I believe it's set in stone that Square is consolidating their St. Louis offices into the PD building on Tucker in about a year and a half once it's been renovated.
Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if they were different buildings or not.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2019^^^ jshank; that is an older old Post Dispatch Building... I think it may originally have been known as the Centennial Building and is where the Board of Elections is now. So that potential redevelopment is unrelated to McKelvey's plans for his newly purchased building (old Globe-Democrat Building that Post-Dispatch moved into) where the P-D is consolidating into just a few floors.
As for Enterprise, let's make it a One Rediscovering Downtown Center; 20 county-based companies taking up 2 floors each and you got some solid occupancy! don't have to relocate hq; just get with the 21c. a bit.
I do like your 2 floors for 20 different companies idea. I thought one issue with the building was that it was going to be hard to split it up for multiple companies (although it pretty much will need to be done). Is that still the case? Or was it more of having multiple companies per floor that would be the problem? That was my thinking why they might need someone to go in and take a big chunk to start.
This is actually pretty great lol. Or you could call it the Fortune Center and a bunch of St. Louis' 16 F1000 headquarters has to take up a few floors each.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2019As for Enterprise, let's make it a One Rediscovering Downtown Center; 20 county-based companies taking up 2 floors each and you got some solid occupancy! don't have to relocate hq; just get with the 21c. a bit.
^ Regarding converting the building, this is what I've heard as well. Turning it into a mixed use or even just multi-tenant building would be very expensive. But if they can't find a large enough single tenant, they don't have much of a choice.
I've always thought a good tenant would be Express Scripts. They type of work they do in St. Louis is perfect for that building, they employ over 26,000 people with close to 6,000 in St. Louis. They appear to be poised to keep growing and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of overlap with Cigna so I wouldn't expect those numbers to change much. Cigna's chief had even talked about adding jobs in St. Louis, but that was most likely lip service during the acquisition. Both locations are also very close to MetroLink. Some significant work would have to be done to connect the North County campus, but a pedestrian bridge from North Hanley into their campus isn't totally out of the question. It's about 600 feet from the edge of the last bus bay at North Hanley to the edge of the campus and about 900 or so feet if you wanted to get a bit closer to an entrance. And there is a subway station damn near underneath AT&T Center (I think it's actually under the shorter tower). Could be a pretty good fit.
- 2,430
^ fwiw, not sure about mixed-use potential but as for keeping it office, a broker with one of the major firms (but not connected to the building) told me awhile back that multi-tenancy certainly is possible but that there probably would have to be a lead anchor tenant taking up around a quarter of the building or more -- about 300k+ sq. ft. -- to make redevelopment viable and make sense for marketing to additional office tenants.
So there's still that tough nut to crack of landing a major tenant. I don't know if there are any tenants downtown currently taking up 300k+ sq.ft. so it would be a huge boost if one comes. Will be very interesting to see what Bob Clark/Clayco or others may have up their sleeves.
So there's still that tough nut to crack of landing a major tenant. I don't know if there are any tenants downtown currently taking up 300k+ sq.ft. so it would be a huge boost if one comes. Will be very interesting to see what Bob Clark/Clayco or others may have up their sleeves.
As a single tenant building, the floor plates are not set up like a multi-tenant building. This would be a major expense to rectify. Each floor would have to have proper common elevator lobbies and bathrooms subdivided from the offices. Not sure how the elevators are set up, but that could be an issue too.jshank83 wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2019Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if they were different buildings or not.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2019^^^ jshank; that is an older old Post Dispatch Building... I think it may originally have been known as the Centennial Building and is where the Board of Elections is now. So that potential redevelopment is unrelated to McKelvey's plans for his newly purchased building (old Globe-Democrat Building that Post-Dispatch moved into) where the P-D is consolidating into just a few floors.
As for Enterprise, let's make it a One Rediscovering Downtown Center; 20 county-based companies taking up 2 floors each and you got some solid occupancy! don't have to relocate hq; just get with the 21c. a bit.
I do like your 2 floors for 20 different companies idea. I thought one issue with the building was that it was going to be hard to split it up for multiple companies (although it pretty much will need to be done). Is that still the case? Or was it more of having multiple companies per floor that would be the problem? That was my thinking why they might need someone to go in and take a big chunk to start.
Would they HAVE to be set up like that? If you had keycards for every business that only allowed access to their floor that gets around one issue. Only employees of a certain business could access their area. Then guest all have to be picked up in the main lobby. My last work place was set up that way. It wasn't a big building (only 6 floors), but we could only get to our floor by swiping our card and all guests had to wait in the main lobby for someone to come get them. It would just depend on the company and if this would work for them I guess. If you had a lot of guests maybe that wouldn't work out very well.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2019As a single tenant building, the floor plates are not set up like a multi-tenant building. This would be a major expense to rectify. Each floor would have to have proper common elevator lobbies and bathrooms subdivided from the offices. Not sure how the elevators are set up, but that could be an issue too.jshank83 wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2019Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if they were different buildings or not.STLrainbow wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2019^^^ jshank; that is an older old Post Dispatch Building... I think it may originally have been known as the Centennial Building and is where the Board of Elections is now. So that potential redevelopment is unrelated to McKelvey's plans for his newly purchased building (old Globe-Democrat Building that Post-Dispatch moved into) where the P-D is consolidating into just a few floors.
As for Enterprise, let's make it a One Rediscovering Downtown Center; 20 county-based companies taking up 2 floors each and you got some solid occupancy! don't have to relocate hq; just get with the 21c. a bit.
I do like your 2 floors for 20 different companies idea. I thought one issue with the building was that it was going to be hard to split it up for multiple companies (although it pretty much will need to be done). Is that still the case? Or was it more of having multiple companies per floor that would be the problem? That was my thinking why they might need someone to go in and take a big chunk to start.
If you had more than one business per floor you could just set up hallways I would think.
I would have to see a floor plan to see what else you could do with them though.
^ This argument about single tenancy keeps getting used. I think it was used once and then everyone parrots it as a show-stopper.
The fact is: the configuration is not that much different than any other multi-tenant building. There are elevator shafts in the middle, along with bathrooms that have doors on either end.
Keep in mind that the floors are now stripped back to bare concrete..so of course there is going to be 'major expense' to outfit the building for ANY tenant. But the building had separately-secured areas before (for certain departments) and it was not an issue. Partitioned walls with card readers separated common areas (elevators, bathrooms, snack machines, stairs) from secured areas. Unless a tenant needs private bathroom space (is that the concern?) then there seems to be nothing about the design of this building that would prevent multi-tenant use.
Also, despite what the real estate site says, the "state of the art" heating and cooling systems are utterly and completely shot. If the concern is that new systems would have to be installed for multi-tenant climate control...well...new systems have to be installed anyway. Same for elevators.
The fact is: the configuration is not that much different than any other multi-tenant building. There are elevator shafts in the middle, along with bathrooms that have doors on either end.
Keep in mind that the floors are now stripped back to bare concrete..so of course there is going to be 'major expense' to outfit the building for ANY tenant. But the building had separately-secured areas before (for certain departments) and it was not an issue. Partitioned walls with card readers separated common areas (elevators, bathrooms, snack machines, stairs) from secured areas. Unless a tenant needs private bathroom space (is that the concern?) then there seems to be nothing about the design of this building that would prevent multi-tenant use.
Also, despite what the real estate site says, the "state of the art" heating and cooling systems are utterly and completely shot. If the concern is that new systems would have to be installed for multi-tenant climate control...well...new systems have to be installed anyway. Same for elevators.
Anyone heard anything? any insight or updates? I'm assumed this would have been a business article for PD and or Biz Journals by now if the auction was on April 16th.TCB wrote: Building to be auctioned off on April 16. Starting bid is 7m.
^ thanks Chriss, it will be interesting to see if their was significant interest the second time around. If so, wonder if they set up the auction in such a way that it allowed for counter bids after initial bid. I would assume some kind of financial instrument had to provided by bidder to validate the offer.
On the vast majority of floors, there are no doors separating the elevator lobby from the rest of the floor. Obviously, installing doors in the elevator lobby of each floor is not that complicated or expensive, but still requires work.jshank83 wrote:Would they HAVE to be set up like that? If you had keycards for every business that only allowed access to their floor that gets around one issue. Only employees of a certain business could access their area. Then guest all have to be picked up in the main lobby. My last work place was set up that way. It wasn't a big building (only 6 floors), but we could only get to our floor by swiping our card and all guests had to wait in the main lobby for someone to come get them. It would just depend on the company and if this would work for them I guess. If you had a lot of guests maybe that wouldn't work out very well.
If you had more than one business per floor you could just set up hallways I would think.
I would have to see a floor plan to see what else you could do with them though.
Changing the floor pattern to allow multiple tenants per floor is significantly more complicated however. All common use areas (bathrooms, freight elevator, break rooms and most conference rooms) are within the central core of each floor -- but not accessible from the elevator lobby. To allow multiple tenants per floor, you'd have to build new walls and doors outside of the central core area which would reduce the available space per floor by (just guessing) 15-20% in order to have a hallway within the core area and another hallway with in each office area.
Here is a copy of a sample floor plan from the marketing materials.
You can see the elevator bank in the center of the floor core. The bathrooms are just to the right on this floor. Floor plans differ based on how many elevator banks pass through each floor (there are three elevator banks with one each serving floors 6-18, 18-30 and 30-44).
On this floor to have multiple tenants, you'd have to build a hallway outside of the core area so all tenants can access the bathrooms and then another hallway within each tenant's space. Doable, but at the loss of a significant amount of floorspace.
You can see the elevator bank in the center of the floor core. The bathrooms are just to the right on this floor. Floor plans differ based on how many elevator banks pass through each floor (there are three elevator banks with one each serving floors 6-18, 18-30 and 30-44).
On this floor to have multiple tenants, you'd have to build a hallway outside of the core area so all tenants can access the bathrooms and then another hallway within each tenant's space. Doable, but at the loss of a significant amount of floorspace.
Once again, the floors are currently stripped to bare concrete. There is NOTHING inherently difficult about partitioning them for multiple tenants; every square inch of space that will be occupied needs to be redone anyway.gregl wrote: On the vast majority of floors, there are no doors separating the elevator lobby from the rest of the floor. Obviously, installing doors in the elevator lobby of each floor is not that complicated or expensive, but still requires work.
Changing the floor pattern to allow multiple tenants per floor is significantly more complicated however. All common use areas (bathrooms, freight elevator, break rooms and most conference rooms) are within the central core of each floor -- but not accessible from the elevator lobby. To allow multiple tenants per floor, you'd have to build new walls and doors outside of the central core area which would reduce the available space per floor by (just guessing) 15-20% in order to have a hallway within the core area and another hallway with in each office area.
If you think this would be turnkey office space "but for" the lack of partitions, think again. The entire building is early 80s vintage - elevators, heating and A/C, electric. The two former systems need to be completely replaced, as does every single bathroom and kitchen fixture, every inch of tile, the lobby and all common areas, and all interior walls. Partitioning floors in the process of fitting them out adds next to nothing.
The winner of the auction could be announced soon. From my understanding, they are going to do quite a number on the place and it won't look the same, at street level or the skyline, when all is said and done.chriss752 wrote:As I was told, it’s very complicated. So I guess we will see
20,000 to 30,000STLrainbow wrote: ^ What's the square footage per floor?
There’s nothing wrong with the exterior of the building itself, and I think it would be a big mistake to alter its appearance substantially (base/lobby not withstanding). I think the tower looks pretty cool, actually. The exterior seems like the least problematic aspect of the building anyway.chriss752 wrote:The winner of the auction could be announced soon. From my understanding, they are going to do quite a number on the place and it won't look the same, at street level or the skyline, when all is said and done.chriss752 wrote:As I was told, it’s very complicated. So I guess we will see
Yep. I sure hope they don't waist a bunch of money mucking up a proud, handsome building. Some dramatic lighting at the top would be cool, though.
It would look very different from the street level and skyline if it was torn down and made into surface parking...... kidding... I hope...chriss752 wrote:The winner of the auction could be announced soon. From my understanding, they are going to do quite a number on the place and it won't look the same, at street level or the skyline, when all is said and done.chriss752 wrote:As I was told, it’s very complicated. So I guess we will see
- 2,419
I hope they do something to make the building vibrant. I'd love to see the tower have interesting, changing lights.
Make the tower stand out in the skyline at night.
Make the tower stand out in the skyline at night.
- 6,118
Getting rid of the awful AT&T sign was a step in the right direction.
Chris, I understand your cautious use of words but this teaser if it comes to play might be one of the more exciting developments for downtown in a while. Your wording also suggests that if the building is sold that some major work is in the process for at least a one major tenant.chriss752 wrote:The winner of the auction could be announced soon. From my understanding, they are going to do quite a number on the place and it won't look the same, at street level or the skyline, when all is said and done.chriss752 wrote:As I was told, it’s very complicated. So I guess we will see
Personal Message me if you wish to be informed in greater detail.dredger wrote:Chris, I understand your cautious use of words but this teaser if it comes to play might be one of the more exciting developments for downtown in a while. Your wording also suggests that if the building is sold that some major work is in the process for at least a one major tenant.chriss752 wrote:The winner of the auction could be announced soon. From my understanding, they are going to do quite a number on the place and it won't look the same, at street level or the skyline, when all is said and done.chriss752 wrote:As I was told, it’s very complicated. So I guess we will see
Appreciate all the updates and pictures that you provide Chris and I am regular visitor to cityscene-stl.com.
My moon shot and purely speculative thought with Twitter/Jack Dorsey in the news of a late whether it was favorable earnings & revenue report or his one on one with POTUS is that the Clayco Development Group will be announced as buyer follow by Twitter announcing a new St Louis NA HQ and as anchor tenant of ATT building while keeping San Fran as world HQ. Anyone on odds?
My thoughts comes down to a few things. First and obvious being home town boy Jack Dorsey. Second, Twitter is a public traded company with good news on quarterly earnings report and bump up in stock price. However, Twitter specifically stated they expect additional operating cost going forward to better manage the tweets. Growing a work force in San Fran is not cheap and those costs matter a lot more when companies have quarterly reports and a stock price to manager. Twitter might take the gamble on getting necessary labor force in St. Louis vs. the ever increasing cost of adding to San Fran work force. Third, rent rates in San Fran are at a all time high of +$75 and increasing vs what roughly $20ish. Twitter could sublease and turn a nice little bottom line return to help prop up their revenues.. Fourth, Twitter would probably pickup a boat load of state incentives if they add enough employees and get some good press on the side for not flying over fly over country while squarely landing in the blue part of MO. Whereas San Fran added taxes on larger corporations and similar legislation is being floated on state level. Fifth, fits into postings of speculation on major tech relocation while in the realm of remote possibility.
Twitter as a publically traded company but not nearly the scale or scope of say Facebook, Google, Apple etc. might consider a way to reconfigure its work force and real estate in a more cost effective way
My thoughts comes down to a few things. First and obvious being home town boy Jack Dorsey. Second, Twitter is a public traded company with good news on quarterly earnings report and bump up in stock price. However, Twitter specifically stated they expect additional operating cost going forward to better manage the tweets. Growing a work force in San Fran is not cheap and those costs matter a lot more when companies have quarterly reports and a stock price to manager. Twitter might take the gamble on getting necessary labor force in St. Louis vs. the ever increasing cost of adding to San Fran work force. Third, rent rates in San Fran are at a all time high of +$75 and increasing vs what roughly $20ish. Twitter could sublease and turn a nice little bottom line return to help prop up their revenues.. Fourth, Twitter would probably pickup a boat load of state incentives if they add enough employees and get some good press on the side for not flying over fly over country while squarely landing in the blue part of MO. Whereas San Fran added taxes on larger corporations and similar legislation is being floated on state level. Fifth, fits into postings of speculation on major tech relocation while in the realm of remote possibility.
Twitter as a publically traded company but not nearly the scale or scope of say Facebook, Google, Apple etc. might consider a way to reconfigure its work force and real estate in a more cost effective way