SkyscraperCity Forum banner

ST. PETE | Tropicana Field Site Redevelopment

59K views 339 replies 57 participants last post by  cagonz 
#1 ·
Now that there are 3 official proposals, it's time the redevelopment gets its own thread in the development forum.

Is 'EcoVerde' In Trop Site's Future? Perhaps 'West End'?


News Channel 8 image by PETER MASA
The Rays are counting on money from the redevelopment of the 86-acre Tropicana Field site to help fund their proposed waterfront ballpark.
Related Links

THE PROPOSALS

By CARLOS MONCADA of The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 18, 2008

Updated: 04:51 pm

ST. PETERSBURG - The city posted on its Web site this afternoon the three proposals for the sale and redevelopment of Tropicana Field, which the Tampa Bay Rays want to replace with an open-air ballpark on the downtown waterfront.

All three proposals were submitted this morning before the 10 a.m. deadline. They are from Williams Quarter LLC of Tampa and Nashville, a group including DeBartolo Holdings, NRP Group and RGA Group; Archstone-Madison of Arlington, Va.; and Hines Interests Limited Partnership of Atlanta.

Some of the proposals even came with names. Hines calls its project "West End." Archstone-Madison's is called "EcoVerde."

Asked whether the number of proposals was what the city expected, city development administrator Rick Mussett said, "I didn't have an expectation. The market responds."

A provision in Florida statutes gives the city up to 10 days to make sealed bids or proposals available for public inspection or copying.

Officials will evaluate the proposals and make a recommendation to the city council by May 1. The Rays have asked the council to decide by June 5 whether to authorize a November referendum on a new downtown stadium.

Officials have emphasized the bid process does not commit St. Petersburg to proceed with razing the domed stadium on the southwest edge of downtown and replacing it with a massive mixed-use development, as the Rays have proposed.

The Rays are counting on money from the redevelopment of the 86-acre Tropicana Field site to cover a significant portion of the financing for a new 34,000-seat stadium at the site of Progress Energy Park by 2012.

A representative for the Rays said the team was pleased with the multiple bids and is prepared to work with whichever developer the city selects.

"Obviously, it confirms what we've been saying all along, that there will be significant interest on the site," said Michael Kalt, senior vice president of development and business affairs. "All three developers and development teams are national developers with reputations of having done projects like this before."

The Rays have partnered with one of the bidders, Hines Interests, a Houston-based real estate investment and development firm that submitted a proposal from its Atlanta office.

Some critics have said that Hines has received an unfair competitive advantage because it was retained by the Rays to produce a site development plan for the Tropicana Field site, which was unveiled when the team announced the stadium plans in November.

In its request for proposals, the city seeks a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use community that would be linked to the new stadium and would include a variety of housing and retail opportunities.

The city is seeking cash offers for the Tropicana Field site and financial guarantees that the development will happen.

Reporter Carlos Moncada can be reached at cmoncada@tampatrib.com or (727) 451-2333.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/18/tropicana-field-redevelopment-bids-be-opened-today/
 
See less See more
1
#3 · (Edited)
I have to give props to Archstone's proposal. 38 pages with overviews and drawings. Williams seems to be an urban apartment complex...

Ecoverde -- the Archstone plan -- does incorporate towers. I am going through the PDF now and page 14 shows them off. But the point isn't towers as-so-much overall development plan. This is a preserve (Ecoverde and the Williams plan, I would guess Hines too ) as much as a site plan for development.
 
#5 ·
Yeah, I am with you on that one. Archstone came to play with their proposal -- I'mn not just saying that because of the towers but the overall site plan and the length of their proposal.

I can't say the same about Hines... yes we see the renders (and can see them again at majorleaguedowntown.com ) but you don't make a pitch about a redevelopment that is only 4 pages long. Not when you have 83 acres in the heart of a vibrant downtown
 
#8 ·
The sad part is that in a better market, the Archstone proposal would have been the bare minimum density developers would have been seeking for the parcel. It should also be the bare minimum density the city should be seeking now. So long as they can prove an ability to fund their project, they should basically win by default.

(besides, forgetting the better density and tax revenue benefit, the planning itself looks better to me, especially what they do with Booker Creek through the parcel, and the idea for I-175)
 
#9 ·
I think Williams's white water rafting section is a bit optomistic. I mean really did anyone from their firm actually visit the site and look at the creek? I think they got their topo off too. Kind of like they cut and pasted a few previous projects together.

Archstone's looks decent enough, but why the obsession with showing kayakers in a retaining ponds and streams? Where are these people going to kayak to? Has anyone seen anyone kayaking even in Mirror Lake (which is decent sized and fairly clean)? It would be like riding your bike back and forth in your driveway. Don't BS me, I'd be happier seeing renderings that represent what will actually occur (people sitting outside Starbucks, and kids loitering on skateboards) than some fantasy dreamed up by a draftsman whose hobby is kayaking.
 
#11 ·
Archstone's looks decent enough, but why the obsession with showing kayakers in a retaining ponds and streams? Where are these people going to kayak to? Has anyone seen anyone kayaking even in Mirror Lake (which is decent sized and fairly clean)? It would be like riding your bike back and forth in your driveway. Don't BS me, I'd be happier seeing renderings that represent what will actually occur (people sitting outside Starbucks, and kids loitering on skateboards) than some fantasy dreamed up by a draftsman whose hobby is kayaking.
Now really though, is any of this relevant to the actual proposals? Surely this isn't the first time you've seen some renderings with misplaced props?
 
#12 · (Edited)
It just strikes me of sloppiness. Even in the most preliminary of schematic proposals I show people I try to get a feel for who they are (age, lifestyle, physical appearance, etc.). I even try to check an see what kind of car they are driving so that I can put the appropriate car in the driveway or elevation. It took 2 minutes to find and download an Audi A8 elevation. It is so easy and quick that it bugs me when people don't think. I mean cben.net has so many, free easily accessible cad blocks (some of which are extremely NSF, but generally most are great) that it amazes me when people don't use it more. I know these are rendering but the same principle applies.

It has always bothered me when people don't research the area in which they are proposing something. The original overpriced Tampa Mus. of Art proposal is a prime example. Lets design something out of glass, have a Western orientation and BS that it'll only cost like $80mill. Same thing here, just throw something together that looks kind of nice, kind of appropriate and see if it sells. If you walked in my door with a lot with significant topo issues I wouldn't show you a big ranch house. Same here I know its preliminary, but its lazy. Don't BS me with kayakers in retaining ponds and creeks with 6-12" of draft.
 
#13 ·
The Archstone-Madison one is the only one worth looking at. Just look how large the Tropicana Field site is, while I am against knocking it down and building a new one while we still owe money on it, not to mention the economy right now. This plan is great and basically is an Urban redevelopment if built would look like it was there for a while. Meanwhile the others are somewhat poorly planned and more just to make money stick a few things here and there and done. This would result in something like what happened in the 80's. Since the city is dead set on the new stadium and that damn well won't change I support the Archstone-Madison proposal.
 
#14 ·
Tropicana Redevelopment Plans Light On Tax Details

By CARLOS MONCADA of The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 19, 2008

ST. PETERSBURG -- Three proposals to redevelop Tropicana Field posed more questions than answers, including how much of the new taxes generated at the 86-acre site would be used for the project's goal — a new $450 million waterfront ballpark.

Only one of the three national developers, Houston-based Hines Interests, declared what it would pay for the Tropicana site — $50 million. The Rays have already said they plan to contribute $150 million toward the downtown stadium.

"That leaves a $200 million to $300 million gap," Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch said. "In my mind, that goes back to property taxes. The question I still have is, 'What will be asked of Pinellas County taxpayers from any of the three proposals to fund a new ballpark?'"

Welch and other county leaders also want to know how much of the new taxes generated at the redeveloped site would go to local governments.

"If those proposals meant 100 percent of those new tax dollars go for a new ball field, I have some major issues with that," Welch said. "If a majority of those new dollars go back to local governments, I see great potential there. Because it helps to offset the loss we're seeing because of property tax reform."

Pinellas County Commission Chairman Bob Stewart said he wonders whether the Rays expect the county to renew a bed tax that helps pay Tropicana Field's debt service. The fourth cent of the Tourist Development Tax, approved in 1995, sunsets in 2015, Stewart said.

"Would there be in the Rays' financing plan a continuation expected of that, and whether that's transferable up to 2015 to a new stadium?" Stewart asked. "Those kinds of details that all have financial implications are questions that we're very alert to and we expect good answers to."

The Rays have said the project would not require St. Petersburg to levy any new taxes or divert money from existing city funds.

The team is now preparing a detailed financing plan that it will submit to the city before June 5, when the city council is expected to decide whether to authorize a November referendum on a new stadium.

"If they're going to ask the taxpayers of St. Pete to put up an inordinate amount, it won't be a welcoming response," predicted James Bennett, St. Petersburg council chairman. "And they may have to go back and rethink the dollars they're going to put into it."

St. Petersburg Development Administrator Rick Mussett said city staff hopes to complete an evaluation of the three bids by April 23. That's when Mayor Rick Baker is expected to receive a recommendation on whether to proceed with any of the proposals.

"What we're going to try to do in the next month is try to get this as refined as possible," Mussett said.
Rays representatives said the proposal from Hines comes closest to meeting their financial needs. The Rays have already partnered with Hines to develop renderings of the proposed Tropicana redevelopment.

Some critics of the proposed downtown stadium said all three proposals fall short of what they were led to expect by the Rays.

Hines made the only cash offer. Archstone-Madison of Alexandria, Va., proposes leasing the property for a $1 million a year at first and $2 million a year later. Williams Quarter, a group that includes DeBartolo Holdings of Tampa, said the price would have to be negotiated.

"The implication was there would be a reasonable amount of that $300 million in cash," said Hal Freedman, founder of Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront, or POWW. "That was kind of the implication they've been throwing around since Day 1."

Kenny Locke, founder of Fans for a Waterfront Stadium, remained optimistic.

All three bids propose mixed-use developments valued at $773 million to $1.2 billion. Each project, according to the bidders, would create thousands of jobs and generate millions of tax dollars.

"It's still early in the process, but clearly it's a step in the right direction," Locke said. "The fact that three national developers came in and submitted proposals to invest that kind of capital in St. Petersburg is a great thing for our city.

"Plus I think it levels the playing field where the three of them are competing against one another, and hopefully the city will make the right decision."

"The numbers have to work, we realize that, in order for this proposal to go through," Locke added. "I think it's just too early to tell."

News Channel 8 Reporter Yolanda Fernandez contributed to this report. Reporter Carlos Moncada can be reached at cmoncada@tampatrib.com or (727) 451-2333.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/19/tropicana-redevelopment-plans-light-tax-details/?news-breaking
 
#15 · (Edited)
Turning Tropicana orange into environmental green

The pictures are pretty, and the talk seems serious enough. LEED-certified. Bioswales. Solar power generation. But how “green” are the proposals to redevelop Tropicana Field? Here’s a look at the ideas of three developers wanting to purchase the 86-acre site, with some commentary from St. Petersburg environmental lawyer Thomas Reese.
BY AARON SHAROCKMAN and JOHN CORBITT | of the Times staff


WILLIAMS QUARTER
1. All three proposals enhance Booker Creek, a channelized drainage ditch that now passes just east of Tropicana Field. The creek, which is part of the city’s stormwater management system, begins near 13th Avenue N and 22nd Street at Booker Creek Park, and runs south and east before exiting into Tampa Bay near Bayboro Harbor. The area’s Agency on Bay Management suggested the city return the creek to its natural state during the original development of Tropicana Field. But hoping to create as many parking spaces as possible, the city did not.

2. The centerpiece of the Williams Quarter plan is Williams Square, a park toward the east end of the Tropicana site. Pictured is a drawing of the main fountain.

3. Developers hope to one day connect the site to the existing CSX railroad line as part of a light-rail system to downtown St. Petersburg.

4. Buildings in all three proposals would be LEED-certified. LEED, according to the U.S. Green Building Council, is a nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HINES
1. Hines’ proposal includes roof-mounted solar panels. Grants are available, in some cases, to pay for up to half of the work, Reese says.

2. Developers want to add bioswales along Booker Creek to treat stormwater runoff from the site. Bioswales are landscape elements that are designed to remove silt and pollution from surface runoff water before it enters the city’s stormwater system.

3. A shared vehicle service is envisioned for the southeast corner of the site. Available in most larger cities, shared cars are available by the hour for people running errands or for any reason, really.

4. The Hines proposal includes a bike trail along the creek and a bike rental kiosk, but it might not actually reduce the pollution created now by Tropicana Field, says Reese. “If the dome was real active and full, the redevelopments would reduce pollution quite a bit,” he says. “But given all the time it’s really vacant ... the pollution created by the site may be more. It would have to be analyzed, but I wouldn’t conclude that because there’s more green or open space that you’re going to have a ‘greener’ site.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHSTONE-MADISON
1. Like Hines, Archstone-Madison wants to use a weir to create a small pond at the southern end of the Tropicana site.

2. During the original development of Tropicana Field, workers found groundwater and soil that had been contaminated by an old municipal gas manufacturing plant. The city spent $6.4-million excavating the toxic dirt. As part of an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, crews continue to monitor the site. In their proposals, both Hines and Archstone-Madison say that if there are further environmental problems, the city would be responsible for the clean-up. “I would think the monitoring around that area would tend to show problems in that area,” Reese says. “But it’s really difficult to say without extensive work.

3. Archstone-Madison wants to build what it calls an Ecoseum – a museum that provides education about the environment and ecology – at the north end of the site. The developer also wants to introduce a crane habitat in an area inaccessible to the public.

4. Hybrid vehicle “charging” stations are contemplated for the parking garages associated with the project. Overall, Archstone-Madison proposes 10,088 parking spaces.



http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2008/graphics/trop-green/
 
#16 ·
As I said earlier, the Archstone proposal, so far as the planning of the actual built environment goes, is the bare minimum for what I would hope to see on the site. The other two are jokes really, and are more suited to be developed in a suburb looking to begin to urbanize...

The biggest thing that I probably don't agree with in the Archstone proposal is the idea of converting I-175 into a surface street... In time, that would be wicked congested I think, and would defeat what they're trying to do, which is connect their development to the neighborhood to the south. I think it would probably be better for downtown overall to find ways of improving connectivity and beautifying the area under the road instead.
 
#18 · (Edited)
I honestly don't even think the whole Archstone proposal is adequette density wise. But since it is the best it should win. Looking through the Archstone proposal, there are some nice dense sections, but the main shopping area isn't dense enough and that is the part of the project that seems to be the main focus. (see picture posted in above article)
 
#19 ·
Well its like what I talked to you about yesterday FLFuture its the market and economy right now. Sure we'd all like a nice dense development but how likely is it with a recession and a dead real estate market. As I told you I would do my own proposal for fun and its proving hard to realistically make retail, residential, etc. So far all I have is a 15 story condo along with my main plan.
 
#22 ·
You guys also have to realize that the Archstone-Madison proposal really pushes pretty close to the edge of what's reasonable to expect to be built on that site in the real world time frame they would be expected to build out the development. It's probably a little too much, even though development wouldn't even start until 2012 or something.

Remember that in my case, I don't even favor this kind of redevelopment for the site in the first place, and not just because the city would be taking a bath on the value of its land asset in the middle of a real estate crisis, or because the development potential right now is a fraction of what it would be several years from now... I simply think that there is a higher and better use for such an unusually large urban site. I would much prefer the site be left intact, to be later occupied by a university, or an amusement park, or a big conference center, etc. Or since so many people are so interested in giving the land's future tax revenues away to help out a high profile company, to indirectly bolster the local 'reputation'... How about designating the Trop site a big 'enterprise zone', zoned for several million sqft of office and research space, and then offer property tax incentives to companies that locate there from outside of the city... The Trop site should be redeveloped with something that would be a MAJOR development for the city. Give the market and the political environment a few years, and then work something out with the Rays for a site in the Gateway area, and let the stadium become the catalyst for another urban node up there. The Rays would make way more money that way too, because they could be more directly involved (and profit from) neighborhood development around the stadium, and the location would be much better in regards to transit time for fans, parking, and so on.

If the city must do this deal and must do a mixed-use thing, I would really rather see the mix be something tilt more heavily towards office and hotel/retail/entertainment space. Elevated highways on two sides, and possibly rail transit on another doesn't really lend really well to housing imo.
 
#24 ·
Yea its sad the Rays are pushing this so much, thats why I think it will be given an OK to go ahead with development for a stupid stadium. I agree with you Jason thats this isnt the time or type of development to go with. But I disagree with building some large sprawling complex. I think there should be somewhat of a grid established and built around it the project(s). I'm a little more ahead than this but this is just the start of my version of developing the Tropicana Field land. I'm just showing this as an example of making a grid type development.

 
#30 ·
My take is that destination retail = high end retail, which requires lots of discretionary spending by people not warehoused in retirement communities and nursing homes... That isn't going to work in St Pete, else it would already exist. Afterall, it's not like the demographics of the county have changed a whole lot in the past 15-20 years, or are likely to change a whole lot in the coming 15-20.

jahi, the demos are only 'compelling' when slanted by people trying to justify their paychecks, after failing to provide the kind of leadership that moves a city forward. If Pinellas was so awesome, Intl Plaza would have been built in the Gateway area 5 years ago, not Westshore.
 
#28 ·
That actually would be a good idea. I doubt the city would want to kill Tyrone though. There has been too much development there and its probably too big a risk to take. I don't think St. Pete can support that much retail on its own. Remember there used to be:
Tyrone - Still open
Pinellas Square - had to be redesigned
Gateway - see above
Seminole - see above (old farts seem to still love the place, but Seminole sucks in general)
Clearwater - see above
Countryside - I guess its still open, haven't been up that way in a long while.

There are numerous dead strip centers like Maximo around too. I don't think St. Pete wants to go playing Russian roulette with its only surviving indoor mall. But it would be a nicer, easier to get to location.
 
#32 ·
Tyrone is on the other side of the city, sure some effect would be felt but it would still do fine. Downtown could support and attract people if it had major retail developments, it would be the only mall or massive retail along I-275 in Pinellas County.

The malls you listed in Pinellas, well most have been turned into strip malls except for Countryside, which is doing fine and Tyrone which is doing fine also. Seminole mall is a dying mall, most cars there are to Publix or CVS. Gateway is doing good as a strip mall and so is P Square. I think if they made an urban/mainstreet type mall or retail in DT it would thrive if done right. Add a few major retailers as well as high end and some cheaper stores and you have a great combo. Only downside to all this is it would kill Baywalk.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top