Share
5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostJul 01, 2019#476

chriss752 wrote:
Elek.borrelli wrote:For the love of god, please convert this into lofts/ hotel instead of demolishing it. There is a massive lot just South on Broadway with equally good views into the stadium and of the arch. It would just be ridiculous to tear this piece of history down for a tower that could instead fill up an empty lot 100 meters away. All they have to do is cut holes for new windows, add street-level retail, remodel the interior, and sort out parking situation for future residents then bam you have yourself a smart, urban conscious development.
If the parking lot owner South of here was willing to sell all or a portion of the site, that would be the case. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening until parking lot profitability comes down. There was a discussion on this earlier on in this thread.
I don't think it has to do with parking lots are profitable but the reality that their is not enough demand and therefore rent rates are not high enough.   Chip away at demand, get more people, visitors and jobs downtown to fill the current empty space.  Will it save 300 S. Broadway?  Who knows because might very well take another decade to fill the current empty space downtown.  

In some respects, I thought DeWitt/Cordish would have made a play on it just to land bank and or even protect against near term competition for One Cardinal and future Two Cardinal Way.
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostJul 01, 2019#477

chriss752 wrote:
If the parking lot owner South of here was willing to sell all or a portion of the site, that would be the case. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening until parking lot profitability comes down. There was a discussion on this earlier on in this thread.
I don't think it is about parking revenue.  That parking lot to the south is 8x the area of the footprint of the STLCC building site.  They could sell off the northwest corner of that parking lot at a premium and it would barely make a dent in their annual parking revenue.  Rather, they may believe they can get more by selling the block intact for some future large-scale development, if and when the price is right, or maybe the owners have their own development plans.

In any case, what makes you think they are unwilling to sell?  Maybe they just aren't willing to sell for what they have been offered.

PostJul 01, 2019#478

chriss752 wrote:
urbanitas wrote:^It isn't going to be easy to build a high-rise on this site, either, unless the developers acquire and demo one of the adjacent buildings from GlaxoSmith.
They had it worked out where it would've worked just fine without acquiring a neighboring building. As seen in the attached photos, the new building would fit onto the same site as the existing building and would make parking and other things work as well. 
I didn't say it would be difficult to lay out the floor plans of the high-rise. 

I said it isn't going to be easy to build it, i.e. to shore up and possibly have to underpin the existing structural brick walls and foundations of the GlaxoSmith / Tums buildings which directly abut, and very well may be attached to or share, the walls and foundation of the STLCC building over half it's perimeter.  Then they have to squeeze in all the drilled piers, grade beams, elevator pit, etc. that they need for a high-rise structure, on a very tight site, while having to keep a setback between new piers and those existing foundations.  And then, even with all the prescribed precautions, there is still a good chance that drilling all those large piers damages one of those two adjacent century-old brick structures.

Of course, none of this includes the very painstaking and expensive process of demolishing a 6-story brick structure with two shorter, occupied buildings literally on the other side of the wall... 
1,678
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,678

PostJul 01, 2019#479

I've given up the fight on this one.  If it's brand new, needs to have more striking design.  If a rehab, which I'd think would be simpler, that's fantastic as well.

I as much as anyone would love to see surface lots built upon.  You just can't force lot owners to sell.  What we need to do, unfortunately, is to pass legislation in the city, of some sort, that dis-incentivizes squatting on lots.  How that looks, I'm not sure.  Just increase the property taxing rate on lots? Any new construction that buys and builds on former surface lots gets automatic 10 year 50% tax abatement? Pay the same amount that the surface lot did for 10 years pro-rated?

Not sure what it could look like, I'm sure the State would rule it unconstitutional at some point anyways.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostJul 01, 2019#480

I'd much rather see this building saved and a new tower built on the Millennium Hotel site one block to the east.  Demolish the ballrooms and stubby section of the hotel, then extend Clark through to Memorial.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 01, 2019#481

urbanitas wrote:
chriss752 wrote:
urbanitas wrote:^It isn't going to be easy to build a high-rise on this site, either, unless the developers acquire and demo one of the adjacent buildings from GlaxoSmith.
They had it worked out where it would've worked just fine without acquiring a neighboring building. As seen in the attached photos, the new building would fit onto the same site as the existing building and would make parking and other things work as well. 
Of course, none of this includes the very painstaking and expensive process of demolishing a 6-story brick structure with two shorter, occupied buildings literally on the other side of the wall... 
There are literally dozens of examples in Downtown St. Louis alone where buildings were demolished despite having other buildings abutting the walls.  Many of them came down in times when engineering and construction work was still quite primitive too.   It would not be difficult to build a high-rise on this footprint, and no, demolishing part of the Tums facility would not be required.  There are much smaller pencil towers in other cities that fit on much smaller lots, many times sandwiched between older historic buildings.  Remember, the City already approved this once before the developer's financing fell through.

Regarding several other comments regarding the lot to the south.  It doesn't matter.  If he's not selling, he's not selling.  That's how the free market works.  This isn't Sim City (as much as I'd like it to be haha) where you can just plop stuff down wherever you want to.  If he/she doesn't want to sell their lot, they're not obligated to!  No matter what all of us urban minded folks think.  Whoever put this building under contract has this building under contract, not the lot down the street, not the old Koman lot across the stadium or anywhere else.  If it gets renovated into offices or lofts or maybe even a Hard Rock (that is actually a really great idea), I'll be happy.  If it ends up as a striking modern glass high-rise, I'll be happy with that too.  Maybe this developer will reuse the old facade with a new building, provided a new building is even in the plans...

As Chris mentioned, this discussion was had in depth when the old plan was originally announced and honestly it's getting a bit old.  For the time being, maybe we should refrain from rehashing the same tired points until we even see what this developer has planned.
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostJul 02, 2019#482

BellaVilla wrote:
Elek.borrelli wrote: For the love of god, please convert this into lofts/ hotel instead of demolishing it. There is a massive lot just South on Broadway with equally good views into the stadium and of the arch. It would just be ridiculous to tear this piece of history down for a tower that could instead fill up an empty lot 100 meters away. All they have to do is cut holes for new windows, add street-level retail, remodel the interior, and sort out parking situation for future residents then bam you have yourself a smart, urban conscious development.
The views into the stadium from that site are not half as good.
What is the difference from the 10th floor on up?
6,120
Life MemberLife Member
6,120

PostJul 02, 2019#483

urbanitas wrote:
BellaVilla wrote:
The views into the stadium from that site are not half as good.

What is the difference from the 10th floor on up?
We've been through this before, and this is somewhat approximate, but the "eye elevation" should be about 200' above ground level for both shots. (658.' The ground level is . . . meh . . . 460ish. Depending on grade. I believe the parking lots are slightly downhill, so you'd need more building to get even to this. Slightly.)

300 S Broadway, courtesy of Google Earth.


500 S Broadway


So that's maybe twenty floors up, more or less. The views will get better from there. But in one they're barely acceptable and in the other they're crap. That's the difference. And from ten floors? You ain't seeing squat at either. I very much doubt the locations of major elements of the stadium are accidental. The Cardinals own every lot that has a better view into the stadium than 300 S Broadway. And that one ain't great, let me tell you. But at least you can probably see most of the infield from upper floors at 300S. At 500? Even from the roof of a four hundred foot building you probably won't get an unobscured view of the infield. And they just go downhill from there. There is a reason they want that lot and not any other.
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostJul 02, 2019#484

The Mayor wrote:
There are literally dozens of examples in Downtown St. Louis alone where buildings were demolished despite having other buildings abutting the walls.  Many of them came down in times when engineering and construction work was still quite primitive too.   It would not be difficult to build a high-rise on this footprint, and no, demolishing part of the Tums facility would not be required.  There are much smaller pencil towers in other cities that fit on much smaller lots, many times sandwiched between older historic buildings.  Remember, the City already approved this once before the developer's financing fell through.
Read what I wrote.  Did I say it was impossible?  No.  I said it isn't going to be easy, which was a response to the idea that it would be difficult to renovate this historic building to a more entertainment-area-appropriate, and profitable, use.  And I doubt you can find a recent example of a demolition like this in this city, with hundreds of employees working on the other side of the wall on two sides of the demolished building on a small site.  They aren't going to demolish this building with wrecking balls and bulldozers, it will have to be dismantled piece by piece.  And there is no technology that makes that easier today other than laser monitoring / mapping.  They still have to do the actual demolition the "primitive" way.  That is expensive.  And yes, it will be difficult to build a high-rise on this site.

And what happens in other cities is irrelevant.  In Chicago, a developer can drop $60 million+ to shore up an entire block of historic facades, just so they can build a 70-story condo high rise and retail center behind it...cuz each of those hundreds of condos sells for millions, and the retail is filled with global luxury brands...

Also doesn't matter what the city said before, a demolition permit was never approved, and that was a different project, with different city handouts.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 02, 2019#485

^ That's some superb goal post moving there.

^^ Thanks for the view comparison SP.  I think 300 is a much better site for a tower (I mean both are, but 300 has better views).  Hopefully that's what we'll be getting (with a saved and reused facade of course).  Either way I'm looking forward to seeing what they have planned.  Like someone said above, this part of downtown needs more life than BPV and a few of the Cupples buildings.

I still think that Hard Rock idea is a great one.  Not sure if Cordish would like that or not, but that would be a great site for a relocated restaurant.
2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostJul 02, 2019#486

Hell, I'm just glad the St. Louis Community College was able to sell their old HQ to the original buyer. Let's remember that it was STLCC selling the building, to fund operations and expansion of key programs, that led to talk of towers and expanding the skyline. Let's not forget the origins of this site. Also, I think no one here ever fought for the school to turn that building into an urban campus, even as Webster and Lindenwood did in Downtown, right? 

Right now, I'm interested in the GSK Tums buildings. GSK is already merging its consumer health care divisions with those of Pfizer, part of a $12.7BB joint venture which closes in the second half of 2019. You have to wonder what the future is for Tums being manufactured in the heart of STL's Central Business District when it can be run out of an industrial park in Dubuque with comparable or increased efficiencies. What will come of those buildings? Pure speculation, but does the developer know or is banking on something we don't? 

Right now, we don't really know anything, other than that the building's still empty and there's a new buyer. Here's to a new and prosperous future on that site, whatever it may be.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 02, 2019#487

gone corporate wrote: Hell, I'm just glad the St. Louis Community College was able to sell their old HQ to the original buyer. Let's remember that it was STLCC selling the building, to fund operations and expansion of key programs, that led to talk of towers and expanding the skyline. Let's not forget the origins of this site. Also, I think no one here ever fought for the school to turn that building into an urban campus, even as Webster and Lindenwood did in Downtown, right? 

Right now, I'm interested in the GSK Tums buildings. GSK is already merging its consumer health care divisions with those of Pfizer, part of a $12.7BB joint venture which closes in the second half of 2019. You have to wonder what the future is for Tums being manufactured in the heart of STL's Central Business District when it can be run out of an industrial park in Dubuque with comparable or increased efficiencies. What will come of those buildings? Pure speculation, but does the developer know or is banking on something we don't? 

Right now, we don't really know anything, other than that the building's still empty and there's a new buyer. Here's to a new and prosperous future on that site, whatever it may be.
Do we know who the potential buyer is?  Was it put under contract by the group that included HDA in that original tower proposal?  I was under the impression that whoever currently has the building under contract hadn't disclosed themselves yet.  If so, I must have missed it.

Regarding the Tums buildings, I think this was discussed on a different thread, maybe the corporate HQ thread, but I can't quite remember.  Some had heard rumblings that GSK wanted out, but GSK has also put millions and millions of dollars into that building in the last decade or so, including moving a line or two here from Cincy.  I would hope Tums doesn't leave, they were invented in a Webster Groves basement. 

Probably not worth speculating on GSK's (or Tums) future or whether or not 300's potential buyers know something we don't.  At least not on this thread.  Like you said, we don't know anything yet...and some people are already pretty riled up over this lol.
5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostJul 02, 2019#488

HDA’s team was not the buyer this time around.
339
Full MemberFull Member
339

PostJul 02, 2019#489

This is what a 340' tower would look like in the skyline with the completed Ballpark Village. In other news, I was sick the other day and decided to create a semi-accurate model of downtown so if there are any buildings you would like to see in our skyline, I'll just post it in another thread (ex. MW Tower, highrises in place of the Kiener Plaza garages, etc.) Just tell me the location and height!
Screen Shot 2019-07-02 at 2.28.46 PM.png (129.27KiB)
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJul 02, 2019#490

^The unbuilt twin tower of Bank of America Plaza on Market. 385', I believe. Would have been on the block between Ninth and Tenth.  

  
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 02, 2019#491

^ I never knew there were supposed to be two of those.  Pretty interesting.
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostJul 02, 2019#492

The Mayor wrote: ^ I never knew there were supposed to be two of those.  Pretty interesting.
Yep, that was Centerre Bank's original plan (it was their HQ before they sold to Boatmen's back in the early 80s).  And now we have a vacant lot on what should be prime property.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJul 03, 2019#493

Technically, the first tower was known as First National Bank on IBM Plaza. First National later changed their name to Centerre before selling to BOA. IBM was their partner in the project, and originally occupied a good amount of space; not sure if they have any presence there anymore.

I've searched online and in my old paper files, but have never found an image of the twin towers, but I remember seeing one back in the day. 
69
New MemberNew Member
69

PostJul 03, 2019#494

As Chris noted, the group currently under contract is not the original prospective buyer from a couple years ago.  The current group is an apartment developer, though.  
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostJul 03, 2019#495

I hope we get roughly the same product. 
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 03, 2019#496

framer wrote: Technically, the first tower was known as First National Bank on IBM Plaza. First National later changed their name to Centerre before selling to BOA. IBM was their partner in the project, and originally occupied a good amount of space; not sure if they have any presence there anymore.

I've searched online and in my old paper files, but have never found an image of the twin towers, but I remember seeing one back in the day. 
I believe IBM's sole STL presence is now up in North County in the Boeing Campus.  In fact I think Boeing even shares a building with them now.  It's between Fee Fee and Lindbergh on McDonnell Blvd.  I know they employed about 1,000 here at one point but I also know that IBM has really embraced telecommuting so that may not be the case any more.

Anyway, back on topic...good to hear the potential developer is an apartment builder.  Hopefully we can incorporate the historic with the new here.  Looking forward to seeing what they're thinking.
3,965
Life MemberLife Member
3,965

PostJul 03, 2019#497

The Mayor wrote:
framer wrote: Technically, the first tower was known as First National Bank on IBM Plaza. First National later changed their name to Centerre before selling to BOA. IBM was their partner in the project, and originally occupied a good amount of space; not sure if they have any presence there anymore.

I've searched online and in my old paper files, but have never found an image of the twin towers, but I remember seeing one back in the day. 
I believe IBM's sole STL presence is now up in North County in the Boeing Campus.  In fact I think Boeing even shares a building with them now.  It's between Fee Fee and Lindbergh on McDonnell Blvd.  I know they employed about 1,000 here at one point but I also know that IBM has really embraced telecommuting so that may not be the case any more.

Anyway, back on topic...good to hear the potential developer is an apartment builder.  Hopefully we can incorporate the historic with the new here.  Looking forward to seeing what they're thinking.
Correct. They both have part of the building. I worked in it for about a year. There is another company or two in it also. IBM is the larger buildings on the north part (might have some manufacturing). Boeing is the 4 multiple smaller buildings. 
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostJul 04, 2019#498

symphonicpoet wrote:
urbanitas wrote:
BellaVilla wrote:
The views into the stadium from that site are not half as good.

What is the difference from the 10th floor on up?
We've been through this before, and this is somewhat approximate, but the "eye elevation" should be about 200' above ground level for both shots. (658.' The ground level is . . . meh . . . 460ish. Depending on grade. I believe the parking lots are slightly downhill, so you'd need more building to get even to this. Slightly.)

300 S Broadway, courtesy of Google Earth.


500 S Broadway


So that's maybe twenty floors up, more or less. The views will get better from there. But in one they're barely acceptable and in the other they're crap. That's the difference. And from ten floors? You ain't seeing squat at either. I very much doubt the locations of major elements of the stadium are accidental. The Cardinals own every lot that has a better view into the stadium than 300 S Broadway. And that one ain't great, let me tell you. But at least you can probably see most of the infield from upper floors at 300S. At 500? Even from the roof of a four hundred foot building you probably won't get an unobscured view of the infield. And they just go downhill from there. There is a reason they want that lot and not any other.
Your bottom image is from further away - not up against Broadway.  But yes, the light standard is a problem, I was thinking that was further south.  

And frankly, I wouldn't call either of those a good view, if you are talking about watching the game from your living room or balcony.  They are both awesome views of the ballpark and crowds though.

As for an unobscured view of the infield, look at the view from a building on the southwest corner of this same parking lot, from about 240' above sidewalk grade - the approx. height of a 15th floor apartment on a garage podium.  No light standard, and an unobstructed view of everything but right field.  I'd say that view is better than 300 S. Broadway.

PostJul 04, 2019#499

The Mayor wrote: ^ That's some superb goal post moving there.
Thank you.  I had to lug them all the way back to where they were before you ran off with them, while insisting on responding to the middle of a conversation which you said was "getting a bit old".  :)
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 04, 2019#500

^ Go back to page one and start reading...it is a bit old, especially considering we haven’t even seen what this new group plans. Granted no one was talking about the GSK buildings needing to be torn down like you were, so I suppose you did add something kind of new.
Read more posts (210 remaining)
Share