The city should take the risk back the bonds so this can get off the ground. Theres no reason why they couldn't find tenants for a new office building nor residents for a new apartment building. As they say if you build it they will come & i believe if the city itself was aggressive enough they would do it. Let's just face it the city lacks confidence. For the huge risk they are pouring into keeping the Rams here why not do the very same for this project. What do you have to lose . This isn't another Saint.Louis Centre you literally have 40-50 thousand people who will patronize this entertainment district.
- 8,155
C'mon, man, if you want to play the hard yes or no game be reasonable! Yes, precise details aren't always knocked out before a deal is done but you always know what is being asked to be backed. So you're Cordish and I'm the city... what are you asking me to back? What's the site plan and uses? Square footage? What's the project cost? How many residential units? Spec office or are you coming to me with a potential Centene-type deal?dredger wrote:^ I believe KC and St. Charles voted on backing bonds without a hard fast tenant list and no doubt some flexibility to build out residential or office. So still looking for a hard yes or no from someone.
I vote NO and accept consequence of another long wait for phase II.
Again, though. my vital point is that we should be open to more subsidy, including possible backing of bonds, if it helps get good projects done. (Also, I think you can be creative with bonds on BPV, for example you could put some of the risk back onto the Cardinals by re-instituting a ticket tax in the unlikely event of any losses.) And econ development officials should be working closely on marketing BPV as a prime, subsidy-rich spot for new office; the city needs to make it known it is open for business, and BPV is the spot for any significant new office and One AT&T Center for existing space,
Here is a good look at the challenges and opportunities for another office building in The Banks (the sole tenant GE building is under construction)....
Next challenge for the Banks? How to fill the office tower
![]()
I asked McCarthy if Carter has considered building the office tower, which is expected to be 10 stories with roughly 25,000-square-foot floorplates, on a speculative basis, meaning no signed leases with tenants.
“Whether or not we would pull the trigger, a lot has to do with the lending market,” he said.
But McCarthy said there aren’t a lot of options for 20,000- to 30,000-square-foot office users looking for high visibility and class A+ space.
At this point, McCarthy also said there is no set threshold for when Carter would start construction of the phase I office tower based on how much of the building has been pre-leased....
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/b ... s-for.html
I believe overall Cincy's CBD office market is healthier than ours but we do share some of the same issues with a lack of top-shelf space; our last Class A building was from what, 1988? and we've lost a number of companies to Clayton because of it. Again, something to think about when considering how much subsidy BPV should get.
Next challenge for the Banks? How to fill the office tower
I asked McCarthy if Carter has considered building the office tower, which is expected to be 10 stories with roughly 25,000-square-foot floorplates, on a speculative basis, meaning no signed leases with tenants.
“Whether or not we would pull the trigger, a lot has to do with the lending market,” he said.
But McCarthy said there aren’t a lot of options for 20,000- to 30,000-square-foot office users looking for high visibility and class A+ space.
At this point, McCarthy also said there is no set threshold for when Carter would start construction of the phase I office tower based on how much of the building has been pre-leased....
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/b ... s-for.html
I believe overall Cincy's CBD office market is healthier than ours but we do share some of the same issues with a lack of top-shelf space; our last Class A building was from what, 1988? and we've lost a number of companies to Clayton because of it. Again, something to think about when considering how much subsidy BPV should get.
- 516
If its primarily residential, then there will be no need to back any bonds. Projected tax revenues from residential should be relatively stable and predictable. The market will allow for selling bonds based on the projected tax stream without the need for any additional city backing. The City would be crazy to support any incentive/bond amount above what would be covered by the project's tax revenues. In KC, they backed the bonds because the heavy retail component was difficult to predict - there were no tenants at the time the bonds were sold. Without good projections, they could not sell bonds without additional security in the form of a city-backing.roger wyoming II wrote:Depends on what they bring to the table.... if the project is for significant residential and an anchor corporate tenant new to the city then it would be foolish not to consider various forms of additional assistance.dredger wrote: Does city back bonds for BPV Phase II?
^ But isn't that what KC did for residential going in now. Even if backing on the bonds was on the initial phase it certainly minimized the risk substantially having the city pick up the remaining tab/current bond payment. The part I don't understand is if the financing is bundled or the complications involved.
Ok Roger,
1) Should the city specifically back the bonds for a new residential tower, whether it be condos, apartments or apartments that can be converted to condos later or a mixed residential/hotel tower? or should the city back the bonds of both a BPV tower and a Drury landing tower? In other words go all in.
2) Should the city specifically back the bonds on a speculative Class A tower space even if no tenants or secured right now?
My fear at the moment is NGA is out of town, that will be a much bigger hit than GSA sending veteran admin employees out of downtown. Lets not forget that the city is about to take a $6 million dollar hit to its general revenues with Tenet leaving and SSM taking over @ SLU hospital.
NGA stays in the city and I will change my no vote to yes on residential tower. I would vote yes on a office tower if DeWitt/Cordish could get at 25-50% lease commitment from an anchor tenant.
Ok Roger,
1) Should the city specifically back the bonds for a new residential tower, whether it be condos, apartments or apartments that can be converted to condos later or a mixed residential/hotel tower? or should the city back the bonds of both a BPV tower and a Drury landing tower? In other words go all in.
2) Should the city specifically back the bonds on a speculative Class A tower space even if no tenants or secured right now?
My fear at the moment is NGA is out of town, that will be a much bigger hit than GSA sending veteran admin employees out of downtown. Lets not forget that the city is about to take a $6 million dollar hit to its general revenues with Tenet leaving and SSM taking over @ SLU hospital.
NGA stays in the city and I will change my no vote to yes on residential tower. I would vote yes on a office tower if DeWitt/Cordish could get at 25-50% lease commitment from an anchor tenant.
- 8,155
^ I don't believe KC is backing bonds on the residential towers but it is providing other subsidies. including cold hard cash. As south compton said, bond backing generally doesn't happen with traditional residential tower projects but what I've been trying to stress is that other cities like KC and Cincy have been supporting such projects by utilizing other subsidies to a greater degree.... providing loans. gap financing, longer-term abatement, etc.. You seem to be stuck on it having to be bond backing to move things forward.
As for the wisdom of backing bonds for the roll out of Power & Light, I think the ultimate question is even if the city is taking a bath on the initial phase. was it catalytic enough to be worth it? (I'm not sure that question ever will be answered. Kind of like the Big Dig in Boston; yes it was a fiscal blood bath but what is going on top of it in the end is pretty darned impressive.)
To address your question of BPV, my answer would be if Cordish/Cards came to the city with a strong Phase II plan with a good site plan that included a residential tower & an office building say in the 150,000-250,000 sq. ft. range (with a bit of retail and maybe hotel component in the plan) I would certainly prime the subsidy pump one way or another and if some bond backing was necessary I'd negotiate a backstop with recapturing losses by reinstituting the amusement tax. If it were just all spec office with no residential then I probably would pass. (I think if this was seriously discussed as a project moving forward there'd be a couple tenants lined up, though.) And if it was just a mixed-use residential tower like Power & Light the most likely scenario would be negotiating abatement terms, loans and equity investments.
As for the wisdom of backing bonds for the roll out of Power & Light, I think the ultimate question is even if the city is taking a bath on the initial phase. was it catalytic enough to be worth it? (I'm not sure that question ever will be answered. Kind of like the Big Dig in Boston; yes it was a fiscal blood bath but what is going on top of it in the end is pretty darned impressive.)
To address your question of BPV, my answer would be if Cordish/Cards came to the city with a strong Phase II plan with a good site plan that included a residential tower & an office building say in the 150,000-250,000 sq. ft. range (with a bit of retail and maybe hotel component in the plan) I would certainly prime the subsidy pump one way or another and if some bond backing was necessary I'd negotiate a backstop with recapturing losses by reinstituting the amusement tax. If it were just all spec office with no residential then I probably would pass. (I think if this was seriously discussed as a project moving forward there'd be a couple tenants lined up, though.) And if it was just a mixed-use residential tower like Power & Light the most likely scenario would be negotiating abatement terms, loans and equity investments.
^ thanks, in terms of bonds I'm most likely grouping forgiveable loans, equity investment, etc. from the city together. Essentially removing the capital risk for Cordish/BPV to build phase II is what I'm driving at, whether it be residential, hotel rooms or office space.
As far as tax abatements, I'm assuming that is all but a given for any additional BPV phases at this point as well as understand that requires a hard proposal and that particular property moving forward. Tax abatements help reduce the capital risk but is a very different then cosigning the capital or even providing capital via the city or at least in my mind it is. Maybe I'm wrong that tax abatements are a given as at least one high profile CWE proposal didn't get the alderman support for tax abatements and the developer dropped the CWE project from what I understood.
What it comes down to is that a lot of other projects being referenced was a substantially amount or most of all the capital risk was removed from my impression. Does the City go down that path of going the extra mile for BPV.
As far as tax abatements, I'm assuming that is all but a given for any additional BPV phases at this point as well as understand that requires a hard proposal and that particular property moving forward. Tax abatements help reduce the capital risk but is a very different then cosigning the capital or even providing capital via the city or at least in my mind it is. Maybe I'm wrong that tax abatements are a given as at least one high profile CWE proposal didn't get the alderman support for tax abatements and the developer dropped the CWE project from what I understood.
What it comes down to is that a lot of other projects being referenced was a substantially amount or most of all the capital risk was removed from my impression. Does the City go down that path of going the extra mile for BPV.
- 8,155
^ It seems to be pretty common for KC to award the full tax abatement term allowed by state law of 25 years (I think only 50% is allowed for years 11-25)... I could be wrong, but I think that would be highly unusual for St. Louis City. And going back to Two Light, it looks like public subsidies will cover $17 million of the 24 floor, $105 million mixed-use building.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... -of-a.html
I think we should go down that path in general for solid projects downtown whether for BPV, a Drury tower or Jefferson Arms renovation.... you have to be careful to not overextend, but helping get a few high-quality projects off the ground to solidify a vibrant downtown should be well worth it... we did it for Arcade-Wright with a significant loan (not clear on whether forgiveable or not) and I'd like to see more.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... -of-a.html
I think we should go down that path in general for solid projects downtown whether for BPV, a Drury tower or Jefferson Arms renovation.... you have to be careful to not overextend, but helping get a few high-quality projects off the ground to solidify a vibrant downtown should be well worth it... we did it for Arcade-Wright with a significant loan (not clear on whether forgiveable or not) and I'd like to see more.
I agree. And if I am not mistaken, I believe Cordish/Cardinals received about $17-million in incentives for Phase I.roger wyoming II wrote:To address your question of BPV, my answer would be if Cordish/Cards came to the city with a strong Phase II plan with a good site plan that included a residential tower & an office building say in the 150,000-250,000 sq. ft. range (with a bit of retail and maybe hotel component in the plan) I would certainly prime the subsidy pump one way or another......
I don't know what it all went towards, but if conservative/Republican St. Charles can back $40m for a project estimated to cost $385m, I don't know why St. Louis City couldn't back some bonds and rework some other incentives in to spark a dynamic Phase II.
I could be wrong, but I believe if the Cardinals/Cordish proceed on to Phase II, it potentially could be cheesy and underwhelming.
Below is a 35-story building that broke ground March 2015 in Houston's Galleria/Post Oak area. I'm not excited about the design, but here's information on the project. Tweak the numbers a bit, add an attached garage, a mixed-use project like this could work well at BPV.
The 10-acre project will feature a 35-story, 650,000-square-foot tower, which will include 240 luxury hotel rooms, more than 120,000 square feet of boutique office space and 22 residential apartment units. Other notable amenities include a two-story spa and salon. There will be more than 1,000 parking spaces.
The hotel rooms and suite will range from 500 to 2,000 square feet. There will also be a presidential suite and a 4,000-square-foot, two-bedroom chairman suites with private elevator access, a media room, an exercise room and a private terrace.
The residential units will range from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet. The low-density, Class A office space will feature a separate secure entrance.
- 8,155
^ I don't think that mix with a heavy hotel orientation (just 22 residential units?) is what we'd want to support though.... I think something building off of Two Light's 300 residential apartments, 15,000 sq. ft. of office, 30,000 sq. ft. of retail and 500 parking spaces would be a better arrangement. It'll be a 24 story, 520,000 sq. ft. tower -- not too shabby -- but I'd all be for getting to 35 stories by adding more office and a hotel.
The key I think is spurring residential density -- especially highly-paid residents. Hotel should be part of the ultimate mix, but along with more retail should be a lower priority than residential and office.
The key I think is spurring residential density -- especially highly-paid residents. Hotel should be part of the ultimate mix, but along with more retail should be a lower priority than residential and office.
Hopefully my last comment for a bit on BPV, we do have to keep in mind that the demand for high-end living downtown is not very strong compared to other markets.... I think this is the best site for attracting that clientele, but we haven't proven the market quite yet like some other places so I can understand the reluctance to commit to a big-time project. If Tower OPOP would have gone quickly and overall occupancy rates were in the high 90's and rents trending steadily up then I'm sure we would have seen new construction proposals either in BPV or elsewhere downtown.
Here is what a Cordish rep said of the KC residential market:
"Downtown Kansas City is getting to the level, in terms of economic activity and development, of markets like Nashville and Portland and Austin, and that's a pretty exciting statement for Kansas City."
Benjamin said the project was accelerated by the high demand for apartments at One Light. More than 1,500 people have signed the building's waiting list, he said, and 35 percent of the apartments are fully pre-leased. The first tenants will begin moving in seven months from now.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... plans.html
That just isn't happening here. But while understanding the caution, what we should have seen by now is the release of a proposed Phase II site plan and drumming up of potential residential and commercial tenants. If it had to get scaled back because we are too poor to pay $2,000 a month for a 1,000 1 bdrm. (raising my hand) or just prefer to live elsewhere (looking around the room) to fully build out or needing extra subsidies then so be it.
I was expecting something announced in the off-season and it is getting pretty frustrating. And if we can make it work, I think we'd be on firmer footing to catch up with some of those other fancy places.
Here is what a Cordish rep said of the KC residential market:
"Downtown Kansas City is getting to the level, in terms of economic activity and development, of markets like Nashville and Portland and Austin, and that's a pretty exciting statement for Kansas City."
Benjamin said the project was accelerated by the high demand for apartments at One Light. More than 1,500 people have signed the building's waiting list, he said, and 35 percent of the apartments are fully pre-leased. The first tenants will begin moving in seven months from now.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... plans.html
That just isn't happening here. But while understanding the caution, what we should have seen by now is the release of a proposed Phase II site plan and drumming up of potential residential and commercial tenants. If it had to get scaled back because we are too poor to pay $2,000 a month for a 1,000 1 bdrm. (raising my hand) or just prefer to live elsewhere (looking around the room) to fully build out or needing extra subsidies then so be it.
I was expecting something announced in the off-season and it is getting pretty frustrating. And if we can make it work, I think we'd be on firmer footing to catch up with some of those other fancy places.
That's why I wrote, "Tweak the numbers a bit, add an attached garage, and a mixed-use project like this could work well at BPV."roger wyoming II wrote:^ I don't think that mix with a heavy hotel orientation (just 22 residential units?) is what we'd want to support though....The key I think is spurring residential density -- especially highly-paid residents. Hotel should be part of the ultimate mix, but along with more retail should be a lower priority than residential and office.
I like the idea of residential, a hotel, office and retail in one large building. How ever Cordish works the numbers, fine. But the combination in a large tower would give them of everything they are considering.
They could even "wing" the project having residential in one tower and the other components in the other.
Of course more residential and amenities could go up on the parking lots.
"Downtown Kansas City is getting to the level, in terms of economic activity and development, of markets like Nashville and Portland and Austin, and that's a pretty exciting statement for Kansas City."
Benjamin said the project was accelerated by the high demand for apartments at One Light. More than 1,500 people have signed the building's waiting list, he said, and 35 percent of the apartments are fully pre-leased. The first tenants will begin moving in seven months from now.
^Have you considered that STL has one thing that the above cities do not have? And that is a thriving second downtown called "Clayton". Not to mention "Mid Town". You take away Clayton and you would have a thriving residential downtown, IMO.
Benjamin said the project was accelerated by the high demand for apartments at One Light. More than 1,500 people have signed the building's waiting list, he said, and 35 percent of the apartments are fully pre-leased. The first tenants will begin moving in seven months from now.
^Have you considered that STL has one thing that the above cities do not have? And that is a thriving second downtown called "Clayton". Not to mention "Mid Town". You take away Clayton and you would have a thriving residential downtown, IMO.
- 8,155
^ I definitely thought about it; certainly downtown would be more robust as a whole if it didn't have Clayton as a competitor. But I'm not sure how much of a factor downtown Clayton has been on downtown Saint Louis residential demand in recent years.... as far as I know, no multi-family projects have opened the past few years in downtown Clayton to compete with downtown STL. In fact, region-wide, I think the only project that was a competitor for leasing up the Tower OPOP in terms of newly available high-rise was the Millennium Center (which offers nice views and lower rents but not quite as fancy amenities).
Again, my belief is that if Tower OPOP had leased fast & furious we'd have seen more sequels announced. For whatever reasons, though, downtown STL seems to have lost some of its luster with high-end residential the past few years and my worry has been as more high-quality projects begin to open up in CWE and Clayton, etc., it will be all the more difficult to get big projects off the ground downtown.
Also, when comparing to other cities like Kansas City, it isn't like they don't have other growing jobs and apartment districts.... the KC's Plaza is hot, e.g. and across Stateline Road are a number of Kansas communities at war with downtown on jobs and also putting up big apartment complexes. I think stronger population and jobs growth in other regions are helping to drive more activity across the board, including downtown, but I also think we may have lost a bit of focus on ours and need to examine what we can do to perk things back up a bit. The Arcade-Wright will be a nice feather in the cap and should lease well (as it is tilted highly to the subsidized artists units) and if we can get another high-profile project like BPV or Jefferson Arms -- hopefully with higher market-rate rents - off the ground successfully that would help get things back on track as well. If cranking up the subsidies a bit is what it'll take, I'm fine with that.
Again, my belief is that if Tower OPOP had leased fast & furious we'd have seen more sequels announced. For whatever reasons, though, downtown STL seems to have lost some of its luster with high-end residential the past few years and my worry has been as more high-quality projects begin to open up in CWE and Clayton, etc., it will be all the more difficult to get big projects off the ground downtown.
Also, when comparing to other cities like Kansas City, it isn't like they don't have other growing jobs and apartment districts.... the KC's Plaza is hot, e.g. and across Stateline Road are a number of Kansas communities at war with downtown on jobs and also putting up big apartment complexes. I think stronger population and jobs growth in other regions are helping to drive more activity across the board, including downtown, but I also think we may have lost a bit of focus on ours and need to examine what we can do to perk things back up a bit. The Arcade-Wright will be a nice feather in the cap and should lease well (as it is tilted highly to the subsidized artists units) and if we can get another high-profile project like BPV or Jefferson Arms -- hopefully with higher market-rate rents - off the ground successfully that would help get things back on track as well. If cranking up the subsidies a bit is what it'll take, I'm fine with that.
- 8,912
When the economy picks up this Clayton vs Downtown thing will go away. We're just not quite big enough to have a healthy cbd in both areas.courtland wrote: ^Have you considered that STL has one thing that the above cities do not have? And that is a thriving second downtown called "Clayton". Not to mention "Mid Town". You take away Clayton and you would have a thriving residential downtown, IMO.
- 8,155
^ That plus the explosive growth past Lindbergh. If 1/2 of the office growth the occurred in West County in recent years were split evenly b/w Clayton and downtown, both would be so much further along.
Also, people who want to live in a downtown environment easily can get to their work in downtown Clayton from their downtown STL apartment (or vice versa) and that isn't really a big deal. My philosophy is I don't sweat it too much from downtown Clayton progress but I'd like to see it more of a release valve for more STL growth; it is a bit flipped here.
Also, people who want to live in a downtown environment easily can get to their work in downtown Clayton from their downtown STL apartment (or vice versa) and that isn't really a big deal. My philosophy is I don't sweat it too much from downtown Clayton progress but I'd like to see it more of a release valve for more STL growth; it is a bit flipped here.
^ Don't forget that the City/BJC/Wash U are working on third business district in CORTEX. Wexford/CORTEX could very well succeed in building the first meaningful Class A office/or lab space of size in the city in a while. Wexford lands a major anchor tenant or two and you are talking 500,000 square feet of premium space between Clayton and Downtown.
As far as high end residential, my gut feeling is that Koplar/Koman/Clayco's Lindell & Kingshighway proposal is going to blow everyone else out of the water and have a good shot of getting that built. That will stop cold any downtown ideas outside of historical/loft unless the city gives Cordish some cold hard cash like KC did and or Drury the same deal on the Landing. Heck, who knows maybe they have a office tenant lined up and add even more office space to CWE on top of Wexford proposal. Thinking of a large catholic St. Louis based health care company
The most important fact as moorlander noted is that the region is slow growth. First, city following through with slashing its business code from 432 pages to 130 would be a good start. and do it NOW. Second, sooner they sign off on the cargo proposal the better. The region is gaining industrial space and is the bright spot. This is a good opportunity to include Lambert as part of the regions strong logistical position and it might even help add some manufacturing. Third, pass the bonding measure as well as invest back in some downtown street infrastructure & specifically a new 21/22nd street interchange in Blvd that would lead directly to a new NGA, finally, please table the $15 hour wage and continue to push on the state level because the immediate discrepancy will not foster growth but only make internal competition more intense for the same businesses.
As far as high end residential, my gut feeling is that Koplar/Koman/Clayco's Lindell & Kingshighway proposal is going to blow everyone else out of the water and have a good shot of getting that built. That will stop cold any downtown ideas outside of historical/loft unless the city gives Cordish some cold hard cash like KC did and or Drury the same deal on the Landing. Heck, who knows maybe they have a office tenant lined up and add even more office space to CWE on top of Wexford proposal. Thinking of a large catholic St. Louis based health care company
The most important fact as moorlander noted is that the region is slow growth. First, city following through with slashing its business code from 432 pages to 130 would be a good start. and do it NOW. Second, sooner they sign off on the cargo proposal the better. The region is gaining industrial space and is the bright spot. This is a good opportunity to include Lambert as part of the regions strong logistical position and it might even help add some manufacturing. Third, pass the bonding measure as well as invest back in some downtown street infrastructure & specifically a new 21/22nd street interchange in Blvd that would lead directly to a new NGA, finally, please table the $15 hour wage and continue to push on the state level because the immediate discrepancy will not foster growth but only make internal competition more intense for the same businesses.
- 8,155
^ I think the Cortex potential is fantastic, but like my comment regarding downtown Clayton not being a residential competitor to downtown STL yet as none of the projects in the pipeline have arrived yet... less than a 1.000 jobs have opened in Cortex the past few years. And again as Cortex explodes with more jobs those workers can live anywhere in the Central Corridor and reach their work with ease so it should benefit all markets.
As for Koplar, yeah, its just another potential competitor and that is a large part of the frustration with BPV -- you snooze, you lose, And definitely more regional growth will help float all boats.... the more the County and City can work together to steer it to the core and around Metrolink the better.
As for Koplar, yeah, its just another potential competitor and that is a large part of the frustration with BPV -- you snooze, you lose, And definitely more regional growth will help float all boats.... the more the County and City can work together to steer it to the core and around Metrolink the better.
- 3,235
From what I have heard Tower at OPOP may not be a good comparison. It lacks a variety of floor plans and # of bedrooms. It's also priced higher than the rest of the market.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I definitely thought about it; certainly downtown would be more robust as a whole if it didn't have Clayton as a competitor. But I'm not sure how much of a factor downtown Clayton has been on downtown Saint Louis residential demand in recent years.... as far as I know, no multi-family projects have opened the past few years in downtown Clayton to compete with downtown STL. In fact, region-wide, I think the only project that was a competitor for leasing up the Tower OPOP in terms of newly available high-rise was the Millennium Center (which offers nice views and lower rents but not quite as fancy amenities).
Again, my belief is that if Tower OPOP had leased fast & furious we'd have seen more sequels announced. For whatever reasons, though, downtown STL seems to have lost some of its luster with high-end residential the past few years and my worry has been as more high-quality projects begin to open up in CWE and Clayton, etc., it will be all the more difficult to get big projects off the ground downtown.
Also, when comparing to other cities like Kansas City, it isn't like they don't have other growing jobs and apartment districts.... the KC's Plaza is hot, e.g. and across Stateline Road are a number of Kansas communities at war with downtown on jobs and also putting up big apartment complexes. I think stronger population and jobs growth in other regions are helping to drive more activity across the board, including downtown, but I also think we may have lost a bit of focus on ours and need to examine what we can do to perk things back up a bit. The Arcade-Wright will be a nice feather in the cap and should lease well (as it is tilted highly to the subsidized artists units) and if we can get another high-profile project like BPV or Jefferson Arms -- hopefully with higher market-rate rents - off the ground successfully that would help get things back on track as well. If cranking up the subsidies a bit is what it'll take, I'm fine with that.
- 8,155
^ My understanding is that the rates at Tower OPOP are actually a bit less that what it will take to move another high-rise forward (StateStreet was able to get the structure at a great price and then finish it off).... unless heavily subsidized I think we're looking at $2 per square foot or so and up for new tower apartments.
I really don't know about floor plan issues. etc. (and hopefully filling up the restaurant space with Sauce on the Side will increase exposure) but we haven't demonstrated that type of strong demand yet so I can see why Cordish would be more bullish in KC than here... but then we go back to the argument that a tower associated with one of the most powerful sports brands in the nation with a loyal backing and in a region of nearly 3 million people has to be able to work.
I really don't know about floor plan issues. etc. (and hopefully filling up the restaurant space with Sauce on the Side will increase exposure) but we haven't demonstrated that type of strong demand yet so I can see why Cordish would be more bullish in KC than here... but then we go back to the argument that a tower associated with one of the most powerful sports brands in the nation with a loyal backing and in a region of nearly 3 million people has to be able to work.
- 8,912
I had two friends who REALLY wanted to move into OPOP but the lack of 2 bedroom apartments killed the deal. (Highrise new construction was top of the list) One was married (newlyweds) and they wanted an extra bedroom/office and the other was two friends who wanted to live together as roommates. In neither case was price the issue.downtown2007 wrote:From what I have heard Tower at OPOP may not be a good comparison. It lacks a variety of floor plans and # of bedrooms. It's also priced higher than the rest of the market.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I definitely thought about it; certainly downtown would be more robust as a whole if it didn't have Clayton as a competitor. But I'm not sure how much of a factor downtown Clayton has been on downtown Saint Louis residential demand in recent years.... as far as I know, no multi-family projects have opened the past few years in downtown Clayton to compete with downtown STL. In fact, region-wide, I think the only project that was a competitor for leasing up the Tower OPOP in terms of newly available high-rise was the Millennium Center (which offers nice views and lower rents but not quite as fancy amenities).
Again, my belief is that if Tower OPOP had leased fast & furious we'd have seen more sequels announced. For whatever reasons, though, downtown STL seems to have lost some of its luster with high-end residential the past few years and my worry has been as more high-quality projects begin to open up in CWE and Clayton, etc., it will be all the more difficult to get big projects off the ground downtown.
Also, when comparing to other cities like Kansas City, it isn't like they don't have other growing jobs and apartment districts.... the KC's Plaza is hot, e.g. and across Stateline Road are a number of Kansas communities at war with downtown on jobs and also putting up big apartment complexes. I think stronger population and jobs growth in other regions are helping to drive more activity across the board, including downtown, but I also think we may have lost a bit of focus on ours and need to examine what we can do to perk things back up a bit. The Arcade-Wright will be a nice feather in the cap and should lease well (as it is tilted highly to the subsidized artists units) and if we can get another high-profile project like BPV or Jefferson Arms -- hopefully with higher market-rate rents - off the ground successfully that would help get things back on track as well. If cranking up the subsidies a bit is what it'll take, I'm fine with that.
- 3,235
Prices in general are too low to warrant new construction. However the prices OPOP are charging for a 1 bedroom is above current market rates. Two very different things.roger wyoming II wrote:^ My understanding is that the rates at Tower OPOP are actually a bit less that what it will take to move another high-rise forward (StateStreet was able to get the structure at a great price and then finish it off).... unless heavily subsidized I think we're looking at $2 per square foot or so and up for new tower apartments.
I really don't know about floor plan issues. etc. (and hopefully filling up the restaurant space with Sauce on the Side will increase exposure) but we haven't demonstrated that type of strong demand yet so I can see why Cordish would be more bullish in KC than here... but then we go back to the argument that a tower associated with one of the most powerful sports brands in the nation with a loyal backing and in a region of nearly 3 million people has to be able to work.
- 8,155
^ I'm not sure I'm following.... Tower OPOP is above other market rates but that is because even after a nice bargain purchase it still is new construction in the end and offers top-shelf amenities. They probably could have offered more deals but I'm not sure how inflated the pricing is. (One thing I have noticed though is that Arcade Apartments is marketing quite a bit and a sponsor for numerous events while not even leasing yet.... I don't recall that Tower OPOP doing that to any similar degree.) Anyway, I think we agree that the downtown market really hasn't proven to potential developers that going ahead with a luxury tower is a relatively low-risk affair as those things go.
- 3,235
Ok one more time....
Prices for rentals in greater downtown area aren't quite high enough to warrant new construction.
Prices at OPOP are higher than the going rate in the greater downtown area. In addition, they only have 1 bedroom apts cutting out a significant section of the market. This results in slower than usual absorption.
However I think BPV would be an outlier and give no problems leasing news construction due to its high profile.
Prices for rentals in greater downtown area aren't quite high enough to warrant new construction.
Prices at OPOP are higher than the going rate in the greater downtown area. In addition, they only have 1 bedroom apts cutting out a significant section of the market. This results in slower than usual absorption.
However I think BPV would be an outlier and give no problems leasing news construction due to its high profile.
- 8,155
^ I think we agree! (but not sure!). The only thing I'd note is that in a healthier market you'd have no problem filling up studios and 1 bdrm quickly in a nice product like Tower OPOP; there are only 130 units or so, I believe. (I wish I knew where they stand right now.... I don't think they are too concerned or else they'd be pushing it more you'd think.)