I'm sure they could build on an empty lot if they owned it, which they apparently don't.
I would hope the Preservation Board won't scare them away. But there needs to be some middle ground here. Probably a mix of subsidies and others to encourage them to build on another adjacent site.gary kreie wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017Could we get them to build it on one of the many empty parking lots already cleared instead of destroying a handsome older building downtown? I can see this project leveling a nice building and then abandoning the tower so they can have another parking lot right across from Busch.
Or do it the way my Brother’s Boston architecture firm did a Tower and satisfied the city and neighboring residents— tear down only the back part of the building and have the tower appear to rise from behind the current structure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The development needs to happen, but I hope for the best for this building. There are soooo many other sites that could work here.
All of this is premature, of course, until we see renderings. We might vomit.
- 2,386
^Gary makes a great point above about tearing this down and then using it as parking. Shall we move to grant them to tear this down and build on the site, there had better be iron clad provisions in the agreement. Can't start demolition until all financing is in place.
- 1,864
Lets all keep in mind that the parking garages are not on the market... and I assume that most of the empty parking lots aren't either. That or the current owners are asking for pie in the sky money for them. If a company can purchase an empty lot for cheaper than they can purchase a lot with an existing building, they probably would.
I can't complain too much about this... let's just make them have construction permits in place with financing secured before any demolition permit is approved.
I can't complain too much about this... let's just make them have construction permits in place with financing secured before any demolition permit is approved.
Sorry for the long post, but here's the main parts of the BJ post for those without a subscription:
"A development team led by Chesterfield-based HDA Architects is planning a 33-story apartment high rise across the street from Busch Stadium in downtown St. Louis. The project, for which costs were not disclosed, would take the place of a St. Louis Community College building at 300 S. Broadway.
HDA, which is led by President Jack Holleran, has the 93,000-square-foot building under contract from the college, which put it on the market in April. HDA officials did not provide additional information about the development. St. Louis Community College officials declined to comment. It’s unclear how the project would be financed or if public incentives would be requested. A preliminary review of the plan by the city’s Preservation Board is expected on Dec. 18.
The development would be a direct competitor to the Ballpark Village apartment tower that is expected to begin construction by the end of the year. That tower is part of the broader $260 million second phase of Ballpark Village, which is being developed by the St. Louis Cardinals and Cordish Cos.
St. Louis Community College officials said earlier this year that proceeds from the sale would be used to help fund future development. The downtown building, according to city records, has an appraised value of $26.9 million.
HDA has worked on a variety of multifamily projects in the region before, including renovations made to the Mansion House in downtown St. Louis and the recently opened $75 million Two Twelve in Clayton, and is also part of the team bringing a new $40 million AC Hotel to the Central West End."
"A development team led by Chesterfield-based HDA Architects is planning a 33-story apartment high rise across the street from Busch Stadium in downtown St. Louis. The project, for which costs were not disclosed, would take the place of a St. Louis Community College building at 300 S. Broadway.
HDA, which is led by President Jack Holleran, has the 93,000-square-foot building under contract from the college, which put it on the market in April. HDA officials did not provide additional information about the development. St. Louis Community College officials declined to comment. It’s unclear how the project would be financed or if public incentives would be requested. A preliminary review of the plan by the city’s Preservation Board is expected on Dec. 18.
The development would be a direct competitor to the Ballpark Village apartment tower that is expected to begin construction by the end of the year. That tower is part of the broader $260 million second phase of Ballpark Village, which is being developed by the St. Louis Cardinals and Cordish Cos.
St. Louis Community College officials said earlier this year that proceeds from the sale would be used to help fund future development. The downtown building, according to city records, has an appraised value of $26.9 million.
HDA has worked on a variety of multifamily projects in the region before, including renovations made to the Mansion House in downtown St. Louis and the recently opened $75 million Two Twelve in Clayton, and is also part of the team bringing a new $40 million AC Hotel to the Central West End."
- 2,623
Those garages are absolute cash cow, I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. It's a shame that stadium parking is so profitable. I would eventually like to see a citywide tax on underutilized surface parking spots. It would cut into their businesses bottom line and incentive lot owners to develop it into something useful for the area. Maybe we could even get rid of some of those pesky lots south of Busch Stadium.
We don’t want to be NIMBYs. If it is designed well, I’ll be fine. If they can incorporate the old building into the new, even better. Chances of either are slim so while I’ll keep my hopes up of a beautiful tower, I am also skeptical.
It is certainly a shame to be losing a handsome building like that. Buildings like this are what make St. Louis so architecturally interesting.
That said, this has the potentially to transform the skyline, as well as the perception of downtown. And while we have not seen renderings, I can't imagine it will look too different than a typical apartment high rise you see in other cities. And that's okay, to me. Getting cranes in the sky and adding density are all very good for downtown. This could go a long way to activate this part of downtown. Remember, the surface lot to the south is owned by a Nashville developer. If this 33 story tower does well, I would think this lot would see some cranes as well.
Do I wish it was being built on a surface lot or replacing one of those God-awful ugly parking garages? Of course I do. But if the cost of getting a 33 story tower is a six story (handsome) building, I think I am okay with that trade off. I do agree that financing should be in place before any demolition can begin.
That said, this has the potentially to transform the skyline, as well as the perception of downtown. And while we have not seen renderings, I can't imagine it will look too different than a typical apartment high rise you see in other cities. And that's okay, to me. Getting cranes in the sky and adding density are all very good for downtown. This could go a long way to activate this part of downtown. Remember, the surface lot to the south is owned by a Nashville developer. If this 33 story tower does well, I would think this lot would see some cranes as well.
Do I wish it was being built on a surface lot or replacing one of those God-awful ugly parking garages? Of course I do. But if the cost of getting a 33 story tower is a six story (handsome) building, I think I am okay with that trade off. I do agree that financing should be in place before any demolition can begin.
I think Chaifetz10 summarizes the realities of a private real estate market. First you have to find a willing buyer and then hope you can get to a agreeable pricechaifetz10 wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017Lets all keep in mind that the parking garages are not on the market... and I assume that most of the empty parking lots aren't either. That or the current owners are asking for pie in the sky money for them. If a company can purchase an empty lot for cheaper than they can purchase a lot with an existing building, they probably would.
The other reality that was posted earlier which makes a lot of sense to me is if this particular site gives you views into Busch Stadium. Cardinals to me is a huge selling point and still dumbfounded on why Cordish/DeWitt took so long on moving their residential high rise forward once the market got better
- 1,054
Just out of curiosity, how drastically will 33 floors alter the skyline in this area?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 2,386
Let's hope the Nashville developer down the street gets that lot rolling quickly. That will have unimpeded views of the field from floors 6? and up. Could build a parking podium up to the height of the stadium and go from there.
Does anyone know off-hand what restrictions regarding height are in place East of Broadway? I thought I remembered hearing nothing taller than the Arch but I am not positive.
Does anyone know off-hand what restrictions regarding height are in place East of Broadway? I thought I remembered hearing nothing taller than the Arch but I am not positive.
gopherlou wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017Sorry for the long post, but here's the main parts of the BJ post for those without a subscription:
"A development team led by Chesterfield-based HDA Architects is planning a 33-story apartment high rise across the street from Busch Stadium in downtown St. Louis. The project, for which costs were not disclosed, would take the place of a St. Louis Community College building at 300 S. Broadway.
HDA, which is led by President Jack Holleran, has the 93,000-square-foot building under contract from the college, which put it on the market in April. HDA officials did not provide additional information about the development. St. Louis Community College officials declined to comment. It’s unclear how the project would be financed or if public incentives would be requested. A preliminary review of the plan by the city’s Preservation Board is expected on Dec. 18.
The development would be a direct competitor to the Ballpark Village apartment tower that is expected to begin construction by the end of the year. That tower is part of the broader $260 million second phase of Ballpark Village, which is being developed by the St. Louis Cardinals and Cordish Cos.
St. Louis Community College officials said earlier this year that proceeds from the sale would be used to help fund future development. The downtown building, according to city records, has an appraised value of $26.9 million.
HDA has worked on a variety of multifamily projects in the region before, including renovations made to the Mansion House in downtown St. Louis and the recently opened $75 million Two Twelve in Clayton, and is also part of the team bringing a new $40 million AC Hotel to the Central West End."
I mean it's obvious they would go with a surface lot that had good views as this to the stadium but clearly they are paying a premium for this building
newstl2020 wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017Let's hope the Nashville developer down the street gets that lot rolling quickly. That will have unimpeded views of the field from floors 6? and up. Could build a parking podium up to the height of the stadium and go from there.
Does anyone know off-hand what restrictions regarding height are in place East of Broadway? I thought I remembered hearing nothing taller than the Arch but I am not positive.
Which comes out to about a 300' height limit. If you turn on 3D buildings on Google Earth, you can tell that almost every non-historic building east of Broadway is built right to this limit.
It is certainly a conundrum to be faced with developmental progress at the expense of what is/was the signature of the area. As many have already stated, hopefully a compromise can be found. That pocket of downtown will always be many individuals' only taste of downtown from street level. Totally losing the "old STL" would be unfortunate from a historical perspective. However, the growing list of potential high-rise construction is exciting and encouraging for our city. Regarding the modern design we'd all love to see, that is such a function of available finances and is very difficult to judge. Without intimate knowledge of the developer's vision and resources, it is difficult to ultimately know what they want, what they can afford, associated costs, and which version of renderings that amalgamates those factors even gets released to the public.
While it is not apples to apples, I can't help but compare this to last year's proposed office space just west of Busch. If I recall, that was pre-BPV phase II announcement and quickly died afterward. I'd like think that with the escalation of the residential market and booming development around Busch, Cupples X (or a similar version) would once again get legs as commercial projects would gain traction. I love the idea of local, regional, and national developers/corporations pushing the Cardinals and Cordish to up their development game in terms of time-line and creativity.
While it is not apples to apples, I can't help but compare this to last year's proposed office space just west of Busch. If I recall, that was pre-BPV phase II announcement and quickly died afterward. I'd like think that with the escalation of the residential market and booming development around Busch, Cupples X (or a similar version) would once again get legs as commercial projects would gain traction. I love the idea of local, regional, and national developers/corporations pushing the Cardinals and Cordish to up their development game in terms of time-line and creativity.
If you wanna nerd out I've got more detail on the height restrictions in this post.aprice wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017newstl2020 wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017Let's hope the Nashville developer down the street gets that lot rolling quickly. That will have unimpeded views of the field from floors 6? and up. Could build a parking podium up to the height of the stadium and go from there.
Does anyone know off-hand what restrictions regarding height are in place East of Broadway? I thought I remembered hearing nothing taller than the Arch but I am not positive.
Which comes out to about a 300' height limit. If you turn on 3D buildings on Google Earth, you can tell that almost every non-historic building east of Broadway is built right to this limit.
It should be noted, though, that these are not immutable. It is possible to request a variance if the developer believes it will benefit his building, and the city agrees to it. The Slay administration said the city was willing to work with any developer who'd propose a building that doesn't fit the limits; I assume that's still true today.
-RBB
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 3,757
That looks awesome!
This is a bitter-sweet project, but if I had to choose, obviously, the 33 story tower would be my choice. The 29-story BPV tower and this one, will give newcomers and passersby quite the welcome to STL. This is skyline changing stuff. Awesome!
My vote, keep the current building or part of it and just take the 33 story tower way higher, maybe 50 or so and take up less of a footprint.
It is amazing how much high-rise development is going on here. We definitely have a lot to be proud of, if all of these towers get built. We have Centene, BPV, One, new 33-story tower, SSM-SLU, various Cortex developments, the Union Station Wheel... etc... STL should be dotted with cranes in the coming years if all of this comes to fruition. The hope will be that this momentum will build upon itself and create demand for more big projects. How many "pier cities" can boast this much development, outside of the outliers like Denver and Nashville.
This is a bitter-sweet project, but if I had to choose, obviously, the 33 story tower would be my choice. The 29-story BPV tower and this one, will give newcomers and passersby quite the welcome to STL. This is skyline changing stuff. Awesome!
My vote, keep the current building or part of it and just take the 33 story tower way higher, maybe 50 or so and take up less of a footprint.
It is amazing how much high-rise development is going on here. We definitely have a lot to be proud of, if all of these towers get built. We have Centene, BPV, One, new 33-story tower, SSM-SLU, various Cortex developments, the Union Station Wheel... etc... STL should be dotted with cranes in the coming years if all of this comes to fruition. The hope will be that this momentum will build upon itself and create demand for more big projects. How many "pier cities" can boast this much development, outside of the outliers like Denver and Nashville.
Hoping that the non-Busch facing sides (and at least the eastern facing/skyline side) don't just look like 212 Meramec, and have a little more finish/detailing to them than painted concrete.
I like it; should add a nice modern shimmer to the skyline. In this case, I'm OK with sacrificing the old building to add a new landmark; this will really make an impact on the skyline.
^^The rendering only shows glass on the west facing side. I really hope they are able to wrap that all the way around.
- 1,054
- 2,430
If I had my druthers, I'd keep the 300 S. Broadway and have the Drurys move forward with their hopefully still-on-the-table plans for a 30 story tower in Laclede's Landing as the first non-BPV tower. Keeping the handsome historic building while finishing up the remaining BPV parcels on a decent timeframe, renovating the Stouffer, and putting up new towers on the Nashville group's massive surface lots would be a real win for that ballpark area.
- 1,054
It depends on how one looks at it.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017How many "pier cities" can boast this much development, outside of the outliers like Denver and Nashville.
For regional standards, STL is seeing a boom. The list of proposals/under constructions is pretty extensive. If we look at total high rise construction, STL is probably in the top 4 in the midwest at the moment in total projects.
Some regional competitors, KC and Indianapolis, are seeing nowhere as much high rise proposals as STL. I don't believe Indianapolis has any at the moment. KC has a few, but only at P&L.
STL is definitely seeing a higher pace of development right now. Exciting times are ahead...
- 103
Pier rust belt cities we probably compare favorably but not so much if you consider Denver, Minneapolis, and Nashville peers.Chalupas54 wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017It depends on how one looks at it.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Dec 08, 2017How many "pier cities" can boast this much development, outside of the outliers like Denver and Nashville.
For regional standards, STL is seeing a boom. The list of proposals/under constructions is pretty extensive. If we look at total high rise construction, STL is probably in the top 4 in the midwest at the moment in total projects.
Some regional competitors, KC and Indianapolis, are seeing nowhere as much high rise proposals as STL. I don't believe Indianapolis has any at the moment. KC has a few, but only at P&L.
STL is definitely seeing a higher pace of development right now. Exciting times are ahead...