urbanSTL

stlien wrote: ↑

Jul 18, 2018

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jul 17, 2018

Also, when you say "several daytime employees" are you being serious with that estimation? Or are they actually typically filled?

I believe Spire employees park at the west garage and the east garage is utilized by nearby firms such as Polsinelli. Could be hundreds of employees, I'm really not sure. Also, I'm not sure of the capacity of each garage.

KPMG parks in the east garage (or at least 5 years ago I knew some employees that did). I think there is a skybridge from the building to the garage, so I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) most of the employees in that building park in the east garage.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jul 18, 2018

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. The price per square foot for those housing units was, as I recall from my house hunt a few years back, startlingly comparable to houses on much of the south side and I believe at or below the regional median....Sure, we need to tax lot size and land value a lot higher than developed square footage.

but that's still a market. those units aren't sitting empty. even middle-end housing is better for DT health and future prospects than surface lots. it's undesirable to many precisely b/c it's a mess of surface lots and crumbling infrastructure. i was down there for a baseball game a few weeks ago (not like "down there" from the 'burbs but down there from Dutchtown) and the walk from my car (around 11th and Olive i think) to the stadium was pretty depressing. that we need to tax undeveloped land higher than developed land was the initial point that I and a couple others were making, to which a couple others responded "surface lots are legitimate businesses. leave them alone."

^Surface parking lots are not "businesses" and it isn't debatable. They do not have infrastructure expenses, capital expenditures, labor, employees, inventory, COGS, or any other relevant metrics that make them functioning businesses. If anyone wants to respond this that they aren't because they pave and upkeep the lot and pay utilities, I don't care. They are land speculators taking advantage of a broken system. Tax surface lots 90% of revenue for all I care. and 99.9% of the metro wouldn't care either. They could raise prices. Guess what would happen? People would carpool, uber from any number of parking lots further out, etc. This is not a hard issue for the city to resolve. We need to make downtown functional again and the first step is eliminating surface lots from existence.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Jul 18, 2018

but that's still a market. those units aren't sitting empty. even middle-end housing is better for DT health and future prospects than surface lots. it's undesirable to many precisely b/c it's a mess of surface lots and crumbling infrastructure. i was down there for a baseball game a few weeks ago (not like "down there" from the 'burbs but down there from Dutchtown) and the walk from my car (around 11th and Olive i think) to the stadium was pretty depressing. that we need to tax undeveloped land higher than developed land was the initial point that I and a couple others were making, to which a couple others responded "surface lots are legitimate businesses. leave them alone."

It is absolutely a market. But . . . a very subsidized one. Maybe one that wouldn't be there on strictly new build/free(er) market terms. And I'm absolutely with you about changing the tax structure. Not here to defend surface lots. Not at all. Sorry if I came across that way. Just defending my own (tempered) excitement about a new building. Mild potential crane squee. This is all.

And framer's observation about the irony in county "retro" over on Boulevard II is . . . dead on.

300 South Broadway, STL:



Faux 300 at The Boulevard II (extreme right):

HDA posted these new renderings today on Facebook. These are the first official renderings showing One Cardinal Way and 300 South Broadway together and the skyline view. There is also another showing the 16th floor terrace.

Good find, Chris. Those are keepers!

Damn those are some sexy renderings. These buildings are so visible and will work wonders for the perception of downtown.

Looks great. Finally Downtown south of Market will have some real height and density. Can't wait until the Mike Shannon's site gets taken care of. Filling in the holes will lessen the blow to my heart of losing 300 S Broadway.

What else besides financing are they waiting on? Will they end up having to make the facade all glass like I recall the review board requesting? Or am I misremembering? Because it sounded like the eastern facade was going to be fiber board or something horrible.

bwcrow1s wrote:Looks great. Finally Downtown south of Market will have some real height and density. Can't wait until the Mike Shannon's site gets taken care of. Filling in the holes will lessen the blow to my heart of losing 300 S Broadway.

What else besides financing are they waiting on? Will they end up having to make the facade all glass like I recall the review board requesting? Or am I misremembering? Because it sounded like the eastern facade was going to be fiber board or something horrible.

I honestly don’t think that anything will be done at the Mile Shannon’s Site for some time. I am pretty sure they have a contractor for the project (Paric) as stated in a document detailing facade saving and construction costs. So they are only waiting on financing. I think the glass stipulation was for the preservation of the existing building if they went with that. I don’t think any more glass will be added as the renderings don’t appear to have much more glass. It’s all painted concrete like 212.

Strange. You'd think residents on the other side of the building would want panoramic views of the rest of Downtown, Arch, etc. too. I'm assuming the Busch facing glass facade (from the inside) would be floor to ceiling windows? Or is the glass just a facade and the interior views the same on all four sides? Thanks for the response.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jul 19, 2018

Strange. You'd think residents on the other side of the building would want panoramic views of the rest of Downtown, Arch, etc. too. I'm assuming the Busch facing glass facade (from the inside) would be floor to ceiling windows? Or is the glass just a facade and the interior views the same on all four sides? Thanks for the response.

The eastern façade will have balconies at the corners of it offering views of the Arch, River and Downtown. Now, the Southeastern balconies will have a few of the Arch, River and the parking lot city South of here. The façade facing Busch Stadium will be floor to ceiling and wall to wall glass. Those units will go for top dollar. Elsewhere, the "punched" windows will offer good views and will most likely be like 212 where they are almost floor to ceiling, but aren't at the same time.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Jul 20, 2018

The building is vacated. These new signs have been put up since Monday when Jim told me that they had till August to vacate. I guess it happened sooner than we thought. The building is empty.


https://twitter.com/BuildingSTL/status/ ... 5719529473

So.....is this thing approved and going to be built? Hope so!

survivor147 wrote: ↑

Aug 13, 2018

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Jul 20, 2018

The building is vacated. These new signs have been put up since Monday when Jim told me that they had till August to vacate. I guess it happened sooner than we thought. The building is empty.


https://twitter.com/BuildingSTL/status/ ... 5719529473

So.....is this thing approved and going to be built? Hope so!

The plan is approved, just waiting to begin construction by getting building permits.

matguy70 wrote: ↑

Aug 13, 2018

Nashville has "no problem" tearing down historic high rises in the name of progress (new tower):
https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/ ... 797151002/

Sullivan Tower was around 42' wide. Which very well could have fit some pretty nice apartments or offices but is a tad on the narrow side. It would have been economically difficult. 50' is usually the most narrow you'd want to go on a double loaded corridor. This is also part of a MUCH larger development taking up several city blocks:



If I were advocating for better urbanism in Nashville, I'd still be opposed to and upset by this demolition for the same reasons. There's no shortage of surface lots in downtown Nashville.

Boston is putting a 30-story tower on top of an existing 90-year-old parking garage. We can’t do this to save a 90 year old nice building? https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/20 ... story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2018

Boston is putting a 30-story tower on top of an existing 90-year-old parking garage. We can’t do this to save a 90 year old nice building?

Is the garage historically protected? I'm curious as to why they're saving it at all. Unless the structure of the garage is really that robust. The building in question here definitely doesn't have the structural ability to support a tower.
And ultimately it still wouldn't work to solve the problem that downtown has, too much useless or detrimental (parking) open space.

aprice wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2018

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2018

Boston is putting a 30-story tower on top of an existing 90-year-old parking garage. We can’t do this to save a 90 year old nice building?

Is the garage historically protected? I'm curious as to why they're saving it at all. Unless the structure of the garage is really that robust. The building in question here definitely doesn't have the structural ability to support a tower.
And ultimately it still wouldn't work to solve the problem that downtown has, too much useless or detrimental (parking) open space.

Boston has a rent rate and land values to support as such because it has a market with demand. St. Louis problem is not useless space or detrimental (parking) open space it is a symptom.

The problem in IMO is an underperforming region with a downtown core that has very cheap rent rates and land values because lack of demand. Personally, Give out the big incentives to fill ATT One Center again with jobs and projects adding more housing such as Jeff Arms, Railway Exchange and Chemical building might have a better chance of securing the financing and going forward. Second, CVC convention upgrades need to be on fast track to continue the hotel development and getting room count back to Pre-Millenium if not their already. Maybe that will kick start Drury hotel/apartment tower on the Landing. Third, support any new construction around Busch including Broadway 330 and maybe just maybe things will kick start more infill. Jobs and Convention business will drive development demand

dredger wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2018

Boston has a rent rate and land values to support as such because it has a market with demand. St. Louis problem is not useless space or detrimental (parking) open space it is a symptom.

I very much agree with your post. Overall, our government feels the need to keep funding new construction because our cost of living is so cheap, the market won't demand it on its own. In a sense, what we're not paying in rent & mortgages, we're paying for by suffering subpar city services. Subpar due to both low tax income and the sheer amount of incentives the city has handed out (even if it appears to be a low percentage on paper). Should all govt incentives be banned tomorrow, do I believe that the amount of construction would carry on the same? I do, but that's beside the fact.

To clarify, I was saying that the problem/frustration with this project lies with the fact that new construction should be filling empty space. Not only is this towner not doing that, it's possibly making it worse by adding one more garage to downtown. I was implying that surface parking and green space downtown was causing low market demand.

aprice wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2018

Should all govt incentives be banned tomorrow, do I believe that the amount of construction would carry on the same? I do, but that's beside the fact.

Why do you believe construction would carry on the same?

this project is dead. developer pulled out of buying the property