Unfortunately, the city announced in June that it would not be moving forward with any of the six proposals that were submitted. These proposals would have offered downtown Kirkwood new retail storefronts, additional parking, and residential spaces.

So why would the city of Kirkwood reject all six proposals? Frustratingly, the city council hardly offered any reasoning other than general opposition to large developments in the downtown area. Parker Pence, a Kirkwood native who has written about the rejected proposals in his blog, the Kirkwood Gadfly, quotes a newly elected council member in a comment to one of his pieces:

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.

These lots are zoned in the Central Business District, which, according to the Kirkwood Municipal Code “seeks to encourage mixed-use development with commercial services, retail facilities, and residential uses that complement each other and attract customers from outside the district.” This type of blanket opposition to “any new large developments,” is the opposite of productive for this area.

Pence investigates how much money Kirkwood stands to lose by rejecting these proposals. He notes that Clay|Adams estimates that the city forfeits nearly $90,000 in additional sales tax revenue and $145,000 in property tax revenue by turning down its proposal. Developer assessments should be taken with a grain of salt, but this still provides a ballpark idea.

Furthermore, proposals that include apartments, such as the Clay|Adams proposal, could even boost housing affordability by providing higher-density housing. For many, apartments are likely to be more affordable than the median half million-dollar single-family home found in Kirkwood.

It is disappointing to see Kirkwood pass on such an opportunity with its vague opposition to large developments. I hope that in the future, Kirkwood and other cities will objectively and transparently evaluate the economic growth and community benefits these types of developments could bring.

The post Kirkwood Rejects Development Proposals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2022, Maryville University planned to redevelop the Woods Mill Center into a complex featuring an e-sports arena, among other amenities. While the plan faced substantial public backlash, it was recommended to the board of alderman by the Town and Country Planning and Zoning Commission. However, Maryville ultimately withdrew the proposal in 2023. The school was hesitant to spend any more money on a plan that it felt was likely to be denied by the board.

Earlier this year, McBride Homes submitted applications for rezoning and preliminary site development plan approval to redevelop Woods Mill Center into an 80-home development. Unlike the Maryville proposal, McBride’s “Woods Mill Crossing” received significant public support, especially after the plan was revised to have slightly fewer homes in response to public concerns. Nonetheless, Town and Country’s Planning and Zoning Commission failed to recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary site development plan.

After discussion during multiple board of aldermen meetings, McBride withdrew its plan. According to reports, McBride wants to revise its plan to address some officials’ concerns and resubmit on July 19.

McBride’s biggest hurdle? Density. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that “the new neighborhood would have been the highest density residential development in the affluent west St. Louis County suburb.” Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission think increased density would hurt the character of the city. But should increasing density in Town and Country really be met with such consternation?

Increases in housing density are shown to have various positive impacts. Higher-density housing can make providing services more efficient and improve housing affordability. For example, while the median home price in Town and Country is around $1 million, the homes in the proposed development would be priced between $600,000 and $700,000. In addition, there are environmental benefits to higher-density housing including decreased automobile usage and, of course, less land usage. On top of that, the Woods Mill Crossing proposal is to redevelop already developed land, meaning there won’t necessarily be a loss of green space, as is often the concern with new developments (see another of McBride’s developments in St. Charles).

McBride’s proposal has the potential to make smart use of underutilized land, something that many residents want for the city of Town and Country. We will see if officials accept a revised proposal and the benefits of higher-density housing are realized in this community.

The post If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The request to amend the zoning map was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in May. The request was submitted in order to accommodate the development of a new subdivision, the Highlands at Busch Wildlife. The bill is revised from an earlier proposal called Tall Tree. The Tall Tree zoning amendment request, which was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission in June 2023, was a 556-lot proposal on about 355 acres. The new development is for only 120 lots, cutting down the number of homes in the development by over 75% while reducing acreage by around 60% compared to the original proposal.

The St. Charles County Council chambers were filled with disapproval from St. Charles residents and nearby O’Fallon neighbors. Residents expressed concerns about negative environmental impacts (see the Missouri Department of Conservation’s comments on p. 42–43 of the amendment request) and increased traffic along state highway DD. Nonetheless, the bill passed by a vote of 5–2. Interestingly, the councilman of District 3—the district where the Highlands at Busch Wildlife will be built—voted in favor of the bill. Following the bill’s passage, a portion of the dissenting public in attendance left the room, and some even shouted their displeasure at the council while doing so. It is not uncommon for current residents of a community to be opposed to new development in their area. However, is this new development really something the citizens of St. Charles and the surrounding communities should be so upset about?

A 2018 paper titled Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability from NYU’s Furman Center addresses many of the concerns commonly expressed by residents about new development. The paper discusses how development­—at any price point—can help improve overall housing affordability. Furthermore, development can also increase productivity and signal that the given community is a place where people want to live. This does not necessarily suggest that development should always happen anytime or anyplace. However, restricting housing supply is associated with numerous problems including increased racial segregation, decreased mobility, and slower economic growth.

While some St. Charles citizens may be dismayed by the passage of Bill No. 5300, hopefully the benefits of increased housing supply will become more evident over time. Who knows—maybe other communities around the state will even look to St. Charles as an example of how allowing the market supply of housing to move more freely can help meet the needs of their community.

The post St. Charles County Council Approves Zoning Change for New Housing Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This playbook has been released at a convenient time for the City of St. Louis—the city is currently overhauling its Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP). The current SLUP was adopted in 2005 and has seen 23 amendments since. It suffices to say that the document is dated. The city intends for the new plan to be adopted by the planning commission by the end of 2024.

There are some benefits of having strategies in place to guide future land use and development of a city. However, cities also must be careful about avoiding central planning. The city outlines its guiding values for the SLUP, the first of which is “quality of life.” Are there ideas in the HSAP guide that St. Louis could use to realize this goal?

To improve quality of life, the goal should be to make the city a place where people want to live, work, and build. Increasing the supply and diversity of housing available can help work toward this goal. How can this be achieved? By simplifying the regulatory landscape. While the SLUP will not change the zoning code on its own, it will inform future updates to the zoning code, and these updates should incentivize development and lower costs, not the opposite.

Specifically, two potential reforms are decreasing or eliminating parking minimums and authorizing accessory dwellings. Parking minimums are mandates that require a set number of parking spaces in a new development. Many U.S. cities are reducing their parking minimums and finding that decreases the cost of new housing and offers other benefits, including making their cities more walkable. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—additional living spaces or dwellings on the lot of a larger home—are also gaining traction. Take for example the City of Seattle, which has allowed ADUs since 2019 and is experiencing strong growth in this form of housing. Both changes have the potential to increase the housing supply to meet residents’ needs and support the city’s goal of increasing quality of life.

Anyone can provide public input regarding the City of St. Louis’s plan by completing a survey on the SLUP website. This is an opportunity for residents to emphasize the importance of not stamping out market forces that will spur housing supply. Hopefully, the plan will advocate simplifying codes and decreasing costs.

The post What’s Up, SLUP? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.