Outside of the tower on the old Schnuck's site (outside of DT Clayton), what else do they have going at 5+ stories for residential?jshank83 wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021It is hard for me to say Clayton is losing that much momentum. They don’t have a shortage of development projects.wabash wrote: ↑Apr 08, 2021Indeed, kind of telling that they're scrapping the Clayton project and moving forward with the Cortex one. I suppose it helps that they can phase the Cortex project, and at 7 stories (and maybe 4 stories for the planned office portion?) it can be a less intensive type of construction than the 14 stories they were planning in Clayton. Even with those factors in mind, I think it shows where the momentum is and where the investment dollars are currently heading.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Apr 08, 2021Clayton is losing momentum on dense residential. The Central Corridor is the winner here.
- 991
Well, 5 stories is a bit arbitrary, and Clayton has seen multiple residential projects in the recent years. Ceylon, the Barton, Clarendale, etc. Plus it’s seen high profile projects like Centene and Forsyth Pointe, plus the AC hotel, Midas hotel, etc.
Clayton still has the most momentum (in my opinion) in the region.
Clayton still has the most momentum (in my opinion) in the region.
Clayton definitely has the momentum in terms of office as the Centene HQ and Forysth Pointe are on a scale unlike anything else in the region. It has the one hotel project moving forward - the Midas Residence Inn (has there been anything on the proposed AC Hotel in the last two years?), but that's pretty limited compared to what Downtown and the Central Corridor have been seeing. Clayton has the one large multifamily project - Bemiston Place (Clarendale is kind of a different beast as it's senior living).Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021Well, 5 stories is a bit arbitrary, and Clayton has seen multiple residential projects in the recent years. Ceylon, the Barton, Clarendale, etc. Plus it’s seen high profile projects like Centene and Forsyth Pointe, plus the AC hotel, Midas hotel, etc.
Clayton still has the most momentum (in my opinion) in the region.
It's a good balance of projects, but for multifamily it's not nearly on the scale of what's happening in the Grove/CWE/Cortex (even moreso if neighboring DeBaliviere Place is included), where you've got a deep lineup of multifamily projects in every phase of development. If a developer's putting up a new multifamily project it seems more likely than not that it's going in that pocket. Maybe the same can be said for office development and Clayton.
Exactly. I'm talking strictly dense residential. I'm also including DeBaliviere Place in the CC mix. Clayton office is a different story.wabash wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021Clayton definitely has the momentum in terms of office as the Centleaene HQ and Forysth Pointe are on a scale unlike anything else in the region. It has the one hotel project moving forward - the Midas Residence Inn (has there been anything on the proposed AC Hotel in the last two years?), but that's pretty limited compared to what Downtown and the Central Corridor have been seeing. Clayton has the one large multifamily project - Bemiston Place (Clarendale is kind of a different beast as it's senior living).Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021Well, 5 stories is a bit arbitrary, and Clayton has seen multiple residential projects in the recent years. Ceylon, the Barton, Clarendale, etc. Plus it’s seen high profile projects like Centene and Forsyth Pointe, plus the AC hotel, Midas hotel, etc.
Clayton still has the most momentum (in my opinion) in the region.
It's a good balance of projects, but for multifamily it's not nearly on the scale of what's happening in the Grove/CWE/Cortex (even moreso if neighboring DeBaliviere Place is included), where you've got a deep lineup of multifamily projects in every phase of development. If a developer's putting up a new multifamily project it seems more likely than not that it's going in that pocket. Maybe the same can be said for office development and Clayton.
No offense but I find locals comparing Clayton with the CC laughable. IMO, I consider Clayton a part of the CC...in any other city Clayton would almost assuredly be within the city limits anyway.
Clayton has 2.5 square miles of land in its borders, much of that is not even in downtown Clayton either. The CWE alone is 1.89sqmi. Should we really be surprised that the collection of neighborhoods stretching from Forest Park to the river has a bit more going on? Especially considering the existing density, hospitals, universities and other institutions that downtown Clayton doesn’t really have.
If people in this city spent less time trying to dictate “winners and losers” between Clayton and the City or other municipalities maybe we could actually make some regional progress here.
Clayton has 2.5 square miles of land in its borders, much of that is not even in downtown Clayton either. The CWE alone is 1.89sqmi. Should we really be surprised that the collection of neighborhoods stretching from Forest Park to the river has a bit more going on? Especially considering the existing density, hospitals, universities and other institutions that downtown Clayton doesn’t really have.
If people in this city spent less time trying to dictate “winners and losers” between Clayton and the City or other municipalities maybe we could actually make some regional progress here.
Hilarious that folks on an urbanism blog would discuss, compare and contrast development trends in different neighborhoods. How incredibly divisive and obstructionist of them.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021No offense but I find locals comparing Clayton with the CC laughable. IMO, I consider Clayton a part of the CC...in any other city Clayton would almost assuredly be within the city limits anyway.
....
If people in this city spent less time trying to dictate “winners and losers” between Clayton and the City or other municipalities maybe we could actually make some regional progress here.
- 2,386
The point regarding comparing contrasting on this blog is fine, but I do not think sc4mayor's thoughts regarding the region's propensity for declaring winner's and losers amongst our various fiefdoms are at all off base. The region does spend far too much time competing amongst arbitrarily decided lines in dirt within our own metro as opposed to figuring out how we can win together and gain from elsewhere. Fairly salient observation, in my opinion.wabash wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021Hilarious that folks on an urbanism blog would discuss, compare and contrast development trends in different neighborhoods. How incredibly divisive and obstructionist of them.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021No offense but I find locals comparing Clayton with the CC laughable. IMO, I consider Clayton a part of the CC...in any other city Clayton would almost assuredly be within the city limits anyway.
....
If people in this city spent less time trying to dictate “winners and losers” between Clayton and the City or other municipalities maybe we could actually make some regional progress here.
Thank you!newstl2020 wrote: ↑Apr 10, 2021The point regarding comparing contrasting on this blog is fine, but I do not think sc4mayor's thoughts regarding the region's propensity for declaring winner's and losers amongst our various fiefdoms are at all off base. The region does spend far too much time competing amongst arbitrarily decided lines in dirt within our own metro as opposed to figuring out how we can win together and gain from elsewhere. Fairly salient observation, in my opinion.wabash wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021Hilarious that folks on an urbanism blog would discuss, compare and contrast development trends in different neighborhoods. How incredibly divisive and obstructionist of them.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021No offense but I find locals comparing Clayton with the CC laughable. IMO, I consider Clayton a part of the CC...in any other city Clayton would almost assuredly be within the city limits anyway.
....
If people in this city spent less time trying to dictate “winners and losers” between Clayton and the City or other municipalities maybe we could actually make some regional progress here.
And for what it’s worth, Wabash, I went back and reread my comment and didn’t see any accusations of “divisiveness” or “obstructionism.”
Seemed like a pretty innocuous comment within the context of our larger region and how we operate here.
Clayton would definitely be Uptown St. Louis if St. Louis had regional boundaries even remotely resembling something sane.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2021No offense but I find locals comparing Clayton with the CC laughable. IMO, I consider Clayton a part of the CC...in any other city Clayton would almost assuredly be within the city limits anyway.
Clayton has 2.5 square miles of land in its borders, much of that is not even in downtown Clayton either. The CWE alone is 1.89sqmi. Should we really be surprised that the collection of neighborhoods stretching from Forest Park to the river has a bit more going on? Especially considering the existing density, hospitals, universities and other institutions that downtown Clayton doesn’t really have.
If people in this city spent less time trying to dictate “winners and losers” between Clayton and the City or other municipalities maybe we could actually make some regional progress here.
New proposal up on the Clayton pending applications page:
https://cityofclaytonmo.sharepoint.com/ ... =true&ga=1
$106 million. 299 units across a 21 story tower at 111 South Meramec and what appears to be a reuse of the existing WTC building. It would be shaved down to five stories and connected to the new tower. A lease for 200 spaces has been negotiated at 8011 Bonhomme for 52 years, no new parking would be built. Seems pretty preliminary so far. Goes in front of the Plan Commission and the ARB on 7/17/23.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
https://cityofclaytonmo.sharepoint.com/ ... =true&ga=1
$106 million. 299 units across a 21 story tower at 111 South Meramec and what appears to be a reuse of the existing WTC building. It would be shaved down to five stories and connected to the new tower. A lease for 200 spaces has been negotiated at 8011 Bonhomme for 52 years, no new parking would be built. Seems pretty preliminary so far. Goes in front of the Plan Commission and the ARB on 7/17/23.
I'm confused by the parking because plans show plans for integrated parking (floor plan and cross section/elevation) but the summary document says spaces have been negotiated. Regardless, it's good to see this proposed. It's denser than KDG's plan from 2020 and is much taller. The design looks promising so far.
Of note: The developer is Michael Knight. He was involved in the redevelopment of Downtown West's Monogram building on Washington Avenue and was involved in the redevelopment of Kansas City's Commerce Tower.
Of note: The developer is Michael Knight. He was involved in the redevelopment of Downtown West's Monogram building on Washington Avenue and was involved in the redevelopment of Kansas City's Commerce Tower.
^ The existing building at 121 South Meramec has a parking deck on the bottom. I believe that will remain.
Looks pretty good.
Thanks for posting these updates; somehow I overlooked this last night.
Thanks for posting these updates; somehow I overlooked this last night.
I'd really like to hear the financial case for shaving off half the world trade building. "The bottom half is worth saving." Not trolling; I'm legitimately curious.
Previous reporting mentioned the building being in pretty bad shape, possibly some structural issues. Probably cheaper to deconstruct the top half and shore up the bottom half instead of doing a ground up rehabilitation on the entire structure...especially since they want to build a 20+ story building as part of the project.
Unrelated...I walked by the other day and there are probably about half a dozen or more shattered windows on the Bonhomme facade of the WTC building. The sooner this eyesore is gone, the better.
Unrelated...I walked by the other day and there are probably about half a dozen or more shattered windows on the Bonhomme facade of the WTC building. The sooner this eyesore is gone, the better.
Developer proposes apartments in Clayton at former county office, 7UP headquarters
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/bus ... d596e.html
Mostly what we know, however there are apparent plans for a movie theater that I had missed previously.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/bus ... d596e.html
Mostly what we know, however there are apparent plans for a movie theater that I had missed previously.
^I went back over the plan submittal. The cinema seems like an amenity for residents and not the public (it's shown at 350sf "cinema" on page 4 of 9 on the conceptual plan document).
A new document, added today, has a break down of the units:
A new document, added today, has a break down of the units:
| Unit Type | Unit Count |
| Studio | 70 |
| One Bedroom | 103 |
| One Bedroom + Den | 73 |
| Two Bedrooms | 48 |
| Three Bedrooms | 5 |
| TOTAL | 299 |
Sale of the properties closed Wednesday. $3.8 million total.
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local ... l8pu6jaizo
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local ... l8pu6jaizo
Community conference scheduled for August 17th at 5:30pm at the Center of Clayton.
https://www.claytonmo.gov/Home/Componen ... plications
https://www.claytonmo.gov/Home/Componen ... plications
- 502
With the disappearance of a lot of photos from threads, like this one, I'll repost the lost conceptual plans from earlier this summer.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Now that we're caught up, plans were resubmitted to Clayton on September 22nd featuring formal renderings and better floor plans. Same development team as before (Revive Capital Development, Chris Cedergreen, Lamar Johnson Collaborative, Paric Construction). 298 apartments, 6 of which are affordable.
To me, this is one of the better looking high-rises proposed in downtown Clayton recently. Compared to the conceptual hand drawn sketch, the design looks better too. More glass. Has a refined look.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
To me, this is one of the better looking high-rises proposed in downtown Clayton recently. Compared to the conceptual hand drawn sketch, the design looks better too. More glass. Has a refined look.
Thanks for the reporting Chirs!
Building looks great. Just can't help but wonder why they need to pick this lot, which has a fine building on it, rather than any number of empty/underused lots in the area
Building looks great. Just can't help but wonder why they need to pick this lot, which has a fine building on it, rather than any number of empty/underused lots in the area
Yeah, that's much nicer looking. Not sure about that big orange thingy at the top, but whatever.
- 502
The "sky public art" is certainly a choice. If done right, it will be better than the screen at the top of One Cardinal Way.
@RuskiSTL this site asunder a County Port Authority RFP a while back, which led KDG to this site 3 years ago and now to Michael Knight. It's not that there isn't land available nearby. It's that this was available.
@RuskiSTL this site asunder a County Port Authority RFP a while back, which led KDG to this site 3 years ago and now to Michael Knight. It's not that there isn't land available nearby. It's that this was available.
Updated plans were submitted to the City of Clayton on October 20th. The design now resembles the earlier sketches compared to the all-glass design from September. Height was also reduced from 246ft to 244ft. Everything else remains the same.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
