Redevelopment plans would include a parking garage that would be built into the first several floors. I think it will leave 35 floors of space available. There is the potential of the architecture firm taking up 1 of those floors. If Clayco moves, that could lead to 4 floors being taken. 30 left to fill. If the tenant I hear will move in, that would take up a sizable chunk of that space.
- 1,864
My money is still on Charter. They were working with Clayco on that failed new office space out by 270 a few years ago and the space requirements seem to align decently.
- 8,904
came here to post the same thing.chaifetz10 wrote: My money is still on Charter. They were working with Clayco on that failed new office space out by 270 a few years ago and the space requirements seem to align decently.
- 2,419
How many jobs can we estimate Charter would put in the building?
If downtown can get this building filled... that's another huge win for St. Louis.
If downtown can get this building filled... that's another huge win for St. Louis.
Rough estimate, 2000-3000KansasCitian wrote: How many jobs can we estimate Charter would put in the building?
If downtown can get this building filled... that's another huge win for St. Louis.
Charter still occupies the building at 270/Manchester, 141/Clayton, and has two buildings at Riverport that I am aware of.
- 2,419
2,000-3,000 new employees would be such a huge win for downtown.
I'd love to see what kind of additional development that might kick off around the neighborhood.
As of right now, I don't feel like that building has many lunch options around its base. Gioia's, Planet Sub, Bailey's Range, and a few others. I'd like to think that a refurbishment of the building could change that.
I'd love to see St. Louis have something similar to the IDS Center in Minneapolis, minus, obviously, the skywalks. 909 Chestnut seems perfect for a floor, or preferably two, of retail and dining.
I'd love to see what kind of additional development that might kick off around the neighborhood.
As of right now, I don't feel like that building has many lunch options around its base. Gioia's, Planet Sub, Bailey's Range, and a few others. I'd like to think that a refurbishment of the building could change that.
I'd love to see St. Louis have something similar to the IDS Center in Minneapolis, minus, obviously, the skywalks. 909 Chestnut seems perfect for a floor, or preferably two, of retail and dining.
If the first four floors would be dedicated to parking it seems like that limits the possibility of any multi level retail coming to 909 Chestnut. It's a shame that the parking couldn't be built on the empty lot at 10th and Pine with street level retail allowing the ground levels of the building to be more open into City Garden.
Either way I would think that 2000-3000 employees in that building would likely spur additional development, it would be nice to see the credit union be replaced with something more dense.
Either way I would think that 2000-3000 employees in that building would likely spur additional development, it would be nice to see the credit union be replaced with something more dense.
- 2,419
Yeah, I thought about that as I was writing my post.
It isn't likely that we're going to get multiple floors of retail in this building if they're going to retrofit parking into it.
I'd actually love to see an IDS Center-like building where the Kiener West parking garage stands today. Doesn't need to be as tall as IDS, but I'd like to see some retail density downtown because right now there's hardly any at all.
It isn't likely that we're going to get multiple floors of retail in this building if they're going to retrofit parking into it.
I'd actually love to see an IDS Center-like building where the Kiener West parking garage stands today. Doesn't need to be as tall as IDS, but I'd like to see some retail density downtown because right now there's hardly any at all.
^ I believe there are significant plans to alter the base of the building. There were several options shown earlier in this tread, I’m not sure which one they’re going with though. I’d also guess the parking would be above the lobby level, which wouldn’t necessarily preclude any retail from going in.
Here are some of those details.
The building’s website is 909stl.comaddxb2 wrote:Also 909chestnut.com is under construction “coming soon” included.
Since the likely buyer is Clayco, the plan is probably more likely to resemble the concept put together by Forum (in other words: Clayco). But, as we all know, concepts and uses often change, and often multiple times.
- 337
If Clayco is the buyer the concept would be by Lamar Johnson Collaborative. BatesForum and Lamar Johnson (both Clayco) rebranded and maintained the Lamar Johnson Collaborative name. Clayco has money and construction power so hopefully they do something great with this if they are the buyer.Tim wrote: Since the likely buyer is Clayco, the plan is probably more likely to resemble the concept put together by Forum (in other words: Clayco). But, as we all know, concepts and uses often change, and often multiple times.
^ & ^^ Yeah, there seems to be some confusion about this. Colliers was representing the current owner, in their attempts to lease the building. That effort to attract tenants produced the proposed renovations seen on the 909stl.com site.
Any new owner will have their own concept and redevelopment plans. If the new owner is CRG/Clayco, or some larger partnership including them, they will do whatever they think it will take to attract an anchor tenant, and still get a good ROI. They could go with a more modest renovation on an as-needed basis, they could follow the previous Forum proposal, LJC could create a new renovation plan, or they may hire a big name design architect to come up with a redesign concept as part of some totally new, mixed-use makeover.
If there is no new buyer, then it gets even murkier. Do the current owners try to proceed with a major top-to-bottom office renovation? Or will they just go with a cheaper guts update and try to lease it essentially as is.
Any new owner will have their own concept and redevelopment plans. If the new owner is CRG/Clayco, or some larger partnership including them, they will do whatever they think it will take to attract an anchor tenant, and still get a good ROI. They could go with a more modest renovation on an as-needed basis, they could follow the previous Forum proposal, LJC could create a new renovation plan, or they may hire a big name design architect to come up with a redesign concept as part of some totally new, mixed-use makeover.
If there is no new buyer, then it gets even murkier. Do the current owners try to proceed with a major top-to-bottom office renovation? Or will they just go with a cheaper guts update and try to lease it essentially as is.
My understanding is that the current owners are the bond holders on the debt as per default on loan and therefore the previous auction and the most recent auction that might result in a sale closing by end of August. My assumption is that their would be zero dollars towards the building itself under the current owners if the sales fall through. They are trying to recover pennies on the dollars instead of trying to spend more pennies on their investment dollars.urbanitas wrote:
If there is no new buyer, then it gets even murkier. Do the current owners try to proceed with a major top-to-bottom office renovation? Or will they just go with a cheaper guts update and try to lease it essentially as is.
^Unless they can't get the pennies they want. The bond holders could always choose to do themselves any of the things that a new owner would do, in the same way the Renaissance Grand bond holders ultimately decided to renovate the hotel themselves.
Agree, the current owners could go down that road. However, I see a large amount of spec office space would be a completely different beast versus say hotel rooms and apartments where the renovations would likely have revenues soon afterurbanitas wrote: ^Unless they can't get the pennies they want. The bond holders could always choose to do themselves any of the things that a new owner would do, in the same way the Renaissance Grand bond holders ultimately decided to renovate the hotel themselves.
A major renovation, and reconstruction of the lower levels would require a vacant building, and thus no rent for a year and a half at least. But they could just update the lobby and the building systems necessary to lease a couple hundred thousand s.f. or so. That could be done in less than a year. They might get a better return that way than selling the building for a song, if they can find a large enough tenant(s). They could continue to sign smaller tenants and make improvements floor-by-floor with the building partially-occupied and then revisit selling, or investing more in the building, later, once the office market improves.dredger wrote:Agree, the current owners could go down that road. However, I see a large amount of spec office space would be a completely different beast versus say hotel rooms and apartments where the renovations would likely have revenues soon afterurbanitas wrote: ^Unless they can't get the pennies they want. The bond holders could always choose to do themselves any of the things that a new owner would do, in the same way the Renaissance Grand bond holders ultimately decided to renovate the hotel themselves.
This is a new change in it all. I was told it was Charter/Spectrum unless things changed recently. That was originally the plans. Shame.bprop wrote:I've learned it definitely isn't Charter.
Were you told there was a tenant and that it wasn’t charter OR are they anchor-less after charter deal collapsed?bprop wrote:I've learned it definitely isn't Charter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
addxb2 wrote:Were you told there was a tenant and that it wasn’t charter OR are they anchor-less after charter deal collapsed?bprop wrote:I've learned it definitely isn't Charter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is was never true, and there is no other tenant in the works, as i understand it.
*coughs* Sooo...end of August...dredger wrote: Biz Journal article on delay in closing. Half full, half empty. I think everyone like to see the sale closed on at end of July but a delay is better than no sale and going back to status quo of very big empty tower.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... s_headline
*crickets*