Back in December, Kirkwood issued a Request for Proposals on the two city-owned parking lots on Jefferson Avenue, which ultimately yielded six separate proposals for each of the two lots. By mid-June 2024, however, the newly elected City Council reneged on the forward-looking initiative and opted to reject each of the twelve proposals submitted in favor of the status quo: two city-maintained surface surface lots approximately 140 parking spots between them and contributing $0 to Kirkwood schools, police and fire, parks, the library or general city services.
I think it’s important to examine the inherent tradeoffs of that decision, so over the course of the next several weeks I’m going to write up each of the proposals that were submitted to —and ultimately rejected by— Kirkwood City Council. We’ll start with Industrial Property Group’s (IPG’s) submission for the East Jefferson lot.
IPG’s East Jefferson Proposal
IPG proposed replacing the surface parking lot next to Mission Taco with a four-story building that would’ve featured six ground-floor retail spots facing Jefferson and 66 boutique hotel rooms spread between floors two, three, and four. The ground floor would’ve also included the hotel’s lobby, a small bar/restaurant, and a gym for guests.
Parking
Perhaps most inventively, IPG’s proposal also called for the construction of a three-level 200-spot parking garage on the northwest corner of the block that would have replaced the small surface parking lot owned by First Presbyterian Church that currently occupies the site. According to the submission, First Presbyterian has long struggled with insufficient parking and had responded positively to the structured parking proposal, especially given the special care IPG had agreed to take to ensure such a garage would not obstruct the sunlight that shines through the church’s storied stained glass.
Retail
The six retail spots included in the plan were designed to be smaller (approximately 1,300 sqft each) to promote their use by smaller businesses and to maintain Kirkwood’s “hometown” feel. These would’ve made for excellent launching pads for Kirkwood’s entrepreneurs who could test out their businesses here for a lower rent before moving on to a bigger space if the idea proved successful.
Walkability
IPG’s proposal would’ve also helped to advance the walkability of this section of Downtown Kirkwood in several small but important ways. People would much rather walk by shop and restaurant windows than monotonous parking lots so simply putting retail along the street here (IPG smartly sited the hotel drop-off circle in the rear of the building) encourages people to walk more. The project also would have reduced the number of curb cuts (places where cars enter/exit the street by driving over the sidewalk) from the existing four down to three, thus reducing the number of instances where pedestrians come into conflict with vehicles and improving the comfort of the walk as well. Finally, guests of the hotel’s 66 rooms would have added bodies to the streets, helping to add to Downtown Kirkwood’s foot traffic, improving the outlook for local businesses during slower times of the day/week (perhaps encouraging more restaurants/shops to extend their hours) and boosting the overall liveliness of the neighborhood, all of which would have positive knock-on effects for existing residents.
Optionality
IPG’s proposal would have also allowed different uses and configurations for the site if the city had concerns about the suitability of the primary proposal. IPG wrote that the hotel could be replaced with condos if the city preferred permanent residences and that additional subterranean structured parking could be added under the East Jefferson lot to yield an additional 47 spaces, bringing the total amount of parking to 247 spots.
Tax Revenue
The IPG proposal would have been a significant boon to the city’s coffers, its police and fire departments, its library, its schools, and its parks. Because both the city and First Presbyterian Church are tax-exempt entities, simply shifting the two properties into private hands would yield additional property tax revenue. Since the plan called for not only shifting ownership of the lots but also drastically improving them, the contribution to property taxes would have been even more significant. And because guests of hotels don’t send their kids to local schools, the revenue generated by the project would have been pure upside: additional revenue for the district with no additional students to educate.
People who travel also spend much more money in the communities they’re visiting than residents do. By definition, hotel guests can afford to travel so they have higher than average disposable income to spend at local shops and hotel rooms don’t have kitchens, so they eat out more. That means they can be expected to generate additional sales tax revenue for the city. Finally, the businesses that moved to the site, the six ground floor retail tenants and the hotel itself, would have generated sales tax revenue of their own for the city.
By the Numbers
| Parking Spots | Curb Cuts | Retail Slots | Hotel Rooms | Taxable Private Investment | |
| Status Quo | 142 (70 on city-owned lot plus an additional 72 on First Presbyterian lot) | 4 | 0 | 0 | $0 |
| IPG Proposal | 200 (w/ optionality for 247) | 3 | 6 | 66 | $29,000,000 |
Missed Opportunity
The rejection of the IPG proposal represents a significant missed opportunity for Kirkwood. Had it been approved, the project could have added over 100 additional parking spots over the status quo in Downtown Kirkwood. It would have transformed two parking lots that generate no tax revenue for the city and its various institutions into significant, long-term revenue streams via property tax revenue. It would have provided 66 hotel rooms for visitors (many of whom may have arrived by train thus improving the viability of Amtrak service) who currently have no options to stay in our community, and those visitors would have likely spent significant amounts of money in the community generating even more money in the form of sales tax revenue. IPG’s proposal also would’ve added six retail spots for small businesses that Kirkwood’s residents could enjoy and which would have generated additional sales tax revenue of their own, and it would’ve improved the walkability of this section of Downtown Kirkwood in several small ways.
Instead of all that, we’ve decided to maintain the status quo: two insufficiently sized parking lots (one of which the city will have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on to continue to maintain) that currently generate $0 for the city and its residents. And we’re just getting started.
I’m disappointed they didn’t move forward with these and I have yet to see their reasoning why they wanted the status quo.
Did you find a reason for why they turned this down?
Here’s what Councilmember Rheinnecker (who happens to live in a house in Downtown Kirkwood) wrote: “One of the main promises of my campaign was a promise to stop large developments in our downtown and I am delighted to inform everyone that the current council voted unanimously against any new large developments and advised the city staff to tell all developers that we are not moving forward with any proposals for those parking lots.”
Seems like the council is just generally against allowing any non-single-family homes in Kirkwood, if they can help it
Sadly, it doesn’t look like positive change is likely with the current city council. 🙁
Time for a new city council. After moving here from Chicago, I see a lack of innovation and competing with like townships with vibrant boutiques and restaurants (Webster, LaDue, Clayton). Kirkwood can keep its charm while evolving to a prosperous place to live, as their walkability is key. Council get creative and ask your community what they want. We don’t need another cookie or candy shop!
It is a new city council. 🤦🏻♀️
LOL
Newish. I mean, maybe I’m misremembering the options, but weren’t the newly-elected people merely extensions of the status quo?
The new council was elected by many folks that do not want large-scale development.
The part about cookie and candy shops is totally spot-on. Even worse is gourmet dog treats. There’s only so much demand for such things, but they often pop up (and die out) without making much of a contribution to a community. Good restaurants, for example, can provide much more of a community atmosphere and a broader appeal. Yet here’s a big question: why exactly did Spencer’s go under when it was well-loved and had even been featured on TV? I wonder if understanding what happened could help us to build a better Kirkwood in the future.
The former KAA ballfield has been in financial stress for decades. Various departments of the city of Kirkwood were asked for financial help numerous times in the past. One I witnessed, determined when KAA went to “Select” ball teams only, the % participants in the entire 63122 zip code dropped to below 35%. KAA received the one time FEMA flood buy out money to move and kept it. The site is frequently under 24’ of flood water with no access roads which are elevated creating standing flood water that takes forever to clear out of the former KAA site. Flood waters are full of contaminates from septic tanks to chemicals often from leaking floating storage barrels. Research how long those health risks can stay in the soil. Flooding was exacerbated up & down stream when the Valley Park Levee was built 4’ above regulations. Even the flood plain maps were changed and the damage to other communities since the levee was built is unimaginable. Emmenegger Nature Park, just past Greentree Park, lost about 9 acres of land and the pavilion was carried off down stream. Kirkwood has an ordinance that essentially says, park land cannot be sold or long term leased without a vote of the people. So would it have to stay city property to avoid this & the cost of making this an election issue? Classic issue is who will provide insurance coverage for anything in flood plain with a records of claims? Can insurance even be obtained in a flood way/flood plain once one time FEMA money was paid out? The parks department is in the middle of a public survey to determine what features residents want their tax money spent on. Let’s see what the statistically accurate results are. Any proposal for this site will require intense scrutiny. I recommend whatever group wants to use this site again for ball fields, buy it from the city and take on all the issues that it might face to operate again.
The current city council and mayor are not great. They seem to be against change of any kind. Downtown Kirkwood desperately needs a facelift and more retail businesses to draw people to this area. I am not sure what the current city leaders are trying to protect.
There are also so many areas near downtown Kirkwood that look awful – the entrances to the city on Kirkwood Road at both Manchester and Big Bend, the AT&T parking lot at Clay and Washington, so many areas on city owned property with overgrown weeds. We need a hotel in Kirkwood – we have the awful Best Western near Walmart and nothing else. This would have been a huge add to downtown and brought in outside dollars.
Unfortunately, it seems the vocal minority is swaying the mayor and city council. There are plenty of residents who like the changes in downtown and appreciate the look of the James.
[…] week I wrote that the city had officially rejected IPG’s proposal for the city-owned East Jefferson Parking Lot. That plan would have added a 66-room boutique hotel, shopping, and a net increase of over a […]
Since Kirkwood allowed more downtown housing, I moved in from the burbs and walk everywhere. Took my car off the streets and parking lots. This proposal would have done the same for other empty nesters. Reduced their car travel and the need to park on the street.
Thank you for posting these analyses, I came straight to your site when I saw the City Council’s announcement that included no context.
[…] IPG Boutique Hotel & Parking Proposal Rejected by City […]