urbanSTL

From 240 feet above sidewalk level, yes, you get half decent views. But from 220 you get next to nothing. And from 200 all you get is the stands. At 300S you get . . . acceptable beginning at 200' That's probably three full floors of apartments you can sell for a premium you could not ask at any other lot not already owned by the team. And keep in mind, the views get better at 300S as you go higher as well. This phenomenon isn't restricted to 4-500S. At 300S you get a positively great view from the 240' level. About all you lose is the center field warning track. It's just that much better than anywhere in the lot. Also keep in mind: the east side of Broadway is height restricted, so there's a limit to what you can squeeze in without a variance. I appreciate the desire to save the 300S building and I'd really love to see the wasted space that is so much of downtown put to use, but I can also understand the economics of this one. The whys and wherefores. (Which in the end might well begin and end at X is selling and Y is not.) And yes, The Mayor is right. We've hashed out literally all of this before. And probably none of us have convinced anyone else of much of anything, but it's all there.

symphonicpoet wrote: From 240 feet above sidewalk level, yes, you get half decent views. But from 220 you get next to nothing. And from 200 all you get is the stands. At 300S you get . . . acceptable beginning at 200' That's probably three full floors of apartments you can sell for a premium you could not ask at any other lot not already owned by the team. And keep in mind, the views get better at 300S as you go higher as well. This phenomenon isn't restricted to 4-500S. At 300S you get a positively great view from the 240' level. About all you lose is the center field warning track. It's just that much better than anywhere in the lot. Also keep in mind: the east side of Broadway is height restricted, so there's a limit to what you can squeeze in without a variance. 

Again, if we are talking about being able to watch the game from your living room, which is apparently what you mean by "view into the ballpark", the view from the SW portion of 500 S. Broadway is better because you have an unobstructed view of 2/3 of the outfield walls and bleachers from most of the height of the building - for the same reason that seats in the stands along the foul lines go for more than outfield seats, even though they are the same distance from the field.  

As an aside, the best view by far of the field adjacent to the stadium, outside of BPV, much better than 300 S. Broadway, is that from a tower across 8th from the Home Plate entrance to Busch. 

And I am certainly not going to get involved in that silly debate about height restrictions, I stopped reading through this thread after the fifth or sixth page of that.  

As for the "economics" of a 30-story apartment tower at the site of 300 S. Broadway...I'd say it's fairly clear they aren't as great as the tall building enthusiasts want them to be.  

^Literally none of us believe the economics are there for a building much more than 300' anyway. Which is about what was proposed. Even for that they're marginal at best. A case can be made, but it's a close run thing. If it weren't there would be more of them.

Your arguments about sight lines don't take into account the fact that the flatter view is also better, which is why seats on the sidelines or in the outfield fetch more than seats on the upper deck. (You can be behind home plate on the upper deck and struggle to tell a high popup from a home run if you don't know what you're looking at fairly well.) And many apartments with an acceptable view will probably fetch you more than a very few with a good view. To be quite frank, we're splitting hairs. Absolutely no apartment will have a better view than can be had from literally any seat inside the stadium. And a building at 300S Broadway will have more square footage starting from lower floors where you can see some or all of the action on the field. From anywhere else your building needs to be taller before you get an unobstructed view, or in the case of buildings behind the stands any view at all.

(And "I quit at page five" pretty much says it all. Sure. You got bored. I don't blame you. Because this darn thread is repeating itself badly. It's a broken record.)

It could of course just be an error in the title survey data or the mapping algorithm on the Geo St. Louis site, but...has anyone else noticed that the narrow addition onto the east side of 300-302 S. Broadway, where the alley used to run through the entire block, appears to be on the Tums / GSK property?

Geo St. Louis - 302 S. Broadway

As we get closer to hearing more about this proposal (and believe me, it's coming. Talked to some people yesterday regarding it, it's quite interesting), I have found an older photo (from the late 70s) showing the original 1890s 300 South Broadway without the additions. A company by the name of Yarger Design Group designed the addition and interiors of the expansion. The description on the website reads...

Yarger was charged with a two-fold assignment at this Downtown St. Louis project: the total renovation of an original 1890’s six-story office/warehouse building and the design of a complementary addition to double the square footage. To unify the building’s renovated and new components, Yarger created a six story interior atrium with plaza, waterfall, plantings, and skylights. The atrium also transfigured potentially windowless office space into premium suites with private balconies. The building hosts many of St. Louis Community College offices and headquarters.

I never knew there was an atrium in this. The photos are attached below.

All I will say about the project currently is that the floor count will not break 27 floors. It's not in the scope of the project under the current developer. Unless the developer changes course, it will be a decently sized building but not the original scope. Height in FT though... that's something I wasn't told yet.

^Yeah, you can see the skylights on the roof on Google Earth / Maps, at the SE corner of the building.  I wasn't sure if the atrium was the full height of the building, but I guess the cost wouldn't have made sense otherwise.  

Where did you find the pic of the historic building?  I couldn't find one.  They really did an amazing job of replicating the exterior of the original building.  Edit:  Never mind, I found it (and omg, that website from the '90s...):  Yarger Design Group - 300 South Broadway  
I also found a P-D article from 1988 about the opening of the addition:  Newspapers.com

If this indeed gets built and then you have the possibility of 2CW being built Broadway will have a bit of a nice continuous canyon effect I mean
It won’t be like some of the other major cities but this has the opportunity to give Broadway a different feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the update Chris, I look forward to hearing more about this project. Were you given any details as to when it will be discussed in public?

pdm_ad wrote:Thanks for the update Chris, I look forward to hearing more about this project. Were you given any details as to when it will be discussed in public?

Wasn’t told but design is progressing.

pdm_ad wrote:Thanks for the update Chris, I look forward to hearing more about this project. Were you given any details as to when it will be discussed in public?

Whoever they are, they don't even own the building yet.

Man demoing a really nice building like that, for now, something even smaller seems beyond comprehension. We have SO MANY empty lots around that area.

ImprovSTL wrote:Man demoing a really nice building like that, for now, something even smaller seems beyond comprehension. We have SO MANY empty lots around that area.

BuT tHoSe LoTs aREn'T fOR SaLe

Yeah, I hear that those lots are astronomically expensive. 

Personally, I'm rooting for the Cardinals to put massive parking garages under the remaining three parcels of land in the Ballpark Village footprint, so as to take a chunk of business away from the lots, the ugly Ballpark garages to the east and west of Busch, and from the Kiener garages. 

STLEnginerd wrote:

KansasCitian wrote:Yeah, I hear that those lots are astronomically expensive. 

Personally, I'm rooting for the Cardinals to put massive parking garages under the remaining three parcels of land in the Ballpark Village footprint, so as to take a chunk of business away from the lots, the ugly Ballpark garages to the east and west of Busch, and from the Kiener garages. 

i am assuming these new ones will be pretty...?

nm, read closer... "under" as in underground.  seems unlikely but here is to hoping.

Sorry, I was multitasking while I wrote that post. I didn't write that the way I meant to. 
I merely hope that there is parking added to every parcel. I don't expect that parking would be put underground, but hey, that'd be great if they would do that. 
I just want the Cardinals to add a ton of parking. I want to see them eat into the business of the parking lords around them. It's the only way I can see those lots and garages becoming anything else.

If you look at the building from the Clark Avenue side on Google Street View, you can see that the very easternmost section (where the alley used to be) is also an addition to the original building...

^Yes, that was part of the 1988 addition.  Oddly, Geo St. Louis indicates that that strip / former alley belongs to GlaxoSmith.

^You are assuming that there is or was any developer(s) interested in the first place - at anything resembling fair market value.  This lot (500 S. Broadway) sold just 2 years ago for $12 million.  Where were all of these developers then?

And I never said the math was complex...lol.  It's quite simple.