^ It's only 500 jobs now too...relatively small potatoes...would still nice to be have though.
Not sure if anyone has posted this, but it seems that whoever bought/manages the building has put up a website for leasing etc
https://909stl.com/
https://909stl.com/
That website was made last year and doesn’t reflect the new owners at this time.kipfilet wrote:Not sure if anyone has posted this, but it seems that whoever bought/manages the building has put up a website for leasing etc
https://909stl.com/
- 595
I found the back up part to be interesting as well and weren’t it suppose to 7-800 jobs initially ? They are going to 100 in the DC area either it’s good that St Louis made it the top 5. If this building gets a complete maker along with railway exchange jefferson arms downtown St Louis won’t be the old downtown St Louis we’re used too
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Their is a lot of good reasons why USDA west should or could be in St Louis. At same time, the political reality is tough to see it happening when you consider the fact that Feds are putting + billion dollars into the new NGIA which I believe will be adding more to its workforce as well. MO Senators and congressman must be pretty happy that two of five that made the short list are in Missouri, they are quietly pushing KC and will pretty much argue if KC isn't sufficient than Indiana and NC shouldn't suffice as well. If not mistaken, believe the Feds moved a large research facility off Long Island in favor of Kansas, can't recall what town and believe it was related to animal research but not sure if ran by the USDA. In that regard, that might push Feds to favor jobs somewhere else or maybe USDA sees the proximity as a big plus
I also believe the region was promoting an existing federal facility for USDA in St Louis county itself. So doubt you will see any type of federal or government agency interested in the ATT buildings.
I also believe the region was promoting an existing federal facility for USDA in St Louis county itself. So doubt you will see any type of federal or government agency interested in the ATT buildings.
- 1,290
Most likely Manhattan, KS, due to the proximity of K State and its animal education programs/facilities.dredger wrote: If not mistaken, believe the Feds moved a large research facility off Long Island in favor of Kansas, can't recall what town
- 6,118
^Kansas City actually makes a lot of sense since it's between Manhattan and the USDA agricultural disease research facility in Columbia MO (tucked away behind the research reactor) and the UMC schools of Ag and Vet Med. I'd love to see something like this in St. Louis, but . . . Kansas City is a pretty important agricultural commodities center. And it's very well located for USDA.
- 1,290
From a quick search, it seems like Manhattan is actually the location for the new facility, so it would definitely make sense for KC to get some of the USDA jobs.
The National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) is a planned United States government-run research facility that will replace the 1950s-era Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York, which is "nearing the end of its lifecycle and is too small to meet the nation’s research needs." The NBAF will be operated under the authority of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS) and Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services (USDA-APHIS-VS) as primary research partners.
The facility will be located in Manhattan, Kansas, and will employ between 250 and 350 people. Construction on the 574,000-square-foot (53,300 m2) facility officially began in May 2015. Although delayed from its original timeline, the facility is now scheduled to be completely constructed and permitted by 2022. Operations will be fully transferred from the Plum Island facility by 2023.
After the Manhattan location was finalized in 2009, the Government Accountability Office questioned the choice of location in a July 2010 draft report, because it is located on the mainland U.S. unlike the current Plum Island facility. This led to a further "site-specific" study of the facility's safety, issued by DHS in 2012.
And not only that, but KCMO is a huge Federal Government town. It's one of the largest employers in the city if I'm not mistaken. Granted there aren't a lot of large employers in this town. I think I called it either here or somewhere else, these jobs will likely go to KC.symphonicpoet wrote: ^Kansas City actually makes a lot of sense since it's between Manhattan and the USDA agricultural disease research facility in Columbia MO (tucked away behind the research reactor) and the UMC schools of Ag and Vet Med. I'd love to see something like this in St. Louis, but . . . Kansas City is a pretty important agricultural commodities center. And it's very well located for USDA.
- 595
I’m sorry but I’m simply not buying the KC hoopla specially if St Louis is promoting itself as the ag tech capitol. This simply contradicts what the St Louis leaders are portraying what we are. Nothing against KC but St Louis has much more to offer. Not saying KC isn’t deserving of the jobs but I think this is a blow to the Danforth research center and 39 north. 400 600 1000 no matter its jobs that we simply aren’t getting. Also could be a big boost of confidence for the region.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 6,118
^I don't think anyone's comments were meant to be taken as "Kansas City is the One True Choice" but rather as "KC is a perfectly logical choice." Kansas City is a classic old agricultural commodities town. They have a big grain futures market. They have enormous government storage facilities. They have space. They have cattle street cred a mile deep. This doesn't mean St. Louis isn't a good place to put a USDA facility. It doesn't even mean KC is a better one. Just that it too is a good one. A very good one, in fact. Particularly given the proximity to not one, but two significant agricultural research schools. Both of which already have USDA research facilities on site. (In addition to other ag research sponsored by other organizations. Many of which have or had their main offices in St. Louis.) I for one am not trying to start a war here. But I darn well don't want this landing in Indy or on the coastest that already has the mostest. I'd love to see it here, but KC is still a site I can get behind. Without reservations. It makes sense.
Very well said, it's not just KC "hoopla" but more that they are in a really good position physically with relation to Columbia, MO and Manhattan, KS. I would say St. Louis is a bigger ag-tech region, while KC is more just a large agricultural center in general. I don't think these are so much tech jobs as they are just regular office jobs.symphonicpoet wrote: ^I don't think anyone's comments were meant to be taken as "Kansas City is the One True Choice" but rather as "KC is a perfectly logical choice." Kansas City is a classic old agricultural commodities town. They have a big grain futures market. They have enormous government storage facilities. They have space. They have cattle street cred a mile deep. This doesn't mean St. Louis isn't a good place to put a USDA facility. It doesn't even mean KC is a better one. Just that it too is a good one. A very good one, in fact. Particularly given the proximity to not one, but two significant agricultural research schools. Both of which already have USDA research facilities on site. (In addition to other ag research sponsored by other organizations. Many of which have or had their main offices in St. Louis.) I for one am not trying to start a war here. But I darn well don't want this landing in Indy or on the coastest that already has the mostest. I'd love to see it here, but KC is still a site I can get behind. Without reservations. It makes sense.
Anyway, we need to move this over either to the corporate thread or the KC thread because we are way off topic at this point.
I think Charter Spectrum is a really good fit for AT&T, anyone have the local employment figures?
Spectrum has two buildings in Riverport, the one along I-270 in Des Peres, and a location in Town & Country along 141. Consolidating might make sense, especially if they anticipate any further growth.The Mayor wrote:I think Charter Spectrum is a really good fit for AT&T, anyone have the local employment figures?
- 595
It’ll be very interesting to see how much it will cost to completely remake this building whether who it be. That’s going to be a pretty hefty financial commitment
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,792
I think putting underground parking under the Serra sculpture would make this a significantly more viable project. I hope the city offered that as an option to help close the deal. As long as the ground level stays green it seems like the easiest way to clear the way to land a major tenant.
Spectrum does seem like a really good fit. One of the big ones in St. Louis where brand recognition does carry some weight with average consumers. Those are the kind of companies that want their names on tall buildings.
Spectrum does seem like a really good fit. One of the big ones in St. Louis where brand recognition does carry some weight with average consumers. Those are the kind of companies that want their names on tall buildings.
A garage under the City Garden/Serra Sculpture wasn’t offered. Instead, the teams looked at how to build one into the building or on a nearby lot.STLEnginerd wrote:I think putting underground parking under the Serra sculpture would make this a significantly more viable project. I hope the city offered that as an option to help close the deal. As long as the ground level stays green it seems like the easiest way to clear the way to land a major tenant.
You wonder how much pushback execs would get from their workforce if this plays out assuming that most employees live west/outside of 270 belt instead of east/inside of 270. Keeping to the same thought, this might be one of those rare occasions where having the top brass out of state helps consolidate a major employer to a signature downtown tower. Thinking of the Quicken Loan guy who basically said I'm going to do what I think is best for Detroit and my company, move downtown, and everyone else is either on board or be free to go find another job..vpr611 wrote:Spectrum has two buildings in Riverport, the one along I-270 in Des Peres, and a location in Town & Country along 141. Consolidating might make sense, especially if they anticipate any further growth.The Mayor wrote:I think Charter Spectrum is a really good fit for AT&T, anyone have the local employment figures?
100% on all this. I was thinking under the Serra block (or even under Citygarden provided it's not disturbed) would be a great fit. However based on what Chris said, a "nearby" lot could easily be the surface parking lot at 10th and Pine, literally across the street. A garage could pretty easily be put up on that corner with some retail activation on the ground floor and (this is just wishful thinking) but maybe built in a way where additional office or residential could be placed on top.STLEnginerd wrote: I think putting underground parking under the Serra sculpture would make this a significantly more viable project. I hope the city offered that as an option to help close the deal. As long as the ground level stays green it seems like the easiest way to clear the way to land a major tenant.
Spectrum does seem like a really good fit. One of the big ones in St. Louis where brand recognition does carry some weight with average consumers. Those are the kind of companies that want their names on tall buildings.
And to your point dredger, with the execs in CT, they may not really care all that much, public opinion overall is going to be in their favor with a move like that. Especially in a city that's pretty light on the corporate back to downtown parade that is being seen in other cities.
Is it because it wouldn't be offered or that the thought never crossed mind?chriss752 wrote:A garage under the City Garden/Serra Sculpture wasn’t offered. Instead, the teams looked at how to build one into the building or on a nearby lot.STLEnginerd wrote:I think putting underground parking under the Serra sculpture would make this a significantly more viable project. I hope the city offered that as an option to help close the deal. As long as the ground level stays green it seems like the easiest way to clear the way to land a major tenant.
- 1,792
10th and pine lot is pretty narrow, side walk to opposite building is only 120ft max and that includes the alleyway. I've seen some garages as narrow as 125 ft but i think the general preference is closer to 135ft wide. Additionally the lot is a little over 150 ft long which means pretty steep grades for a garage. It has been done though but i doubt it would be acceptable for a major tenant. Now if they can engineer a way to build over or under the streets this all becomes a little more acheivable but sooooo ugly. I would assume they will start talking demo for parking soon if a better option isn't presented.The Mayor wrote:100% on all this. I was thinking under the Serra block (or even under Citygarden provided it's not disturbed) would be a great fit. However based on what Chris said, a "nearby" lot could easily be the surface parking lot at 10th and Pine, literally across the street. A garage could pretty easily be put up on that corner with some retail activation on the ground floor and (this is just wishful thinking) but maybe built in a way where additional office or residential could be placed on top.STLEnginerd wrote: I think putting underground parking under the Serra sculpture would make this a significantly more viable project. I hope the city offered that as an option to help close the deal. As long as the ground level stays green it seems like the easiest way to clear the way to land a major tenant.
Spectrum does seem like a really good fit. One of the big ones in St. Louis where brand recognition does carry some weight with average consumers. Those are the kind of companies that want their names on tall buildings.
And to your point dredger, with the execs in CT, they may not really care all that much, public opinion overall is going to be in their favor with a move like that. Especially in a city that's pretty light on the corporate back to downtown parade that is being seen in other cities.
The Serra sculpture lot could fit a really large underground garage easily (unless there is some key utility routed through there i don't know about) If they were determined they could even put Twain back after the fact though i would root against that unless it was significantly re imagined.
If they can install additional parking in the building - which has square footage to spare - that would be awesome. Otherwise, goodbye Mark Twain Hotel (NRHP) or Gateway Metro Credit Union (not worth saving per se, but would require building the garage over 10th). Just kidding...hopefully? If only there were existing garages 1 block to the north or 1 block to the west.
Good points about the lot size. However, the garage next to the Fed and the other attached to the Security Building between Olive and Locust and 4th and Broadway look to be about a similar size. Measurement wise the one next to the Security is less than 125ft on both street facing facades. Either way, I'm with you on the Serra block, I think that is the perfect spot for some underground parking and re-imagining that part of the Mall. You may be on to something about the utilities though, the PD ran an article the other day about the opening of the sculpture and I thought it mentioned the reason the sculpture kind of bumps out a bit is because of an underground utility. I think Twain should be moved anyway and that block should be an extension to Citygarden, underground parking or not.STLEnginerd wrote:10th and pine lot is pretty narrow, side walk to opposite building is only 120ft max and that includes the alleyway. I've seen some garages as narrow as 125 ft but i think the general preference is closer to 135ft wide. Additionally the lot is a little over 150 ft long which means pretty steep grades for a garage. It has been done though but i doubt it would be acceptable for a major tenant. Now if they can engineer a way to build over or under the streets this all becomes a little more acheivable but sooooo ugly. I would assume they will start talking demo for parking soon if a better option isn't presented.The Mayor wrote:100% on all this. I was thinking under the Serra block (or even under Citygarden provided it's not disturbed) would be a great fit. However based on what Chris said, a "nearby" lot could easily be the surface parking lot at 10th and Pine, literally across the street. A garage could pretty easily be put up on that corner with some retail activation on the ground floor and (this is just wishful thinking) but maybe built in a way where additional office or residential could be placed on top.STLEnginerd wrote: I think putting underground parking under the Serra sculpture would make this a significantly more viable project. I hope the city offered that as an option to help close the deal. As long as the ground level stays green it seems like the easiest way to clear the way to land a major tenant.
Spectrum does seem like a really good fit. One of the big ones in St. Louis where brand recognition does carry some weight with average consumers. Those are the kind of companies that want their names on tall buildings.
And to your point dredger, with the execs in CT, they may not really care all that much, public opinion overall is going to be in their favor with a move like that. Especially in a city that's pretty light on the corporate back to downtown parade that is being seen in other cities.
The Serra sculpture lot could fit a really large underground garage easily (unless there is some key utility routed through there i don't know about) If they were determined they could even put Twain back after the fact though i would root against that unless it was significantly re imagined.
^ As Stlenginerd and Mayor articulate. Time to move the sculpture, add parking to the block to get Charter or a big anchor tenant downtown (underground preferably) and reimagine the block as part of an extended City Garden - you could do structured parking if that what it takes to get ATT building filled with green feature/terraced green wall, green roof with solar array & battery bank/microgrid to make Gateway sustainable as example is truly the way to go. I assume any garage would have to be public and part of it leased back to ATT tenant to do it without a vote.
Unless it's underground a vote will be required no matter what as far as I know. Doesn't make a difference whether or not it's open to the public. And let's be honest, another building, garage or not on the Gateway Mall would look terrible. I'd hate to see an above ground parking structure book-ending Citygarden and the Civil Courts Building. The Gateway One building is bad enough.dredger wrote: ^ As Stlenginerd and Mayor articulate. Time to move the sculpture, add parking to the block to get Charter or a big anchor tenant downtown (underground preferably) and reimagine the block as part of an extended City Garden - you could do structured parking if that what it takes to get ATT building filled with green feature/terraced green wall, green roof with solar array & battery bank/microgrid to make Gateway sustainable as example is truly the way to go. I assume any garage would have to be public and part of it leased back to ATT tenant to do it without a vote.