urbanSTL

Poop and piddle discussion should move to the State of Downtown thread. Namaste

bprop wrote: ↑

Jul 26, 2021

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Jul 26, 2021

bprop wrote: ↑

Jul 26, 2021

In general, I would say yes.

So there are no alleys with dumpsters anywhere in the vicinity of 9th and Pine?  Huh, I could have sworn I saw a few last time I was down there.

I assumed you meant shi*ing in passageways. If you'd like to argue that one passageway is better to sh* in than another, I won't stop you.

The only way to pass through the 900 block between Pine and Chestnut without having to cross, or walk in, the street, is to walk through said "passageways".  So, they are effectively public sidewalks which many tourists, residents, and office workers use every day.  Obviously, the same cannot be said of all the nearby alleys, so I will assume that you do recognize one as vastly preferable to the other, even though you pretend otherwise.

So again, my point is:  if the 909 Chestnut depositors don't have enough awareness and/or respect (self or otherwise) to walk half a block to do their business in a less public space and toss the fruits of their labor in a dumpster, then why would anyone imagine that they would formulate a plan and mobilize sufficiently to utilize any public restrooms or port-a-johns in the vicinity?

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Jul 27, 2021

The only way to pass through the 900 block between Pine and Chestnut without having to cross, or walk in, the street, is to walk through said "passageways".  So, they are effectively public sidewalks which many tourists, residents, and office workers use every day.  Obviously, the same cannot be said of all the nearby alleys, so I will assume that you do recognize one as vastly preferable to the other, even though you pretend otherwise.

So again, my point is:  if the 909 Chestnut depositors don't have enough awareness and/or respect (self or otherwise) to walk half a block to do their business in a less public space and toss the fruits of their labor in a dumpster, then why would anyone imagine that they would formulate a plan and mobilize sufficiently to utilize any public restrooms or port-a-johns in the vicinity?

Unlike sidewalks, it is covered and offers much less visibility from the street. I'm guessing they're not thinking of your journey between Pine and Chestnut on that side of the street on that particular block, but rather their basic needs at that moment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, which doesn't include procuring a scoop and bag afterwards. It's why the Metro stairs nearby are almost rusted through with urine, and there aren't people on the other side of the block crapping on the more visible sidewalk.

Dang it!

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... op-story-1

A deal to sell the vacant AT&T tower is no longer moving forward, leaving real estate brokers and developers saying that it may be years before the building is redeveloped.

The sale was expected to close this summer, but real estate sources confirmed the 1.4 million-square-foot building — St. Louis' largest office tower — is no longer under contract. It's not clear what led to the fallout — bondholders who own the property never publicly disclosed the potential buyer. But the prospect was alluring enough that bondholders canceled an online auction for the property in March.

^I really feel like the bondholders are screwing us all on that one. So many potential deals have fallen through. The only thing I can think is they want way too much.

Time for the city to blight and condemn 909 Chestnut??  

Probably radical and obviously a stretch but at some point the state, region and city have to realize how this empty tower is a really bad thing to let it continue to sit.   At least it might force the bondholders to maintain the outside.    Heck, city should push to reassess the property value based on the property itself not if it occupied or not.   Maybe the bondholders will give up with the higher tax rates and an auction with a result/an outcome can actually happen.

Biz Journal article but assume pretty much the same as PD 

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... again.html

4 buyers walking away in 3 years, do we know what the obstacle is? If it was just that a large office building in St Louis isn't going to be the easiest to fill I doubt the offers would have been made in the first place. Is there something wrong with the building that buyers only find after going under contract? Are the sellers moving the goalposts after the offer or are otherwise impossible to negotiate with? I am not surprised that the building is hard to sell, but I'd be less surprised to see no offers at all than to see that many deals fall through in such a short timespan. Apparently the property is attractive enough to offer on but not enough to close.

dredger wrote: ↑

Aug 03, 2021

Time for the city to blight and condemn 909 Chestnut??  

Probably radical and obviously a stretch but at some point the state, region and city have to realize how this empty tower is a really bad thing to let it continue to sit.   At least it might force the bondholders to maintain the outside.    Heck, city should push to reassess the property value based on the property itself not if it occupied or not.   Maybe the bondholders will give up with the higher tax rates and an auction with a result/an outcome can actually happen.

Biz Journal article but assume pretty much the same as PD 

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... again.html

Nothing new, just a summary:

"...The buyer took out a contract that was set to close in 60 days, which would have set a date for this summer, according to a May 15 filing by bondholders. As of July 15, a filing from bondholders still promised that the sale was imminent.
...
The latest failed deal marks the fourth time since 2019 that a potential buyer took out a contract to purchase the building and decided against closing on the sale, according to bondholder filings:

• The tower appeared to be sold after an April 2019 auction, which set a minimum asking price of $7 million. But that buyer walked away from the contract on Oct. 23, 2019, according to filings.

• A buyer was found through what was described as an "online marketing campaign" in February 2020, but that potential owner declined to go through with a purchase and sale agreement.

• The bondholders received an offer in July 2020, but the pending owner also terminated that contract Nov. 24.

In addition to deals scuttled by the buyers, the bond investors declined an earlier offer in 2018. ..."

Interesting article.... While there are still many challenges, there’s still hope that this building will get redeveloped.

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... ce=twitter

I wasn't alive in 1986, so could someone explain to me how there was enough parking for 909 when it was built, yet there is not enough parking in 2021?

909 used to be part of the ATT complex that included both the giant parking garage two lots to the west, the Old SW Bell Building immediately to the west, and the 801 Chestnut building to the east. They were all connected by a skyway.

Regarding parking, I have heard that the AT&T garage (which is more than 90% empty most days) has been turned over to St. Louis Parking for administration. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, as AT&T still owns the building. But the equipment and card readers have been changed over, and future access will be controlled by SLP. So theoretically, there's nothing really physical about the garage that prevents it from being used by other tenants or users in the area.

EDIT : 3% per decade

Says if we were growing at 3% per year the numbers would work and the deal would be done.

3% per year economic or population growth?

quincunx wrote:3% per year economic or population growth?

3% yearly population growth vs actual which article describes as 1% per decade



Adding to the uncertainty is the largely stagnant population growth in St. Louis, with just 1% growth in the region over the last decade, and the approach to development incentives taken by new Mayor Tishaura Jones, who has signaled that developers should not assume they will receive incentives in the city’s central corridors without any concessions.

The metro region would have 2M more people today if the population had grown at 3% per year since 2000.
Or was it 3% per decade? Had we growth 3% 2010-2020 there would be 51k more people today.

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Sep 17, 2021

This gives me hope for the AT&T building... "If we were seeing 3% growth of the population in the St. Louis metropolitan area, we wouldn’t be having these conversations. That building would take care of itself.”

And the parking explanation: "Still, the biggest problem might be parking, Larson said. The building has only 44 underground parking spaces, after losing access to its parking garage when AT&T moved its employees to nearby buildings and an attached skyway was demolished."

Except that doesn't make any sense.  Metro population growth doesn't necessarily translate to downtown development, as real estate investors and financial institutions are well aware.  Just ask Dallas.  

This was just Chapman's way of working in a city - county merger plug.

And really everything in that article comes off as an excuse.  The existing building plans are available to anyone.  Short of mayoral attitudes, every reason they list for why developers are "walking away" is information that would have been available to them before they put the building under contract.

According to the article, two reasons stand out: the building is too big and yet it lacks basic amenities. This combination makes redevelopment expensive. Two other factors are also in play, one which is long term and one which is new. The lack of population growth in St. Louis is long term trend which limits economic potential. And the new focus of the mayor's office on development outside the central corridor adds to the risk.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/business-journal/att-tower-why-buyers-walking-away/63-beb9d7d1-3337-4d03-bb2c-ae3eb8457ae2