Data center project near Armory gets final approval from city just weeks after mayor asks for delay 20%

By Kavahn Mansouri59%

4/21/2026, 12:36:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 227 hits. Analysis detected 980 faulty-reasoning hits from 828 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.5% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,563 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.20% of the article peer group.

A controversial $3 billion data center project planned near the site of the Armory received a final OK from St. 
Louis officials Tuesday, just weeks after Mayor Cara Spencer requested the vote be delayed. 
Members of the city's Board of Public Service gave final approval to a conditional use permit allowing developers to build a data center as part of a $3 billion Armory Innovation District project, with additional rules added to the permit that align with the data center zoning rules still under consideration. 
Three weeks ago, Spencer asked the board to push back a vote on awarding the project a permit, requesting more due diligence. 
That request came as opposition to the project and any data center construction in the city grew. 
“As mayor, I cannot responsibly ignore the amount of good this amount of tax revenue will do for city services, SLPS students and some of the most important amenities and services that our community depends on,” said Spencer in a statement. 
“Though I share many concerns about data centers, we have negotiated hard to address the concerns we have any control over and ensure that our community reaps the benefits if this development moves forward.” 
The board's vote was unanimous, as opponents held protest signs in the room where the board meets. 
However, all board members attended via Zoom. 
“There was a serious lack of transparency, not exactly adequate public notice, and a shortage of public engagement,” said Kat Logan Smith, a resident of Fox Park who attended the meeting in opposition. 
“Complete disregard of the wishes of the community and a real ignorance of the health impacts of this data center and its ripple effects.” 
Chair Richard Bradley said the board approved the permit under rules added recently, which require the data center owners to adhere to some of the new zoning rules the city is considering for data centers. 
According to a statement from the mayor's office, the developers of the data center must comply with a long list of conditions designed to minimize water and energy use, including using a closed-loop system and air-cooled chillers, and ensuring that at least half of the data center's energy comes from renewable sources within five years. 
Part of the new rules includes a community development agreement that would benefit St. 
Louis' Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority, which oversees aspects of public and private development in the city. 
The conditions also include contributing an estimated $15 million toward multimodal enhancements, including the Brickline Greenway, and a promise not to seek tax abatements for the data center or Armory buildings. 
“They would enter into an acceptable agreement with the developer that could and would cover a number of other items that would not generally be covered in a conditional use setting,” said Bradley. 
Developers plan to build a 120-megawatt facility, which would be big enough to qualify for Ameren Missouri's new rate structure for larger electricity users and may be considered a “hyperscale” data center. 
The data center would be part of a larger plan for a technology hub at the historic Armory building, which would be converted into office space. 
The data center would be built at the adjacent Macy's/Famous-Barr warehouse property. 
The developers of the data center and tech hub include Contour, TeraWatt, THO Investments, Steadfast City, ARCO and Lewis Rice. 
The original proposal to build a $1.5 billion data center in the parking lot of the Armory, once touted as St. 
Louis' largest bar, faced public backlash. 
At a recent conditional use hearing, opponents of the project spoke for hours during public comment, calling for the city to reject any data center proposals. 
City officials are considering a new zoning framework for data centers designed by the Planning and Urban Design Agency. 
The proposal would limit where different types of data centers can be built in St. 
Louis, prohibiting them in certain zoning districts and requiring each to obtain a conditional use permit, while adding strict requirements for applications and operations. 
The project is expected to generate approximately $423 million in tax revenue over its first 10 years. 
The mayor's office estimates that St. 
Louis Public Schools would receive $206.3 million in revenue over that time, while the city would receive $139.3 million. 
The majority of the new revenue would come from personal property taxes, with a sizable amount also coming from real estate taxes. 
“The billions of dollars in new investment and jobs this project will bring will be transformative for the City of St. 
Louis,” said Greater St. 
Louis Inc. 
Managing Partner Ron Kitchen in response to the vote. 
“We applaud the approval of this development by the Board of Public Service.” 
St. 
Louis Public Radio visuals editor Brian Munoz contributed to this story. 
This story was updated to add comments from St. 
Louis Mayor Cara Spencer and a protester who attended Tuesday's meeting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias4.8%This article: 2.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias2.5%This article: 5.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.2%This article: 3.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 27.4%Kavahn Mansouri: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias27.4%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias9.7%This article: 6.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.6%This article: 3.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion6.9%This article: 4.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 1.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.4%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice6.4%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

828 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers30%attributed speech579writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 41 words • 100.0% coverageCara Spencer • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKat Logan Smith • 33 words • 100.0% coverageKat Logan Smith • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Bradley • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Bradley • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRon Kitchen • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRon Kitchen • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRon Kitchen • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Munoz • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kat Logan Smith

100%flagged-word coverage
57 attributed words23% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+54.4 ptsWriter: 3.5%Kat Logan Smith: 57.9%57.9%Unattributed Quote+42.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kat Logan Smith: 42.1%42.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.