Super-low. Hiring/talent base not available.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?
^^ Twitter opening a St. Louis office? I could see that happening, though I have heard nothing on that rumor in quite some time so I wouldn't assume it's really true. Look at how long that Google rumor has been floating around.
Twitter occupying the AT&T tower and opening a North American HQ in St. Louis? Absolutely zero odds of that, granted that's just my opinion. And why have a North American HQ in St. Louis and another HQ in San Francisco? They're both North American cities. If anything St. Louis would probably just get a branch office. But hopefully I'm wrong. Still don't see a chance they end up at AT&T though, I can't see them moving more than 1,000 jobs here and I think that is super optimistic honestly.
Twitter occupying the AT&T tower and opening a North American HQ in St. Louis? Absolutely zero odds of that, granted that's just my opinion. And why have a North American HQ in St. Louis and another HQ in San Francisco? They're both North American cities. If anything St. Louis would probably just get a branch office. But hopefully I'm wrong. Still don't see a chance they end up at AT&T though, I can't see them moving more than 1,000 jobs here and I think that is super optimistic honestly.
Move Peabody in the ATT building and tear down the present Peabody building
^^ HERE HERE! I hate that damn Gateway One building. Though I think Peabody has fewer than 400 employees at it's downtown HQ so that might be a tough fill as well.
- 595
I had a visual that the winner of this building pretty much gutted the entire building and the new exterior was mostly glass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^ Would that even be possible? My guess is the outer walls provide quite a bit of support and likely couldn't be turned into a legit glass curtain wall. From what I've read here it sounds like the building has been gutted to an extent already, didn't someone say all the floors had been stripped bare down to the concrete?
- 1,290
^ Can always fix that issue with reflective glass panels covering the areas that aren't actually windows.
The exterior walls provide no support for the building. They are just a granite / insulation sandwich attached to a curtain wall, which is supported by the steel structure. From a construction, architectural, and structural perspective, removing and replacing granite with glass would be feasible. In terms of ROI as part of a complete renovation / rejuvenation to Class A+ office space, however, not so much.The Mayor wrote: ^ Would that even be possible? My guess is the outer walls provide quite a bit of support and likely couldn't be turned into a legit glass curtain wall. From what I've read here it sounds like the building has been gutted to an extent already, didn't someone say all the floors had been stripped bare down to the concrete?
Any significant reskin of this building would probably start at around $25 million, and it would take a lot more to turn it into a modern architectural gem.
That said, there is a lot that could reasonably be done with the top 10 or so floors and the base that would make this building a whole lot more appealing and "current". Replacing all of the granite on the setback sections around the top with glass could be really interesting, for example. And as others have said, something as simple and relatively inexpensive as a signature lighting scheme could really update the design and have a big impact on the downtown skyline.
I hope they add something to the top that is at least 38' tall and then we can take back the tallest building in MO title!
Yes I am joking.
Yes I am joking.
From the BJ today.
Two weeks ago, bondholders put the vacant, 1.4 million-square-foot former AT&T tower — St. Louis' biggest office building by square feet — up for auction. The results? Nobody seems to know. And if they do, they aren't saying.The building's special servicer, C-III Asset Management, has declined several requests for comment. Real estate sources, speaking off the record, speculated that multiple bids were made on the property, which had a minimum starting bid of $7 million. But they also say they're in the dark about whether any bids were accepted and, if they were, what could come next.
The St. Louis Development Corp., an organization tasked with rallying development in the city of St. Louis, is optimistic about the tower's future. Executive Director Otis Williams said his organization has had conversations with the bondholders and believes a decision over the direction of the building is imminent. The building, at 909 Pine St., comprises an entire city block and was built in 1986 for AT&T, then known as Southwestern Bell. AT&T sold the building in 2006 for $204.9 million to Chicago-area Inland Real Estate Group, and later vacated the building in 2017.A May 2018 appraisal arranged by C-III Asset Management put the fair market value at $21.1 million.
"The underlying challenge is that it's an island. There's no urban fabric around it to draw people to it. All of that was internal to the building," said downtown developer Amos Harris of Spinnaker St. Louis. "It was built so much like a fortress."
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... s_headline
Two weeks ago, bondholders put the vacant, 1.4 million-square-foot former AT&T tower — St. Louis' biggest office building by square feet — up for auction. The results? Nobody seems to know. And if they do, they aren't saying.The building's special servicer, C-III Asset Management, has declined several requests for comment. Real estate sources, speaking off the record, speculated that multiple bids were made on the property, which had a minimum starting bid of $7 million. But they also say they're in the dark about whether any bids were accepted and, if they were, what could come next.
The St. Louis Development Corp., an organization tasked with rallying development in the city of St. Louis, is optimistic about the tower's future. Executive Director Otis Williams said his organization has had conversations with the bondholders and believes a decision over the direction of the building is imminent. The building, at 909 Pine St., comprises an entire city block and was built in 1986 for AT&T, then known as Southwestern Bell. AT&T sold the building in 2006 for $204.9 million to Chicago-area Inland Real Estate Group, and later vacated the building in 2017.A May 2018 appraisal arranged by C-III Asset Management put the fair market value at $21.1 million.
"The underlying challenge is that it's an island. There's no urban fabric around it to draw people to it. All of that was internal to the building," said downtown developer Amos Harris of Spinnaker St. Louis. "It was built so much like a fortress."
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... s_headline
I don't understand Amos last comment. It was built to house several thousand Southwest Bell and then SBC employees as a corporate HQ like every other city high rise office building. Yes, agree it doesn't have much street facing retail as I dropped my wife off there for work countless times but don't get his comment as it represents every bit of the urban fabric to me, just as the Met building does and what you would expect in every other big city downtown.
I wonder how much of this is truly a big money scheme or simply put in play for tax purposes. For starters, I go back to the fact that almost all of these big real estates deals are made as separate corporate entities specific to the building itself for which the previous owner can default and turns the property back over as soon as their no rent check. So it might look bad on previous owner to buy high and default but they essentially got the building on a loan, collected the rent, made the mortgage payment and collected some profit and then stopped paying the mortgage when the rent check quit coming. In ATT building that timeline was defined to the day in the $204.9 million purchase and lease agreement that came with it. Next, you would think that the investors would take a bath on the numbers quincunx highlighted when the previous owner hands back the keys until you start thinking about Real Estate and federal tax law. I believe current federal tax law allows you to carry over real estate losses into the subsequent years and even allows for investors to get tax refunds or credits back on those past losses. In the bigger scheme of things, the ATT tower might have easily been set up for a loss by the investors in the first in place to take some burden or apply the loss to some of there more profitable real estate deals pursued elsewhere. Especially when ATT tower was one of multiple ATT properties that were sold in the same time frame including its N California Regional Office/Bishop Ranch building where my wife works.quincunx wrote: $204.9M to $21.1M Wow, that's a lot to eat.
Just pure speculation above on my part and no idea what true value is but you have to question why $205 million was spent to buy the building in the first place when it was clear that ATT was going to vacate the building not too far down the road. But in terms of real estate taxes you pretty much had a definitive path on when the rent would come to an end, how much would be collected, and a pretty good idea on how much of a loss to expect if an anchor tenant didn't take ATT place after their lease ran out....
It's a very complicated process going on behind closed doors. Several companies bid and one was Clayco. Each had/have their own plans for the structure so depending on who is chosen, something will definitely happen. I would expect word to get out on the new owner by the end of July, if not before.
Some of the prospective buyers/developers even had an anchor tenant hooked if they could buy the building. None were Twitter, Square or Enterprise. Two other big names were tossed around but nothing is set in stone regarding them so I don't want to share. Both have a presence in the St. Louis region. One of the losing bids had Salesforce as a name but that seemed more hopeful than a "yes" if that developer got the building under their wings.
Some of the prospective buyers/developers even had an anchor tenant hooked if they could buy the building. None were Twitter, Square or Enterprise. Two other big names were tossed around but nothing is set in stone regarding them so I don't want to share. Both have a presence in the St. Louis region. One of the losing bids had Salesforce as a name but that seemed more hopeful than a "yes" if that developer got the building under their wings.
Any word if either of the two names are in the county or already in the city ?chriss752 wrote:Two other big names were tossed around but nothing is set in stone regarding them so I don't want to share. Both have a presence in the St. Louis region.
It just seems like the perfect opportunity for a company with a fragmented workforce in the region to easily consolidate. Especially considering the proximity to a major internet fiber interconnect point at 900 Walnut
It isn't far-fetched, to me, that a big-name tech firm could take residence in this building.
And.....since relocating to Chicago.......Clayco has gained a lot of national clout. If they get this building, they will find a valuable tenant for sure.
By the way..........
Google has a 35-story building under construction in downtown Austin. They are going to lease the whole building. No reason why the same couldn't happen in St. Louis......maybe with multiple tech tenants.
Anything's possible.
And.....since relocating to Chicago.......Clayco has gained a lot of national clout. If they get this building, they will find a valuable tenant for sure.
By the way..........
Google has a 35-story building under construction in downtown Austin. They are going to lease the whole building. No reason why the same couldn't happen in St. Louis......maybe with multiple tech tenants.
Anything's possible.
- 1,864
I don't believe St. Louis has the current workforce capacity for a company like Google, Amazon, or any other major tech giant to come in and hire enough qualified individuals to utilize all this space. BUT, a company like Enterprise could definitely consolidate offices and expand a bit. Or Charter - they were rumored to be the prospective tenants in the now dead Clayco/CRG 270 & Olive proposal.
That’s a yes and no if Clayco won the AT&T center. Yes as in Charter/Spectrum being a prospective tenant but also No as deals are ever evolving. With this, Spectrum has more footing to it but it’s reliant on Clayco winning the bid.chaifetz10 wrote:Or Charter - they were rumored to be the prospective tenants in the now dead Clayco/CRG 270 & Olive proposal.
- 595
I’ve always felt Charter should consider moving its HQ back to St Louis I mean it was founded here among other reasons. St Louis is on the verge of being a good tech city if the word keeps getting out I don’t see no reason for companies such as google to plop some offices here I mean nothing like Austin but at least have a intimate presence here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,864
They still have a large tech and customer service presence in St. Louis. Currently out in Maryland Heights. I believe it was only leadership who moved to the East Coast previously.
Another speculative thought, maybe CIGNA looking to grow a back office work force in the area after buying out Express Scripts. Big health care, big company and ATT building/St Louis a big cheap place to move Express Scripts over and build a worker bee labor force away from the coast. Kinda matches up with another big health car, big company based in Clayton.
Like Charter, Cigna is also has a Connecticut executive connection
I agree with the thought that Clayco being the winning bid without knowing who else submitted bid would be a big plus considering the connections that Bob Clark has built and the reputation of the firm. But then again, a big company might have selected a developer and told them to go get the building. At the end of the day you hope the winning bid to be the developer with an anchor tenant ready to make a commitment.
Like Charter, Cigna is also has a Connecticut executive connection
I agree with the thought that Clayco being the winning bid without knowing who else submitted bid would be a big plus considering the connections that Bob Clark has built and the reputation of the firm. But then again, a big company might have selected a developer and told them to go get the building. At the end of the day you hope the winning bid to be the developer with an anchor tenant ready to make a commitment.
- 595
I will go on to say if St Louis is ever going to attract any type of business relocations from any major company and even to this building we as a community have got to fix the quality of life problem particularly in our urban setting. That’s one of the real factors that’s costing us to not be selected in any type of relocation bids or people not wanting to move here. St Louis did not make the final cut for the usda jobs anyways back to this building. Whoever gets the winning bid this building is going to see a significant makeover that’s for sure. I can’t wait to see this entire building back to life and lit up at night.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Charter maintains almost its entire HQ here. Only a handful of executives are on the East Coast. A large chunk in Maryland Heights, as chaifetz mentioned, and they also maintain a large campus in Town and Country. They would actually be a great candidate for this building.Wolfpaw wrote: I’ve always felt Charter should consider moving its HQ back to St Louis I mean it was founded here among other reasons. St Louis is on the verge of being a good tech city if the word keeps getting out I don’t see no reason for companies such as google to plop some offices here I mean nothing like Austin but at least have a intimate presence here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I very much doubt it. When they bought Scottrade they laid off over 1,000 local employees. I was under the impression that they had no interest in maintaining a large presence here.STLrainbow wrote: Anyone know if TD Ameritrade is office shopping?
As far as Cigna goes, they don't have much overlap with Express Scripts, my guess is any new job growth in St. Louis will continue to be under the ES unit. I couldn't really see Cigna suddenly moving several thousand back office jobs, unrelated to ES, here.