My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Olive Blvd Urban Land Institute - Technical Advisory Program Final Report
Public Access
>
Joint Redevelopment Task Force
>
Other documents
>
Olive Blvd Urban Land Institute - Technical Advisory Program Final Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2011 9:25:31 AM
Creation date
10/18/2011 9:25:20 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ULI-St. Louis Technical Assistance Panel Recommendations <br />I-170/Olive Blvd. Joint Redevelopment Task Force <br />ComparisonOlivetteUniversity City <br />7,737 (+4% from 2000)35,371 (-5.5% from 2000) <br />2010 Census <br />St. Louis County 998,954, -1.7% from 2000 <br />Ladue schools, mostly Loop, eclectic, diverse, <br />Appeal <br />residentialWashington University <br />Pool city; shares with other pool <br />Point-of-sale city; keeps sales <br />Sales Tax Structure cities in the county on a per- <br />tax generated within its borders <br />capita basis <br />Sales Tax Grows With Retail salesPopulation growth <br />I-170 and Olive Both cities regard the interchange as a gateway <br />Reordering the Questions <br />The more the Panel members considered the preferred uses (see th <br />vbp) rkabo qeb ofdeq `lkafqflkp ¥ tef`e fp ^ _fd `^sb^q ¥ j^kv ` <br />those conditions rst, then view the preferred uses through that lens. The right <br />development, would mean the cities would need to set up a framew <br />bufpq) pljbqefkd ql ^qqo^`q ^ka fk`bkqfsfwb i^ka rpb fk qeb pq <br />cl`rpba qeb M^kbi$p afp`rppflk+ <br />2. What can the municipalities do to attract and incentivize t <br /> Create a framework for change. <br />3. What are the bene ts, obstacles and drawbacks of working together? <br />1. Are the preferred uses realistic? <br />Step 1: A 353 District <br />Qeb M^kbi$p krj_bo lkb fab^7 ?rfia lk qeb pvkbodv <br />lc qeb Q^ph Clo`b ^ka `ob^qb ^k Lifsbqqb Rkfsbopfqv <br />City joint development district in the study area, as an <br />Urban Redevelopment Corporation under provisions <br />of Chapter 353 of the Missouri Statutes. A Chapter <br />353 corporation would give the cities the legal and <br />marketing power to set the stage for successful <br />redevelopment. Forming a joint 353 corporation tells <br />potential developers, business owners, government <br />and civic partners and interest groups that these two <br />cities mean business. <br />on the east side of Lambert Airport that pulls together <br />land from three cities: Ferguson, Kinloch and Berkeley. <br />Two cities teamed up in a joint 353 <br />University City and the City of St. Louis created a <br />Transportation Development District that has received <br />district is a bold idea. <br />federal funding to run a restored streetcar across their <br />shared border between The Loop and Forest Park. The <br />Other local governments have collaborated in <br />proposed bi-city 353 district is bold, but not without <br />redevelopment efforts, but not quite like this. North <br />precedent. <br />Park Partners is a joint development district formed <br />6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.