Last 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 hundred parking spots to Downtown Kirkwood, but it was only one-half of their submission to the city. Today I want to take a quick look at the second half of IPG’s response to the city’s RFP, their plan for West Jefferson.
IPG’s West Jefferson plan called for a 180-spot Fybr-enabled underground parking garage (a net increase of 106 parking spaces over the status quo), the construction of 45 new homes in Downtown Kirkwood, six new spaces for retail tenants, and a new rooftop venue. All together, IPG estimated that their West Jefferson would have cost $33 million. City Council decided to keep it a 74-car parking lot.
The city-owned West Jefferson lot had been occupied by the historic Mel Bay Music Store and an adjacent building as recently as 2011, when the Council voted to purchase the site for $1.25 million and construct the current parking lot for an additional $95k. IPG’s plan would have brought some of that recently departed street life back in the form of six small retail spaces at street level. Much like those of the East Jefferson lot, these retail slots were designed to be modest in order to attract the most local of small businesses and preserve Kirkwood’s “hometown” feel.
On floors 2-4, IPG planned 45 new homes. Adding these homes in the heart of Downtown Kirkwood would have helped to address the affordability crisis that increasingly grips Kirkwood, providing landing pads for empty-nesters looking to downsize, adult children of current residents looking to remain in the community, and public servants —teachers, police, firefighters, and city employees— who, according to the Housing Study the city released last summer, have found themselves increasingly priced out of the community they serve. Instead, by giving prospective residents no other options, the city has decided to continue to incentivize the only available alternative: the continued tear downs of small starter homes and their replacement with the loathed McMansions.
New Downtown Kirkwood residents would also been a good deal for local businesses which would’ve stood to gain both new customers and new potential employees. Given their prime location, these residents would likely have walked to the vast majority of their Downtown Kirkwood outings, meaning the city would have enjoyed the full benefits of their spending while absorbing very little in the way of additional traffic or demand for additional parking.
The final piece of IPG’s West Jefferson plan was the construction of rooftop venue would’ve been the first of its kind in Downtown Kirkwood. IPG says that the venue would’ve “provide[d] a unique opportunity to appreciate the views of the historic Kirkwood Train Station, City Hall and Farmers Market during private and public events: This adaptable space can be creatively shaped, formed and molded to suit everything from wedding parties to pop-up events.”
IPG’s Plan by the Numbers
All told parts 1 & 2 of IPG’s proposal would have generated an additional 211 parking spots, 45 homes, a 66-room boutique hotel, 12 new retail spaces, Downtown Kirkwood’s first rooftop venue, and $62 million worth of private investment compared to the status quo. Instead, City Council decided we’d be better off with three insufficiently sized surface parking lots in the heart of Downtown Kirkwood that cost the city thousands of dollars in upkeep every year and generate $0 in tax revenue.
| Parking Spots | Homes | Hotel Rooms | Retail Spaces for New Businesses | Rooftop Venues | Taxable Private Investment | |
| Status Quo | 216 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $0 |
| IPG’s Proposals | 427 | 45 | 66 | 12 | 1 | $62,000,000 |
| Net Difference | 211 | 45 | 66 | 12 | 1 | $62,000,000 |
In light of the multi-million dollar refurbishment of the Kirkwood pool complex coming due in the next few years, the fact that residents still don’t have the community center they were promised, and that the council plans to ask the city’s voters to approve a sales tax increase this November to pay for our roads and build the sort of additional parking that IPG was already to provide on its own, I think that was a mistake.
It’s hard to fathom what the City Council had in mind to reject this proposal.
Was the PJ’s building included in this project? I heard a while back it might be for sale ? I think that seems like a lot stuffed into that space.
I believe PJ’s is already under new ownership & thriving. When I look at the proposal, it appears it was just for the parking lot.
Hi Jackie! The PJs building wasn’t included in this proposal, but there was another proposal submitted to the council in which it was. Writing it up now so hopefully I’ll have something out here soon!
Great work as always. Perhaps you can help us to understand why the city council is so opposed to medium-to-high density developments. You pointed to Councilman Reinnecker’s words in the comments of your last post: “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.”
What’s interesting about this is that the city council is so unanimous. Why is there such a lack of diversity of this issue? Or might they have voted the same way but for different reasons?
Unfortunately, I feel that the recent election made it all too clear that we don’t have a lot of options as far as city council members goes. To obtain a change on policy we really need both a change in voting direction and new charismatic leaders to step up to receive those votes.
I’m wondering if Councilman Reinnecker’s comments are right for the wrong reasons in stopping bigger developments. That isn’t the strong town’s approach that is preached for a thriving community.
I’m wondering if this lot would be able to be sectioned off into smaller lots for lower risk, mixed use developments that accommodate similar goals to this project.
They ain’t gonna do that either though.
From what I’ve heard, the council really objected to the scale, so I think you’re on to something here. But the frustrating thing for me is that the council had complete control of the RFP and could have tweaked any of its parameters to get this sort of fine-grained development if that’s what they wanted. Unfortunately, without subdividing the lts, reducing the onerous parking they were looking for, and implementing some wonkier changes to the building code (like single stair reform which I wrote about here: https://owj.uxb.mybluehost.me/website_2607a963/a-closer-look-at-kirkwoods-building-code/) development at that smaller scale just isn’t super feasible.
If they were interested in implementing some of those tweaks though, I think subdividing the western lot and soliciting smaller scale proposals while leaving the eastern lot intact to accommodate something like a boutique hotel (which basically has to have a larger format) makes a lot of sense.
Thanks, Michael! I think that the current council has a very small-c conservative approach where they basically see themselves as defending Kirkwood from change, with their biggest concerns focusing more on aesthetics than anything else. As I mentioned in my comment below, apparently they had big gripes about the scale of the projects submitted on this site.
While I do think we could probably get some small scale tweaks around the edges with this council (building code reform, floor area ratio reform, etc) I think you’re spot on that this council is not going to be the one that enacts anything transformational/visionary. The next election is less than two years away though and based on the progress kirkwood for everyone has made and the sustained growth in readership here, I really do think we could start to shake things up. We need to achieve a critical mass of people who understand the issues and who care enough about them to show up in random april elections. To achieve that, I think we have to build up stronger social ties via sorta casual events like regular happy hours, the comments section here, etc.
I obviously don’t live in kirkwood so that’s sorta easier said than done but maybe we could discuss some ideas next time I’m in town! I think engaging younger people (like you) is going to be especially important.
How can we believe the 45 “homes” that the IPG proposed would have truly been affordable?
So I don’t think the 45 homes here would have been available for an incredibly low rent or set aside for low income families or anything (in order to get that sort of affordability, you basically need a developer used to working on affordable projects using tax-credits, which I wrote about here: https://owj.uxb.mybluehost.me/website_2607a963/so-you-want-affordable-housing/), but they still would have improved Kirkwood’s overall affordability for a few reasons:
1) If they were rental, they automatically would’ve been more affordable than buying a single-family home in Kirkwood whatever their rent. If I wanted to move back to Kirkwood, just about the only option I could afford would be renting an apartment
2) Because they’d bring an additional 45 homes to Kirkwood, they’d automatically allow 45 families to be able to afford to live in Kirkwood who currently can’t. More spots available in Kirkwood simply means Kirkwood is attainable for more people.
3) Even if these 45 homes were crazy expensive and were only marketed towards the rich, that’s 45 rich families who aren’t buying a small home somewhere else in Kirkwood, tearing it down, and building a mcmansion. Warehousing rich people here would help keep the rest of Kirkwood more affordable for everyone else.
4) While almost every new building starts off as expensive, as it ages and faces competition from even newer developments that come along, prices drop yielding more affordability over time. There was a time when station plaza was the most expensive apartment in Kirkwood, but then The James comes along and Station Plaza has to drop its rents to ensure they can still attract tenants. The same would’ve been true here.
Hope this helps but let me know if any of it’s confusing. Housing is incredibly counterintuitive, and it’s taken me a long time to internalize the economics that back it!
[…] parking structure on the East Jefferson lot, and then followed it up with a look at their plans for a mixed-use apartment building and parking garage on West Jefferson. Together, those two proposals would’ve brought a net increase of up to 211 […]
[…] IPG Part 2: Council Rejects Another $33m of Investment […]