developers do fail, but that does not equal a failure for the city. The Roberts Tower in downtown St. Louis is just one such example. The Roberts brothers lots millions on that building. It’s sat vacant for years. It’s also a significant asset for downtown.

The paper notes that the project has “drawn fire” from nearby residents. If you’re interested in the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon, tune it. Those gathering signatures and trying to stop this development, while threatening to vote the mayor and others out of office, include in their complaints that the new development would change the view from their luxury abodes, and that there will be more cars on Clayton streets. They also falsely present themselves as defenders of the sacrosanct Clayton schools.

The Post-Dispatch also repeatedly states that the Clayton School Board opposes the approved tax abatement. The paper either didn’t read the School District of Clayton’s remarks, or is willfully ignoring a much more nuanced position. The school district adopted an official position on economic development incentives (EDIs) in 2008. It states that EDIs shouldn’t be used for residential development. That seems clear, but read the statement submitted by the district, and you better understand its position on this development.

The school district’s submitted remarks state the official position while qualifying that it supports the Clayton master plan, that each EDI decision should be considered individually, that tough decisions are sometimes required, and that whatever the outcome of this particular tax abatement, it understands that the issue has been thoroughly vetted and discussed. The district even offers several of its own recent difficult decisions that it highlights were unpopular to some (putting the Maryland School on the market, and building a new middle school on a small site). The School District of Clayton may have restated its official position, but it’s disingenuous to present it as an opponent that wants to see the tax abatement fail. The school district is saying, “our policy says X, but we understand if you go against this.”

The premise of a school district opposing EDIs for residential development is that new students could be added to the district without a like increase in tax revenues. The 250 residential units here, mostly 1-2BR, would likely add few students to the school system. At the same time, the project would generate an estimated $16M in property tax revenue over the first 20 years. According to projections, after abatement the school system would receive $4.1M over 20 years, or $3.1M more than without new development. The Post-Dispatch not only doesn’t offer these numbers for consideration, it only mentions that “supporters” say there will be increased revenue.

The pertinent question here is whether the new tax revenue would cover any new students. Regardless of any other ancillary economic benefit, and other entities (the city, state, sewer district, library, zoo, etc. would receive more revenue as well). This appears very likely to be the case. In total, after abatement the project is projected to produce $8.6M in property tax revenue over 20 years, as opposed to $1.4M over the same period from the current tax base.

As we begin to recognize some of the significant problems with the way EDIs are thrown around the St. Louis region, it matters that we understand the differences among the many incentives, and projects. Clayton finalized a master development plan in 2010 that called for increasing residential and retail density in the city’s central business district. Both residential and retail would help Clayton be more economically sustainable. It’s not clear that this master plan can be effected without EDIs.

The Crossing would be the first significant new construction apartment project in Clayton in decades, and as such represents an important first step in diversifying housing options in the city. Clayton needs more people, more residents, more businesses, and more variety in each. It’s negligent to only view Clayton through the metric of median income, or third grade test scores. Communities don’t stand still.

This development will continue to add wealth well beyond the 20 year abatement period. This is more true of residential development than either retail or office, which are more likely to turn over and ask for additional subsidy as soon as the first subsidy expires. We need to stop subsidizing the never-ending next development at the expense of the previous subsidized development.

In the end, this project should be considered for its economic impact, and not its impact on someone’s view, or through the lens of the economic development incentive boogeyman. What is the cost of added infrastructure around The Crossing development? Virtually zero. Does is take advantage of existing investment such as streets and transit? Yes. The question that matters is whether wealth is being added to the community.

Here, the pace of development matters greatly. If tax abatement would have meant the Trianon condos and associated retail would have filled the grass field next to the $10M Forsyth MetroLink station more than five years ago, can we say it wouldn’t have been worth it? With five years gone, and increased tax revenue in hand, that project would be a significant positive over the annual Christmas tree lot, the only retail activity that takes place on the site next to the Ritz Carlton hotel. Using basic math, a %50 tax abated development today is equal to a non-abated development 10 years from now. Considering the catalyzing affect of development means that the real number may be 7 years or fewer. Opponents of the tax abatement can say that it’s hard to imagine this land going underutilized for long, but the reality is Clayton shows otherwise.

It’s difficult to develop in Clayton. Premium prices are demanded for vacant lots (why many sit vacant for years). Traffic studies are required for everything (even for a grocery story filling a long vacant former grocery store). The Architectural Review Board requests tweaks to this and that. It’s an onerous process. It’s also a very public process, and one that The Crossing has navigated successfully.

At this late stage, opponents have gathered signatures in an attempt to force a public vote to repeal the approved tax abatement. It appears that the issue will not go to a vote, as the city is interpreting the passage of the incentive to be exempt from this process.

The reality? Clayton isn’t a first tier market for developers. If the city is dedicated to its progressive master plan, some incentives will be necessary. The broad ideological anti-incentive brush must consider what type of places we want to build, and what builds sustainable wealth in a community. The Crossing would bring young professionals to Clayton, living adjacent to the region’s $500M light rail investment. This is what we want and need. Residents of Clayton need to recognize that all is not well, that vacant lots and empty buildings are an economic drag, that Clayton can’t be filled with $1M condos, and that the city’s status as the wealthy St. Louis suburb isn’t guaranteed.

More on Clayton: “What’s Wrong With Clayton? That’s Easy, but Does Clayton Care?

Clayton, MO Downtown Master Plan by

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Pingback: الفنون ديالى()

  • Pingback: coehuman Diyala()

  • Pingback: Event Managers in Corporate Company()

  • Pingback: try these out()

  • Pingback:

  • Pingback: DMPK Services()

  • Pingback: zd porn()

  • Pingback: Peruvian alpaca clothing the best alpaca shop of peruvian clothing()

  • TimTom

    The same Post-dispatch that was completely fine with Laclede gas moving 3 blocks with 3 million in free money form the taxpayer.

  • John R

    I do believe that it will be good for the region to eventually get these types of projects but I do worry about overall market demand and how Clayton’s progress may limit similar products in downtown and CWE. It seems getting towers started here is worse than pulling teeth (although I’m cautiously optimistic on the OPUS project and hearing an announcement BPV residential soon) and with our limited regional demand I’d just much rather have Clayton serve as the secondary market for both office and residential towers. Not much we can do about it though.

  • Lou Lou

    I want nothing but good things for STL. I’m jealous of the public transportation Clayton has. However, when I go to Clayton I’m turned off by pretentious yuppis, so I don’t go there often. If there is so many vaccancies why haven’t the laws of supply and demand kicked in? Bottom Line, Clayton is responsible for all of its own vaccancies because it is pretentious. Quit being pretentious.
    Clayton can contribute to a prosperous STL.

  • This post should be a guest editorial in the West End Word. In fact, I think NextSTL should be a regular column.

  • mayway

    Nice, thoughtful article. I was at a couple of the public meetings where the project was discussed. It seemed that the project was primarily opposed by residents of two tall buildings on Brentwood Blvd., because it would obstruct their view. I guess they don’t see the self-contradiction in that. Clayton’s wonderful, but it has its little pockets of old, substandard buildings. This project is a good one. the city is lucky to have it.

  • rgbose

    Chuck Marohn while observing Clayton from the tower we were in, said that the land owners don’t see much between one-story buildings and the towers. What’s the land worth? Well a lot more if it becomes a tower. So they hold out for the big tower since they’ll get more money for the land. And thus parking and empty lots remain empty longer than they otherwise might.

  • Colin Butterfield

    Excellent assessment. I’ve attended several of the ARB meetings and can attest to the accuracy of some of the statements. Too bad THIS article doesn’t appear on the P-D editorial page.

  • tpekren

    I guess you can also argue that all new construction should get tax abatement at this point as apparently nothing moves forward without it. Which in reality is not a good thing for the region as it continues its slow growth mode.. Also, does it matter where it is built? Maybe the next one will be in Chesterfield. Will all the supporters of the Crossings tax abatement be game of the Crossings tax abatement be supportive of tax abatements for something plopped next to one of the Chesterfield outlet malls with stunning views of the Missouri River? Heck,
    I’m still not convinced this project needs tax abatement because Clayton CBD is the one place in the region that should be able to support it. In other words, at one point do you draw a line as their is also clear winners and loser. The winner in this case will be the developer/land value and the loser will be Clayton home owners and business owners who don’t get tax abatements. The economic benefit of course is much tougher to derive and quantify. And yes, as a property tax paying home owner I would also weigh such actions in my vote.
    Obviously it is very much a local decision and the city council will or will not pay a political price or they might have very well have found a way to kick start residential growth and revitalize other proposals. Which I would have to agree, Clayton has a strength of being and having a connected urban center for the county. This project does a good job of strengthening Clayton’s CBD..

    • STLEnginerd

      I don’t know if Clayton conclusively loses. There will still be a net increase in tax revenue, just not as much as the total would be if the project did not receive abatement. That seems like win-win to me. Without abatement maybe the project doesn’t get built so that’s lose-lose. At least that’s how I read the article.

    • Alex Ihnen

      One point I’m attempting to make is that if we have a plan for development, it *might make sense to use partial tax abatement as an incentive. It can be a means to an end. This shouldn’t be rigid by any means. However, should a development, especially retail, in the Chesterfield value be considered as increasing the wealth of the region and capitalizing on existing investments? Is it economically sustainable? I’d likely argue no. The all-or-nothing approach, of the P-D’s idea that every developer will come calling for a tax abatement, seems silly to me. Let them come. Clayton can pick and choose which, if any, move its plan forward. Perhaps one is offered 25% abatement, or 50% for 10 years, or nothing at all. In the end, IF we care what is built, why not use incentives? Here, adding apartments to downtown Clayton is something that hasn’t happened in a very long time.

    • KW

      The tax abatement helps to offset the 300-400 basis points of market risk premium that Institutional Lenders require to finance a project of this size and scope in a region such as STL. We all love our home, and it may hurt to hear it, but these large sources of equity simply don’t view our region as being as worthy an investment as NYC, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, etc, and thus require a higher rate of return.

      This increased cost of capital represents a significant barrier to entry for anyone who wants to develop a large project in our region. We should be working to make our region an attractive target for equity financing. That’s where strategic economic development incentives are helpful. We don’t have to give away the farm, but public/private partnerships can work together to create solutions that help build developmental velocity that benefits everyone.

  • puhleez

    This is exactly the response I expected from this blog. Just like the urban planners of the 60s who brought the unwashed masses the fire that was Pruitt Igoe from on high, the urban planning fetishists of 2014 believe they know what is best. Stay out of it. If the residesnts want it, they should have it. If they don’t want it, they shouldn’t. And so what if they threaten to vote the Mayor and Aldermen out? Why shouldn’t elected officials fear for their jobs? These “NIMBY types ” as you call them, have every right to complain about something going up in their backyard and effecting their quality of life. What is it about people in the community making decisions that irks you so?

    • Jason

      Nice to meet you, Mr. Phillips.

      I hesitated to reply to this post because once I saw the comparison to Pruitt-Igoe I almost laughed myself to death. You may want to research Pruitt-Igoe because your ignorance is glaring. I’d be curious to know what you think is best. This site at least presented some numbers to back up it’s position. Something you have yet to do. I’d also like to ask you where you were at all of the original public meetings for this project. Where were you when Clayton and it’s residents were laying out a comprehensive plan for it’s Downtown? A plan that includes several buildings like this.

      You’re right about one thing. You have every right to complain, just as we have every right to support a project that we think will benefit St. Louis County’s Seat and it’s most visible city. Feel free to vote the Mayor and Aldermen out. A city of Clayton’s size could see several different elected officials over any given period of time without really affecting the direction of the city. Downtown Clayton is St. Louis County’s business district, it’s not your backyard. Quality of life won’t be reduced by bringing a modern residential tower housing wealthy residents that might actually spend some money in the ghost town that is Clayton after 5pm. Your “stay out of it” attitude is exactly what’s wrong with this region. Well, we’re not going to stay out of it. Clayton belongs to all of us.

      What is it about that, that irks you so much?

      • STLEnginerd

        ^agree. Several people who frequently post on this site are Clayton residents. These YIMBY’s (Yes In My Back Yard) are as valid a voice as any NIMBY. As an Olivette resident, due to proximity, the choices of Clayton has an impact on me and my municipality as well even if I don’t get to vote in its municipal elections. In fact, as the county seat, Clayton has a special relationship to every county resident. So IMHO any county resident should voice their opinion if they have one. Beyond that, this is America where you can have an opinion on ANYTHING and people can choose to listen to you or not. Its great.

        Telling people to sit down and shut up because you don’t think it concerns them is the tactic of people with no rational argument to defend their position. If you have a REASONS we should not support this development feel free to voice them. Otherwise… feel free to deride everyone else for theirs. America woot.

        God forbid someone actually invests in this region without running the NIMBY gauntlet.

  • Jeff Leonard

    Great analysis Alex. As a Clayton resident, I’ve been a voice of the “citizen” in the city’s economic development meetings (most of the people attending are aldermen and merchants). My view from the inside is that the city is trying to do exactly what you’ve outlined. They desperately want more residents, and specifically young residents, in the CBD. Too many lots have sat vacant, and for too long, so they’re using the levers they have to juice the process. There’s a lot of discussion of density, of walkability, and with it a focus on retail. I’ve got kids in elementary school here, so of course I want to see the schools have access to the full tax base. But lack of good schools is not what’s holding Clayton back. A vibrant business/retail district is.

    • John

      Nobody in Mid-County is going to Clayton to shop, they have the Galleria. However, malls are dying and the Galleria will eventually become victim to that trend, even if it’s not for ten years. With Clayton, residents of St. Louis County have a shot at “big city living” without living in the City of St. Louis. Clayton is an asset few cities have anything similar to, yet it has not reached its full potential. To have a true big city look and feel, it needs more than a handful of tall buildings and MetroLink stations. It needs exactly what you pointed out: develop the empty lots and require street-level retail in new construction.

      For a city of about 8,000 residents per sq. mi. and a business district of 60,000+ workers, Clayton still lacks true vibrancy. It’s a ghost town after 5 PM and most of the residents live in the subdivisions, not downtown. In a decade, Clayton needs to better resemble a true mini-city with towers instead of lots and retail instead of blank walls, leasing offices and huge garages every two feet. The Westport Line will also add to Clayton’s importance as a major hub of not only business, but also shopping and entertainment in the St. Louis region, as long as future development meets these expectations.

      Downtown Clayton should have the shopping/dining options, entertainment, mixed-income residential units, and vibrancy you see in Downtown Kirkwood, Webster Groves, Maplewood and the Loop. Unfortunately, people just don’t go to Clayton to hang out for fun, which is a shame given that Mid-County is almost a whole city in itself. Mid-County is approx. 50 sq. mi. with 185,000+ residents, which is about the size of Tacoma, WA. It deserves a true, vibrant Downtown just like any other city. A development like the Crossing, with its added density and new retail space, will move this forward. Now we just need to make sure that all new development in Downtown Clayton does the same. It would be a shame to see an area with so much potential go to waste.

      • Jeff Leonard

        An interesting problem in Clayton that I’ve discovered is that zoning requires establishments to derive at least 50% of their revenues from food. So in essence, you can’t have straight up bars or music venues. This kills the night life, i.e. you have dinner and then … go home. This seems like a straightforward impediment that can be changed, other than the old-time residents resisting the change …

        • wimple

          Great, the last thing the ciry does well, live music amd bars, should be moved to clayton. Then no one has to leave the County and everyone on this blog can kep pretending that forcing midcounty into being an actual city is an actually good urban plan for “st louis” (fyi, midcounty is not part of st louis).

          • Jeff Leonard

            It’s hard for me to understand your perspective. I’m a HUGE supporter of the city. I shop, dine, entertain, worship and work there (and have no issues with the 1% earnings tax). I want St. Louis city to prosper. But we need other areas to prosper too (Ferguson anyone?). We can’t look at St. Louis regionally and assume everything is a zero sum game. We need growth, and growth comes from attracting new residents here from other parts of the country/world. If we offer a variety of good jobs plus good living options, we’re more likely to attract and grow. I think that’s the point others on this blog are trying to make as well.

      • wimple

        Midcounty is a bunch of suburbs, its doesnt deserve a downtown at all. Go to the real downtown, bulldoze downtown clayton.

        • STLEnginerd

          “Deserve”…? St. Louis spent a good part of the last 100 years dismantling their historical legacy. The fact that there is so much left is simply a testament to how much was there is the first place. Why do they deserve a downtown any more than Clayton? Honestly the whole concept of “deserving” is a bit sophomoric. Whats important is how to move forward. Its hard to see the built enviroment in Clayton as anything but an asset in that regard even if significant changes in the structure of government need to be implemented.

          • wimple

            Op, john, said midcounty deserved a downtown. Not my concept, im not the sophomore ,i simply used the same term he did. You need to read the original comment that I was responding to. Clayton is not an assent, atleast not to st louis. You suburbanites have to realize only the city matters, every city has fine suburbs, that isnt a selling point, you either sell the city or sell nothing.

          • STLEnginerd

            Yeah his post was long so i started skimming 😉

            If Clayton merged with the city would that solve the cities problems?… NO. The added 1% income tax revenue would be a nice boost but Clayton is geographically and demographically fairly small and it borders the city which means there is plenty of cross pollination. If White flight had stopped at Clayton no one would care at all. Clayton is the by product of several poor choices by city leadership going back over 100 years, not the cause.

            That said I am all for working toward permanently righting those wrongs but it has to be done in a way that preserves that which is worth saving and downtown Clayton as well as all the other inner ring suburbs are most definitely worth saving. The biggest mistake St. Louis ever made was thinking that “only the city matters”.

          • womple

            Actualy you are totally wrong. Only the city matters to st louis. That is what st louis is. Its a city. Not a bunch of suburbs.The suburbs matter too, mostly in that they ruined te city

          • STLEnginerd

            I disagree. The only things keeping the city and county apart are, county people who hate the city, and city people who hate the county. I am neither and consider myself a St. Louisian. I am sorry you don’t agree.

          • wimle

            You must live in the county. So no. You are not a st louisan

          • STLEnginerd

            I obviously couldn’t convince you any differently but I stand by my statements.
            I also think this conversation has run its course. Probably beyond it.

          • DTGstl314

            You’re a very childish dick.

          • John

            There is no reason why we shouldn’t want Downtown Clayton to improve. Downtown needs to improve as well, but why can’t both of them get better? Clayton needs more retail, dining, and entertainment and less parking lots for it to become a true, vibrant urban neighborhood.

            Downtown St. Louis needs the same…Along with fewer vacant buildings.

          • wimple

            If you are for a vibrant city you want downtown to do well. I you like suburban sprawl and the fake downtown they created to serve it in the burbs you want clayton to succeed.

          • Are you in 7th grade?

          • wimple

            Do you own a map?

          • If you think St. Louis ends at the city line, then we are city that is smaller than Colorado Springs, Mesa, Arizona, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Arlington, Texas. I have a feeling you’d be the first to set someone from Tulsa straight if they suggested that Tulsa was a bigger city than St. Louis, right? Well, in order to do that with credibility, you have acknowledge that our suburbs are inextricably linked to the city if you want to be consistent. Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that city boundaries are meaningless in the context of a city’s true size or significance. Grow up.

          • jhoff1257

            Really man? While I agree that I much prefer to live in the city, I did grow up in those suburbs. Not at all terrible places. And as much as we all want the City to become the powerhouse that it once was, we have to look at reality.

            I think the City of St. Louis is heading towards big things…albeit, slowly. But to bulldoze (your words) the suburbs and expect the City to just keep chugging along would be a very foolish mistake. St. Louis needs it’s suburbs as much as it’s suburbs need St. Louis.

          • Steve Kluth

            True metro areas have more than one vibrant urban center. You could make an argument that St Louis has a few including the CWE, the U City Loop, and South Grand. But to use DC (the example of which I’m most familiar), we need not only areas like Adams-Morgan and Dupont (and more recently Petworth), but close in suburban areas like Virginia Square, downtown Bethesda, and Alexandria. These places all help each other and encourage people to invest in other urban areas. And to go back to your original post, mid-county has the U City Loop and Maplewood. Maybe you’d like to bulldoze those too?

          • wimpl

            Ots the delmar loop not u city loop, most significant investment in recent years has been in the city, moon rise, pageant etc. Maplewood is fine, its may detract some people in from the city, but not a lot. These are neighborhood biz districts and they are a drain on the urban core. But not a huge one. Clayton is a totally different animal, its serves the same purpose as downtown, it only hurts downtown, the city st louis, and the region, if you care about that for sone reason.

        • Alex Ihnen

          C’mon man! Comments like this add nothing to the conversation. Please stop.

          • wimple

            In what way. Clayton is a cancer on the city of st louis. How is than not relevant? Downtown clayton is the biggest drain on downtown st louis in the region, our struggling downtown is the biggest problem we have in the region if urbanity is your concern. Vibrant downtown with vibrant, dense close in neighborhoods. Far flung suburban em employment centers offer nothing.

          • The extreme provincialism you espouse is a cancer on St. Louis, and this mentality needs to change if the city is going to prosper. Clayton for all intents and purposes, is part of the urban core. Anything east of the Innerbelt is “St. Louis”. It’s not a zero sum game. Clayton is served by rail transit, which is more than the entire South Side and North Side can say. It’s time we stop getting hung up on arbitrary boundaries and realize that we are competing with other metropolitan areas. No rational person would wish for Clayton to stagnate or decline– as an established inner-ring suburb, it keeps the region centered. The reality is that if Clayton declined, it would likely mean more corporate sprawl towards Westport, Chesterfield and exurbs beyond. It would de-centralize the region even further away from the core.

          • wimple

            Actually, you are wrong. Everything east of the innerbelt is st louis? Thats arbitrary, not the city limit, that means something. Taxes in the city stay in the city. Maybe if your imaginary city existed and taxes paid east of the innerbelt stayed east of the innerbelt you would be right. But they dont, you are wrong. Clayton is not part of the urban core, its ten miles away from downtown, it takes tax money away from city, its a suburban edge city killing st louis, you know, the city you think you live in but dont.

          • Why do you assume that I don’t live in the city? I’ve been a city resident for 14 years, a city homeowner for 10 years and a city business owner for 12 years. You are not winning any points with your militant and condescending views. If you want to think St. Louis City is an island unto itself, than you’re talking about a city that is smaller in population than Wichita, Kansas. Come on, man.

          • wimple

            Its even more sad if you life in the city and think an edge city ten miles from downtown has anything to do with the urban core of st louis.

  • Presbyterian

    For downtown Clayton to be vibrant, it needs residents. This project is a step in that direction.

  • matimal

    Doesn’t this help CWE and downtown if they can be more flexible?

    • Chaifetz10

      Not really. I believe the deleoper already owns the land/buildings on this site so if this falls through I don’t see them looking towards the city for a new site.

      I hope I don’t have the two high rises mixed up.

  • STLEnginerd

    Ok I am convinced. My only hesitation was with abating ALL the taxes, and apparently that’s not even on the table. The abatement as described above makes it a non issue to me.

    My only request now would be that they save the lettering from the guild building. Not sure what I’d do with it, but it’s too neat to just scrap.

  • moorlander

    this is spot on