Gray's Landing/Riverpoint West: A step forward

[econboy]

More on this from this weeks Business Record:

http://www.businessrecord.com/main.asp? ... cleID=8879

Good to hear some things are finally moving along.

[Young DSM Social Club]

What kind of housing is this supposed to have? Like actual single family homes, or townhomes?

I really hope this does not get watered down. This really should be an area of some of the most expensive housing in the city --- brand new, but by downtown and a bunch of parks. I would have been fine if they had even done a Glen Oaks downtown type deal. DSM needs to capture more of the higher end market, which is where the doctors and executives live.

I feel comfortable saying that a major reason we lost Aviva, and why we have two western hospitals is because we have lost so much of the wealthier people to the western suburbs.

Build something swanky for them, put some neat 2nd floor condos on the commercial for the rest of us. Wealth there will only help neaby neighborhoods near Ingersoll and southside as the demographics improve.

I am also fine with something like West Glen. West Glen is fine, but I am not a huge fan. This could surpass that area in terms of quality/character.

[EastsidePride]

Keep the rich snobs out West where they belong. If you let them move close to downtown, they'll be complaining to Christine Hensley about every little noise and the homeless camps along the river just like the morons that bought spendy condos by the railroad tracks and then complained about the noise of the trains.

[Des Moineser]

Keep the rich snobs out West where they belong. If you let them move close to downtown, they'll be complaining to Christine Hensley about every little noise and the homeless camps along the river just like the morons that bought spendy condos by the railroad tracks and then complained about the noise of the trains.

Yes they're certainly all rich and their certainly all snobs. LOL, real money does not live in cookie cutter tract housing in WDM or Johnston. By the way, EastSidePride, the 'snobs' are coming your way, Pleasant Hill, Altoona, IA 65 corridor, what will you do?

[Mototail]

That's great to see this project unfolding more. I'd have to say that Des Moines has it's share of rich folks, but what West Des Moines doesn't have is the extent of poverty, and 40% of land that's not taxable. The point to any project would to have it at a level that attracts people that 1) will stay for an extended period of time, 2) families drawn to the area, and 3) affordability. You can have a glitzy project with bells and whistles that people making $40k to $60K can buy. Plus having things affordable for families that make $70K with both working parents. They could gather groups of people that want to buy into it and have them design it how it suits the current needs rather than building something to their choice and hoping the people will come. We don't really need another project like Brownstones, Liberty, and Equitable that will be sitting for some time. I think the words I would use are " the sensibility factor."

[Mastermind]

Keep the rich snobs out West where they belong. If you let them move close to downtown, they'll be complaining to Christine Hensley about every little noise and the homeless camps along the river just like the morons that bought spendy condos by the railroad tracks and then complained about the noise of the trains.

Those snobs fillup half of the buildings downtown.

[econboy]

Let's not forget the snobs that live in the Sherman Hill, Ingersoll and Beaverdale areas.....ahem ahem

[Ingersoll1978]

Let's not forget the snobs that live in the Sherman Hill, Ingersoll and Beaverdale areas.....ahem ahem

You're can't forget South of Grand or the area north of Park and west of SW 9th St on the southside either!

[Better Life dude]

From the talk here, Des Moines is a very snob-y town.

[Young DSM Social Club]

When over 50% of the public school kids are free or reduced lunch, I am pretty sure Des Moines would be better off having some additional wealthy people in the town. There is nothing wrong with trying to ebb the flow of wealth to the western suburbs. DSM already has far more poor people then anywhere else in the Metro.

And I do stand by my statement. If we'd kept the Aviva leaders living in DSM proper, I don't think downtown would have lost Aviva to West Des Moines.

[Mototail]

Just playing off of statistical numbers. Des Moines supposedly has a minimum of 209,000 residents while WDM has 55,000. So that means there's a likelihood 4x more likely kids could be on that free and reduced lunch. That means unlike WDM, DM has a higher level of poverty, but not it's lack of rich folks. Like I said, individuals that are better off because of wealth should get with the developers and invest the money tailoring to their needs. Don't just build high-end keeping your figures crossed if the market doesn't demand it. We saw how that worked out with well with Equitable, Liberty, and Brownstones. Otherwise things should be played towards the middle and narrow it as it goes towards the top of the high-end market. Des Moines can even play off the potential development of Microsoft and other industries that can be lured to the State.

I would love to see "great" paying employers and business talk hold here rather then below median-income jobs. Just because WDM appears to be more wealthy because of development doesn't mean things are better off. Just take a look at GGP "owners of Jordan Creek Mall" and Glen Oaks that has their country club that just got taken over by the bank. Appearance can be deceptive when it comes off to the health of a community. I would say that key issues for downtown to be more functional and attractive would be the completion of MLK East connector and North connector to I-80.

[econboy]

Just take a look at GGP "owners of Jordan Creek Mall"

The actual mall itself is pretty profitable but nationwide the property owner is in big debt. I don't think that reflects on WDSM so much.

[dogbo]

. Don't just build high-end keeping your figures crossed if the market doesn't demand it. We saw how that worked out with well with Equitable, Liberty, and Brownstones. Otherwise things should be played towards the middle and narrow it as it goes towards the top of the high-end market. Des Moines can even play off the potential development of Microsoft and other industries that can be lured to the State.

.

While I agree we need more affordable housing, it is really not fair to throw out examples of failed projects when they were completed shortly before one of the most serious recessions in our nation's history. These things don't occur in a vacuum. Had those projects been completed 2 or 3 years earlier, who knows how well they would have done. I can recall news stories regarding the Waterstreet developer (Sherman) on how they were shocked to sell out the high-end condos first on that project. It is probably fair to say that some of Sherman's success was due to timing…just as some of the projects you mention are hurt by the timing in relation to the economy/housing market.

[econboy]

When over 50% of the public school kids are free or reduced lunch, I am pretty sure Des Moines would be better off having some additional wealthy people in the town. There is nothing wrong with trying to ebb the flow of wealth to the western suburbs. DSM already has far more poor people then anywhere else in the Metro.

And I do stand by my statement. If we'd kept the Aviva leaders living in DSM proper, I don't think downtown would have lost Aviva to West Des Moines.

Then you don't know anything about business or how it needs to work. It doesn't have anything to do with what municipality someone resides in when it comes to the business decisions a company has to make for BUSINESS.

This is what you keep ignoring. You think people do business off of sunshine and smiles. There is also this mentality here quite often that a business should somehow choose a site based on "asthetics" or what the area might look like in the future. Granted, businesses have a vested interest in a given community but not when it get's in the way of the health or good of the company which is what they are in business for to begin with. Trust me, some of the reasons for locating in a given place discussed here don't even enter the conversation at the boardroom table. And thats if the company has 5 or 5000 people.

This is why so often many here scratch their heads when something doesn't pan out. Because not everyone wants to revolve their lives around government or services or neighborhood development concepts or number of schools, etc. etc.

How we can KEEP anybody from doing anything when it comes to lifestyle, where they live, where they want to live, how they want to do it....is beyond me.

Education, quality of life, entertainment and such are all important but they are but one part of the bigger picture when an owner has to set up shop to do business. Thats their livelihood and the health of the company sometimes lives or dies by a single decision.

I can't remember the last time someone brought up the discussion of how we can make it more cost effective to do business in Des Moines proper. Instead that issue is mostly ignored and the tone is even given that someone can just pay it if they want the good pleasure of being blessed with doing business downtown. Guess what, there are other alternatives apparently! One of Aviva's was if they hadn't been able to move out west (for their own reasons which we can all speculate on the goodness of all day long) they would have moved out of state.

Yes I know people here get frustrated with certain issues downtown faces but when I hear business owners stating concerns about costs downtown and then state that the burbs were a more cost effective alternative, when thats even Biz 101 to begin with, it's hard to argue with them. They are making a logical decision. They aren't doing it because a certain group of people would like to see them put up a taller building to help "enhance density". Obviously they've run the numbers and would a higher building have helped them do business better OR even attract the workforce they wanted more of, they would have done it!!

New roads and infastructure like MLK and things like the Riverwalk and such are great and do provide development opportunities but it's usually 1) Never good enough for people here when opportunities do come by and 2) The cost of Des Moines proper once again get's ignored in the dicussion when things don't go as planned.

The new annexation to the SE is great and will probably catch growth quicker than certain areas of downtown which will again piss people off here because people (businesses and residents) were naturally attracted to the cheaper option for their own sake and not the greater future look of the community.

When Des Moines proper get's serious about it's tax situation and it's other structural issues downtown will then take off even more and become what so many here want. Until then we'll see the same issues time and time again.

Young DSM Social CLub- I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that when you mentioned you thought the company would have stayed downtown because an executive had their house in Des Moines proper, it just showed me that you assume people think that way when thats not how they think. Particulalrly when it comes to business and numbers.

[mirage1]

When Des Moines proper get's serious about it's tax situation and it's other structural issues downtown will then take off even more and become what so many here want. Until then we'll see the same issues time and time again.

terrific post econboy.............

and SO right.

DSM isn't serious about the tax situation and won't be. While DSM officials continue to rant and rave about too much non-taxable land on the books they don't put things like old libraries up for sale to taxable entities, keep cash drains like the botanical center open (I was just there last week...we were the only two visitors on a Tues afternoon) and as soon as Urbandale whispered about a new soccer stadium DSM official were up in arms and attemping to undermine the process with late proposals. In the meantime, the sewage system can't be maintained.

The suburbs are winning big and will keep winning under this program.

[DMRyan]

I fully believe that having the top brass' residence being in close proximity to their office is a contributing factor to some of these locations. Obviously, it's just one of many factors as to why a company may chose to relocate from downtown to the burbs, but it's still a factor and perhaps one that pushed a few companies over the top in their decision to move west. I didn't think this a new revelation that this was one of the potential reasons why companies have fled to the burbs, especially in a metro like DSM where I'm guessing that more than half of most companies employees may still come from outside of the western burbs.

Don't be so sure that these companies located and expanding in downtown Des Moines aren't getting incentives thrown their way that make the cost of doing business here comparable with Name-a-suburb, Iowa.

[Mototail]

I'd agree with you Dogbo about the projects falling ill to the economy, but I'd say that middle of the road approach with affordable to peaking high-end would allow these current vacant properties to fill-up. The mall itself would not have been built if GGP itself didn't operate like it did, but it caught up to them in the end. The mall is part of the overall complex picture of GGP. However, they weren't done 2 to 3 years so the high-price at the present time doesn't allow them to be bought by any means. They've priced themselves out of the market affordability range and therefore unless dropped significantly will sit for another 2 to 4 years I would say until things are "out of the woods." Things don't happen in a vacuum like the area of downtown, but then again we aren't Detriot with an unemployment rate of +20%. We can continue to grow despite the rough times nationally as we are much better off than many cities or states. Even in rough patches we have to find the areas that can grow and make quality of life better.

I agree with Econboy about Des Moines becoming serious about tax revenue and enticements of business. However, I think it'll change when people that focus on that aspect get into office. Any ideas on who those individuals would be?

The project has to meet current times, and not as if we are in the old economy.

[Young DSM Social Club]

Thanks DMRyan. Well, I guess since I work in an industry where my main contacts are HR people and the actual owners of the company, I can attest with 100% certainty that MANY MANY business people locate their businesses close to where they live. It has been confirmed that most of the Aviva execs in DSM live in WDSM. While obviously this is not the only factor on why something is located where it is (well, duh) it is clearly a big factor.

My point was --- if we aren't going to make this into a first rate dense urban area, I'd much rather see high end housing like Glen Oaks then suburban flex space. The housing actually has a potential to help the whole, even if it is not the best use of the land. Suburban flex space really does nothing.

And I do use Glen Oaks because it lacks the character and history of South of Grand.

[Mototail]

I'd see the space more fitting being used in a Ponderosa style manner or West Glen rather than a Glen Oaks. Glen Oaks more represents suburbia rather than ''urban density." I think that there shouldn't be much more flex space added to the already massive amounts of office space that are going to be opening up within the coming year. I think a shopping center of some scale would help stimulate many different things in that area and draw to the core while not necessarily "demanding" shop downtown core/EV or else.

I see a hesitance in behavior by many to embrace the downtown. So I'd like to see an urbanized suburbia mentality take place in the project. It should be a mix of both urban and suburb. Not quite so much seclusion aspect to the housing. I see the townhouses like Midtown Heights and Brownstones fulfilling that need with mini yards for people to do things. So find some type of balance of Ponderosa and West Glen, but with a Des Moines spin on it.

[DMRyan]

Aviva is the City of Des Moines' fresh wound, but you could ask the question as to why any of the companies that left downtown over the years chose to do so. I would probably say that there is a large trend to own the office space they call home rather than lease, and provide easy, cost-effective parking for employees and customers without the added costs and trickery of urban development. I would wager (prove me wrong again mirage if you disagree) that by the time all of the incentives packages are thrown towards a large corporate office downtown, there isn't much of a difference in the corporate tax structures between the burbs and downtown DSM. What is there, like $3 or $4 per thousand difference per $1,000 in assessed property tax rates between West Des Moines and Des Moines? I know it adds up when you're talking millions of dollars of taxable value, but is it really enough to justify $100+ million on a new HQ? If it were truly all about low taxes, why haven't many of these companies flocked to Clive, with what is said to be the lowest property tax rate of any of the communities of the contigious metro area? Why do these smaller tech companies and expansions keep happening in Ankeny, which is now less than $2 lower than Des Moines' tax rates and the 2nd highest rate in the metro? Blame the leadership in this city all you want, but we just went on one hell of a ride downtown in terms of an economic boom. There's a lot of cities that would be flat out envious of what has happened with our stories on Allied, Wells Fargo and Wellmark, let alone the smaller employer expansions at companies throughout the core. I don't fully credit the politicians for all of this though, I give the most credit our strong business community and economic development arm for sealing the deal (GDM Partnership).

Gray's Landing won't be the urban nirvana we in DSM hope for, but there's room for a mix of uses including flex space and housing. I just hope the end result won't be so watered down that there isn't somewhat of an urban feel and that some high end housing can still land here. We're going to have to live with the flex space and semi-suburban office park along MLK Parkway and SW 9th Street. What happens to the housing portion of the development is a blank slate.

[econboy]

Aviva is the City of Des Moines' fresh wound, but you could ask the question as to why any of the companies that left downtown over the years chose to do so. I would probably say that there is a large trend to own the office space they call home rather than lease, and provide easy, cost-effective parking for employees and customers without the added costs and trickery of urban development. I would wager (prove me wrong again mirage if you disagree) that by the time all of the incentives packages are thrown towards a large corporate office downtown, there isn't much of a difference in the corporate tax structures between the burbs and downtown DSM. What is there, like $3 or $4 per thousand difference per $1,000 in assessed property tax rates between West Des Moines and Des Moines? I know it adds up when you're talking millions of dollars of taxable value, but is it really enough to justify $100+ million on a new HQ? If it were truly all about low taxes, why haven't many of these companies flocked to Clive, with what is said to be the lowest property tax rate of any of the communities of the contigious metro area? Why do these smaller tech companies and expansions keep happening in Ankeny, which is now less than $2 lower than Des Moines' tax rates and the 2nd highest rate in the metro? Blame the leadership in this city all you want, but we just went on one hell of a ride downtown in terms of an economic boom. There's a lot of cities that would be flat out envious of what has happened with our stories on Allied, Wells Fargo and Wellmark, let alone the smaller employer expansions at companies throughout the core. I don't fully credit the politicians for all of this though, I give the most credit our strong business community and economic development arm for sealing the deal (GDM Partnership).

Gray's Landing won't be the urban nirvana we in DSM hope for, but there's room for a mix of uses including flex space and housing. I just hope the end result won't be so watered down that there isn't somewhat of an urban feel and that some high end housing can still land here. We're going to have to live with the flex space and semi-suburban office park along MLK Parkway and SW 9th Street. What happens to the housing portion of the development is a blank slate.

DMRyan-

Yes, that $3 or $4 is all the difference to some businesses because of the millions you stated above. But remember, when you're talking MILLIONS thats alot. The incentives that Des Moines has given to some of the existing expansions has kept some companies downtown, yes. My concern is in the long-term whether or not those incentives KEEP them downtown in the core thereby not causing them to leave when reality takes back over. Some places like Clive don't have the zoned space yet or proper location available. Ankeny catches so much new growth with a couple dollars less per thousand because the land is flat and cheaper. Once again, cost.

There are some business owners who invest their money in a concept or community style like downtown because it's what they are looking for in particular, hence some of the smaller and midlevel expansions downtown. In this sense Des Moines is simply lucky, because this otherwise isn't the norm overall when it comes to doing business across the board. These type of expansions aren't going to be enough to sustain the City long-term. A 'here and there' approach, even in good times isn't adequate. The boom we saw downtown has alot more to do with immediate incentives and public infastructure improvements that made some of the numbers look inflated. It wasn't all business expansion.

[DMRyan]

I bet you could look at most site selection surveys and find that property tax rates are pretty far down on the list of why a business chooses to locate to a place. I agree that land costs are a major influence locally when it comes to businesses choosing where to build. It just costs more to develop in an urban setting, I don't think there's any way around that.

If it were all about being cheap, theses corporations and office users would build out in the unincorporated county like the smaller industrial/warehouse users do. That doesn't happen. We really only have two large clusters of corporate economic might in DSM, downtown and WDSM. Urbandale and Johnston and Ankeny have some presence, but aren't job magnets any less than they're still primarily residential communities.

[dogbo]

Then you don't know anything about business or how it needs to work. It doesn't have anything to do with what municipality someone resides in when it comes to the business decisions a company has to make for BUSINESS.

This is what you keep ignoring. You think people do business off of sunshine and smiles. There is also this mentality here quite often that a business should somehow choose a site based on "asthetics" or what the area might look like in the future. Granted, businesses have a vested interest in a given community but not when it get's in the way of the health or good of the company which is what they are in business for to begin with. Trust me, some of the reasons for locating in a given place discussed here don't even enter the conversation at the boardroom table. And thats if the company has 5 or 5000 people.

This is why so often many here scratch their heads when something doesn't pan out. Because not everyone wants to revolve their lives around government or services or neighborhood development concepts or number of schools, etc. etc.

How we can KEEP anybody from doing anything when it comes to lifestyle, where they live, where they want to live, how they want to do it....is beyond me.

Education, quality of life, entertainment and such are all important but they are but one part of the bigger picture when an owner has to set up shop to do business. Thats their livelihood and the health of the company sometimes lives or dies by a single decision.

I can't remember the last time someone brought up the discussion of how we can make it more cost effective to do business in Des Moines proper. Instead that issue is mostly ignored and the tone is even given that someone can just pay it if they want the good pleasure of being blessed with doing business downtown. Guess what, there are other alternatives apparently! One of Aviva's was if they hadn't been able to move out west (for their own reasons which we can all speculate on the goodness of all day long) they would have moved out of state.

Yes I know people here get frustrated with certain issues downtown faces but when I hear business owners stating concerns about costs downtown and then state that the burbs were a more cost effective alternative, when thats even Biz 101 to begin with, it's hard to argue with them. They are making a logical decision. They aren't doing it because a certain group of people would like to see them put up a taller building to help "enhance density". Obviously they've run the numbers and would a higher building have helped them do business better OR even attract the workforce they wanted more of, they would have done it!!

New roads and infastructure like MLK and things like the Riverwalk and such are great and do provide development opportunities but it's usually 1) Never good enough for people here when opportunities do come by and 2) The cost of Des Moines proper once again get's ignored in the dicussion when things don't go as planned.

The new annexation to the SE is great and will probably catch growth quicker than certain areas of downtown which will again piss people off here because people (businesses and residents) were naturally attracted to the cheaper option for their own sake and not the greater future look of the community.

When Des Moines proper get's serious about it's tax situation and it's other structural issues downtown will then take off even more and become what so many here want. Until then we'll see the same issues time and time again.

Young DSM Social CLub- I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that when you mentioned you thought the company would have stayed downtown because an executive had their house in Des Moines proper, it just showed me that you assume people think that way when thats not how they think. Particulalrly when it comes to business and numbers.

This is a nice answer to print in a textbook and probably the answer your a business professor might give you at college. It is not the real world, however.

In some cases this answer is valid, but in reality businesses are run by human beings, not robots. Emotions, politics, illogical choices, all occur when human beings make decisions. It only takes one person with influence (who may not necessarily be the best decision maker on office relocation) to cause a business as large as Aviva to relocate. Think about it. These people are experts in insurance and annuities, not urban planning and smart growth. They may also be golfing buddies with Knapp (or whomever owned the land) or the W DSM mayor or…. I think you get my drift.

To say with a straight face that decisions like this are made strictly from a rational standpoint, fails to consider all the extra real-life factors that are involved when human beings make decisions.

Politics aside and at the end of the day, Aviva's relocation outside of the core of the metro was bad for the metro (and thus in the long run, bad for companies located in the metro as a whole). Why. Consider where: all mass transit converges to offer service, where individuals can walk to lunch, the eye dr, hairstylist, where they are centrally located to offer proximity to current housing stock, where fertile farm fields do not need to be taken out of production, etc . If the big wigs making relocation decisions didn't have the insight to concern themselves with the big picture (which they clearly did not), it is a bad decision beyond the obviously surface level considerations. Let's face it, at their new location, 100% of the employees (outside of a few car pools) will now need to drive their own car to get to work. They have lost the bus system, there isn't any housing density nearby to allow people to walk, I suppose a few can ride bikes, but no where near as many that could if they had remained downtown.

I mean seriously!??! When do we stop building our cities in a way that the Middle East might actually become worried that we won't need their oil any longer? Why do we think we have unlimited farmland we can continue to take out of production? Why is it a good idea to continue to push the edges of the metro outward further and further, when there are ample opportunities to reinvigorate current already established areas? When do we start to realize that a large part of our nation's obesity problems is because fewer and fewer of us live in walkable neighborhoods? Why are my tax dollars being used to create new roads, bridges, sewers, etc. when we have existing ones that need attention?

These questions/concerns do not show up on the bean counters charts but they do (or should) on the radar screens of company executives that have the ability to see the big picture advantages/concerns/consideration of why it is not the best decision to build office building in a corn field on the edge of a metro. Aviva's executives (and it may have only taken one that had enough pull) unfortunately did not have that ability…and that is to the detriment of all of us.

End of rant.

[hawk61401]

It only takes one person with influence (who may not necessarily be the best decision maker on office relocation) to cause a business as large as Aviva to relocate. Think about it. These people are experts in insurance and annuities, not urban planning and smart growth. They may also be golfing buddies with Knapp (or whomever owned the land) or the W DSM mayor or…. I think you get my drift.

I think Aviva wanted to stay downtown. They chose West Des Moines after Wellmark claimed the Gateway site. I remember Aviva leaders said it was the only good option that it had to build downtown. But we could have lost both Aviva and Wellmark from downtown. Wellmark was covering all of it's bases by buying 64 acres in West Des Moines just in case it didn't get the land near the Gateway that it wanted.

Would have been frick'n awesome if Aviva would have built directly west of the new Wellmark building.

[econboy]

So they reluctantly went to West Des Moines against their better desires because they couldn't get either a) One of their influential execs to agree to stay downtown, or b) because they couldn't get the gateway site because Wellmark got it first?

Amazing! So, there is this alternate reality whereby they secretly desired downtown but had to go west because either Wellmark got it first and/or 1 higher executive forced the company to go west. None of this makes any sense and it doesn't even match up with the reality of the situation which is most likely that both companies planned on going out west but Wellmark decided to stay downtown upon an agreement with the City of Des Moines. An agreement that couldn't be reached with Aviva.

dogbo- Your post sounds like a sales pitch on smart growth and projecting wishful thinking onto a false reality.

I will concede my point if someone can show me concrete proof that Aviva actually planned to stay downtown. Show me the cronyism, the backdoor deal, the buddy system or whatever that led to this occurance. If you can, I'll throw my hands up and concede that Aviva was in a bidding war with Wellmark and that neither company wanted to go out west unless they had to because there was no other option.

[dogbo]

I didn't indicate they really wanted to stay downtown or anything about a bidding war so I assume that comment is addressed to someone else.

My main point -- it is a bad decision for our metro as a whole (or I guess I could say our country, since this mistake is repeated across the US) to continue to decentralize the main employment hubs for the various reasons I listed. Also, your comment on the "sales pitch" is confusing if not incoherent (at least to my thick-head). I'd like to respond, but would need further explanation as to what you were driving at there.

[DMRyan]

I don't buy into Aviva wanting to stay downtown and the real reasons behind this we'll perhaps never know. I do think that the Aviva explanation they gave to the public of "Wellmark took our site" was B.S. and a way to turn the impending local political sh*t storm over the relocation back against the city versus take all the heat for moving to the new site in West Des Moines.

To say there wasn't land available downtown is an entire cop-out. Look at what is supposed to be a topic for this thread. You could build 6 suburban Aviva campuses on all of this land if they wanted to. There were other factors pulling this company to West Des Moines. Make no mistake, West Des Moines is a great place to do business. That's why it's probably equally as difficult for West Des Moines when Urbandale nabs one of their companies like what happened with Marsh. There's an interesting story to look at, what caused the relocation of this company from one newer suburban office building to their brand new plain bunker in U-town.

[DMRyan]

Finally, some dirt being pushed around on this mega project, even if it's only the construction of a new road.



The Stetson Building should be demolished very soon. The construction supply company has already relocated out of the building.

[rasmeth]

Remember, this development area has adopted the traditional city street grid pattern that gives drivers, cyclists and pedestrians multiple ways to get from point a to point b, lessening congestion and making a more pleasant pedestrian environment. I think that would be thanks to the Des Moines city planners, but I don't really know how that is decided.

[DMRyan]

Not much to show here still, but SW 11th Street is still being reconstructed and the Stetson Building is history.

Stetson Building before Demo:


Now:


SW 11th Street construction from DART office and bus garage: