urbanSTL

Just because lights aren't on on every unit doesn't mean they aren't occupied. People travel during the week, go out, and aren't confined to their loft 24/7. Some people alsi use them as 2nd homes. That the point of living downtown.

The Park Pacific is poised to fill up 6 months early and the building I live in is fully occupied. It's my understanding there is demand for residential downtown.

rawest1 wrote:As a downtown resident, I assure you there is tons upon tons of vacant apartments and loft space downtown, and commercial office occupancy is not anywhere near up to full either. There simply is no demand for the mass tenancy of residential and commercial that a lot of you seem to envision. Building a building for that sort of thing in this era would be akin to dumping bags of their money into the Mississippi.

I don't really equate a condo tower on the SouthEast plot in BPV looking directly into the stadium on one side and directly at the arch on the other side with anything currently available in the StL market. I think this would have a completely different market and buyer/renter pool than every other property in the city.

I think people who would up until this point not lived in the city for any reason on earth would consider that location simply because there is literally nothing else like it in the country (not just stl, but country) outside of a select few markets with newer stadiums. Especially in arguably the most baseball crazy city in the country.

Basically, I don't think the current numbers have literally zero to do with a potential tower here. I might be completely off base, but if a developer who knew what they were doing designed and marketed a tower on the lot I think it would be under construction almost immediately.

I have NEVER understood how the Cardinals have not set up a sales center for a potential tower. They had/have it designed already! How much could it possibly cost to staff? Compare that to their budget and the importance of this project/land for the city. The risk is zero. If no one buys any condos, shelve it just like you have been all along. How much more $$ could that have cost? $50K? Drop in the F-ING bucket with the potential upstart of realizing an untapped market and jumpstarting a massive boost for the entire city.

Once again this is just an opinion, but I think the view would sell these condos. You telling me Bud corporate wouldn't want to own their own "event suite" looking over the stadium with the giant Budweiser sign on the brewery in the backround? (I'm sure they have plenty of space in the stadium, etc. Just a thought about another potential buyer pool that is the corporate market as well.)

That's just one example, and if they want the pricing to start at 2 million it won't work, but if you build a building that has a slight premium to the market for the views I bet they would sell and would make a decent profit. Might not make $100 million, but you could certainly make some money and eliminate the biggest current black eye in the city.

Isn't this just stage one of the development? Couldn't a residential tower be built later?

Yes, it could and that is still "the plan." Just saying (in my opinion only) that a condo tower should have been under construction yesterday. Also, I think the most important part of the project's success will be residential, so I am anxious to see something happen on that front.

rawest1 wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:Just because lights aren't on on every unit doesn't mean they aren't occupied. People travel during the week, go out, and aren't confined to their loft 24/7. Some people alsi use them as 2nd homes. That the point of living downtown.

The Park Pacific is poised to fill up 6 months early and the building I live in is fully occupied. It's my understanding there is demand for residential downtown.

I don't judge based on lights on or off, I go more by the "Space available," "Vacancy," and "Call to Lease" signs everywhere.

But again, I'm glad my perception is apparently not reality, in this particular instance.

While you may or may not be right, one vacancy sign could equate to only one available unit. 12 signs on Wash Ave alone could simply equate to 12 units or somewhere close to that. Given how many units are on that street, 95% would be believable even if there were more than 12 open units.

After doing a lot of research in another city recently, I came to find that a lot of leasing offices put up signs just to keep interest high. There were a few buildings I called about that had ads and vacancies shown in various places, yet had no units available. As frustrating as that may be to a potential renter/buyer, it happens. There were also units that were vacant in old warehouses for a pretty long time, because the units had odd configurations, yet that building had every other unit full.

None of this means that the 95% occupancy rating is accurate and that your assumption is wrong, but rather additional factors to consider.

rawest1 wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:^ Ummmm last I heard residential occupancy for condos and apts downtown was at 95%. I think the info was in the biz journal not too long ago.

Interesting because there seems to be plenty of vacancy where I live in the Paul Brown Lofts. Walking up and down Wash Ave there seems to be plenty of vacancy in those places too.

If those figures are accurate and it really is at almost 95% that's great news, and I'm glad I was wrong. I just don't get that feeling living down here... nowhere close.

Yep. The last report I know of came out in June 2009 - Occupancy for both Condo's and Apts was 90-95%.

Here's one from 2010 - http://www.downtownstl.org/docs/StLouis ... Report.pdf

newstl2020 wrote:

Yes, it could and that is still "the plan." Just saying (in my opinion only) that a condo tower should have been under construction yesterday. Also, I think the most important part of the project's success will be residential, so I am anxious to see something happen on that front.

I like the enthusiasm, but if building a residential tower was so flawless of an idea I think the Cardinals would have done it by now. Don't you?

You make it sound like the Cardinals are idiots and have no idea what they are doing. We've seen their prudent, calculated approach to the organization. They seem to be taking that same approach to this.

And maybe they already have a residential tower in the works. Why does it have to be the first thing built? Yeah, it would look cool. But I think it would be better to build a lot of interest, have some first successes, and give yourself a little better guarantee you would sell it out.

rawest1 wrote: For whatever it's worth to this discussion, those numbers seem to indicate demand is relatively low in the area near the ballpark. Not saying that could change with a newer, high-end building built, but there it is.

I dunno. Is 82% considered low? Is this sample size large enough for comparison? Are the units even comparable - old warehouse rehab vs new construction highrise?

In 2012 we have ZERO new highrise construction units on the market in the ENTIRE city. And there really hasn't been for several years.

pat wrote:

newstl2020 wrote:

Yes, it could and that is still "the plan." Just saying (in my opinion only) that a condo tower should have been under construction yesterday. Also, I think the most important part of the project's success will be residential, so I am anxious to see something happen on that front.

I like the enthusiasm, but if building a residential tower was so flawless of an idea I think the Cardinals would have done it by now. Don't you?

You make it sound like the Cardinals are idiots and have no idea what they are doing. We've seen their prudent, calculated approach to the organization. They seem to be taking that same approach to this.

And maybe they already have a residential tower in the works. Why does it have to be the first thing built? Yeah, it would look cool. But I think it would be better to build a lot of interest, have some first successes, and give yourself a little better guarantee you would sell it out.

I agree with you, but it appears as though the Cardinals are willing to take on zero risk which is frustrating because they sold the city on a new stadium based on their supposed commitment to this project. It would be nice if they actually showed that commitment (ie took some sort of risk at all) as opposed to waiting until there is zero. I say this because in the mean time all the city gets back in exchange for its commitment to the Cardinals is a dirt lot for a decade.

The past is the past, I guess, and this looks to be a decent "base level" (with heavy emphasis on the "base") proposal to start the development. It would just be nice if they at least took a chance and let the market determine whether or not there was sufficient demand for a residential tower (set up a sales center). It seems like the least they could do at this point. Simply saying "there isn't demand" or "the economy isn't fantastic" seems a bit hollow and very lazy in this case considering what they were given by the city.

moorlander wrote:

rawest1 wrote: For whatever it's worth to this discussion, those numbers seem to indicate demand is relatively low in the area near the ballpark. Not saying that could change with a newer, high-end building built, but there it is.

I dunno. Is 82% considered low? Is this sample size large enough for comparison? Are the units even comparable - old warehouse rehab vs new construction highrise?

In 2012 we have ZERO new highrise construction units on the market in the ENTIRE city. And there really hasn't been for several years.

^THIS.

Also, this reminds me of the recent article on the Roberts bros where there were realtors quoted as saying they were getting lots of calls regarding the units in the tower but the Roberts were not responding to calls or answering phones.

Up to this point ALL housing in downtown has been re-habs or lofts. I just think this is a completely different market and buyer pool than new construction with modern floor plans/layouts/amenities.

Of course, I am not a real estate agent. Maybe Kevin S. could weigh in on this if he comes across the thread?

moorlander wrote:

rawest1 wrote: For whatever it's worth to this discussion, those numbers seem to indicate demand is relatively low in the area near the ballpark. Not saying that could change with a newer, high-end building built, but there it is.

I dunno. Is 82% considered low? Is this sample size large enough for comparison? Are the units even comparable - old warehouse rehab vs new construction highrise?

In 2012 we have ZERO new highrise construction units on the market in the ENTIRE city. And there really hasn't been for several years.

There's also the matter of the timing of the survey. If the survey was calculated shortly after the opening of any new apartment development - i.e. one that was likely in the process of filling up - that can skew the numbers. With so many new developments coming online in recent years, tracking apartment vacancy rates has been a bit of a moving target for a while.

the central scrutinizer wrote:

rbb wrote:^ Eh, I think the Roberts Tower failed because of mismanagement more than the economy; look at other residential developments in or near downtown that have switched to rentals and are thriving.

Short of the original plan with multiple 20+ story towers, isn't this pretty much what everyone was wanting? They're building all the infrastructure and a couple of low-rise buildings to kickstart development, then offering the rest of the land over to private investors to come in and build organically (with much of the site prep-work already done, no less).

I see this as a much more preferable plan than a canned vacation-destination-in-a-box approach that may or may not relate to its surroundings. The Cardinals have deservedly taken flack for years over their approach to Ballpark Village. While this plan is not perfect, it's a pretty good start and I personally think they deserve credit for the change in direction.

-RBB

Where did you see this?

I inferred from this:

The Cardinals also would build streets and sewer connections through the rest of the of the 10-acre site, but leave it as surface parking lots for now. The hope, said DeWitt, is that the site work, plus the Live Plaza, would make the site more attractive for future phases.

But I'm sure that's attracting tenants for Cordish to build for, not offering land for other developers to build. Still, that seems like a more organic, need-based growth than a prepackaged 'Village' of buildings that need tenants.

-RBB

So, listening to The Morning After on 590 The Fan this morning, Bill DeWitt was on talking about "Ballpark Village."

Nothing really new to report, but interesting to hear straight from the Cardinals President. The first Phase includes the two city blocks you can see through the opening of Busch Stadium. Both blocks would have 2-to-3-story buildings and rooftop seating. If all goes to plan, he says, they could break ground by Fall and be open by Spring 2014.

As a joint venture with Cordish, the Cardinals would share rooftop ticket revenues and integrate the experience into the gameday planning. DeWitt briefly compared Ballpark Village to KC's Power & Light District -- mentioning the similarities with the Live! venue, the glass roof and the entertainment/retail aspect. He restated the "living room" concept as a development plan. He said letting Pujols go has no relation to the decision now to move forward with Ballpark Village.

DeWitt says they're closing in on 80% occupancy and this, to me, is the biggest bait-and-switch because 80% means absolutely nothing for a couple of 3-story buildings. Phase One will consist of the Cardinals Hall of Fame in one building and the other with a big open central space. It's very easy to get to 80% when you aim that low...at most, it looks like there could be maybe four businesses in there. And one of those is sure to be a Cardinals store!

Finally, DeWitt mentioned that they'll be moving on infrastructure (laying utilities, paving streets, sewers, etc. which is nice, but if you think about it, this was something they should have done (at less cost) right out the gate when they had a giant hole they could build in then fill up. How often do you have an opportunity like that, where your future development site is already dug up and ready for underground infra/structural work?

And then it's going to take a year and a half to build a couple nondescript 3-story buildings? They sure could take a lesson from WashU in the "getting things built in a timely fashion" department...

First off... the timing of the linked report is bad. The apartment market downtown and in general has improved significantly in the past year and a half. Also December usually marks the low point in an annual cycle.

Second... don't judge the whole market by Paul Brown and Merchandise Mart. Both properties have by far the lowest occupancy in the market. I could speculate on specifics, but generally these were the first large properties introduced to the market, and lessons have been learned. Most other properties are occupied above 95 percent.

In consideration for Ballpark Village the best indicator is Pointe 400 which is doing pretty well after a slow start a few years ago. Over 90 percent occupied with rents in excess of $1.50 per square foot (higher than Laurel and Park Pacific). Lot of people seem to forget about this property but it is a lot of people from out of town and corporate renters.

Finally, Cordish and The Cardinals are not residential developers. Cordish does retail/entertainment districts, Cardinals do baseball. I think the hope would be (from a St. Louis urbanist point of view) that a portion of the site is sold to someone like Opus who does urban high-rises, rather than Cordish or the Cardinals winging it on their own. That is how you get something not well thought out, like the Roberts Tower, which had fundamental problems from the beginning. (Like no parking, sharing a pool and other amenities with hotel guests, lack of premium views)

Bottom line is the site should have a nice residential tower (apartments or condos), but maybe Cordish and the Cards aren't the ones to do it.

AMC is pulling out of KC's Power and Light District (Kansas City Star)

mattonarsenal wrote:Finally, Cordish and The Cardinals are not residential developers. Cordish does retail/entertainment districts, Cardinals do baseball. I think the hope would be (from a St. Louis urbanist point of view) that a portion of the site is sold to someone like Opus who does urban high-rises, rather than Cordish or the Cardinals winging it on their own. That is how you get something not well thought out, like the Roberts Tower, which had fundamental problems from the beginning. (Like no parking, sharing a pool and other amenities with hotel guests, lack of premium views)

Bottom line is the site should have a nice residential tower (apartments or condos), but maybe Cordish and the Cards aren't the ones to do it.

Magellan Development. The Cardinals HAVE to get in touch with them regarding this property. Right up their alley and they are some of the best in the biz.

http://www.magellandevelopment.com/