This is one of those projects where you unfortunately just gotta be patient until market improves.
- 516
Stifel wants to be involved in the financing of the larger BPV project (and has a lot of time invested in it already) so, for now, it doesn't want to mess up its relationship with Cordish and the Cardinals. I think the City has been mostly right exhibiting patience with Cordish -- the last few years have been extremely challenging for this type of project and in retrospect, Centene's brief participation and the resulting delays came at the worst possible time. However, I also believe that the City and MDFB have told Cordish that they have one last shot to make things work.timeforguinness wrote:[
So, why not use eminent domain and sell the land to Stifel Nichols?
I guess one of my thoughts even with the understanding that Stifel wanted to do the bond sale is how long do they want to wait it out? I believe in patience on the BPV site but at the same time I'm skratching my head as they clearly presented a doable plan even in this market and will need to break ground soon if they want Stifel to move in by the time their current lease expires.south compton wrote:Stifel wants to be involved in the financing of the larger BPV project (and has a lot of time invested in it already) so, for now, it doesn't want to mess up its relationship with Cordish and the Cardinals. I think the City has been mostly right exhibiting patience with Cordish -- the last few years have been extremely challenging for this type of project and in retrospect, Centene's brief participation and the resulting delays came at the worst possible time. However, I also believe that the City and MDFB have told Cordish that they have one last shot to make things work.timeforguinness wrote:[
So, why not use eminent domain and sell the land to Stifel Nichols?
In other words, a little baffled on why everything went quiet again. At the same time, definitely not surprised at the lack of info.
- 2,386
dredger wrote:In other words, a little baffled on why everything went quiet again. At the same time, definitely not surprised at the lack of info.
No kidding. I have been thinking the same thing throughout the entire course of this project. Something this important and (I would still say) potentially transformational for the city should be given more attention from a publicity standpoint. At this point, maybe the media/those supposed to reporting on this have simply gotten fed up and given up on any extra effort.
It would do a lot for the goodwill of the Cardinals and Cordish to provide more regular updates. Starting the talk about eminent domain above emphasizes this point to me. Seems like the least they could do after their general ineptitude regarding this whole mess.
I am 90% positive we would have at least 3 towers on this site right now had the street-grid been restored and the land sold to individual developers, especially back in 2006. Hell, the whole site might have been completely built-out prior to the credit crisis.
I didn't want Cordish to have anything to do with this in the first place, and I REALLY don't want Cordish to have anything to do with this now. They seem totally D league.
(Sorry for two posts in a row)
Also, I am completely clueless as to why they are currently proposing to build the (potentially) Stifel occupied office tower in one of the two most prime locations on the site for residential condo/apartment development. That makes me think they have COMPLETELY written on this component of the project, which is an absolute joke to me as I have said all along they could EASILY sell out two buildings on those two lots. At the VERY least you would think they would at least design blueprints and try their hand at pre-selling the buildings. I don't think they would have any problem at all doing so.
The Cardinals wouldn't even have to lay out any money. They could set up an "office" during games out on the Ford Plaza or whatever they call the centerfield plaza that is accessable from the outside as well on non-game days. Seems like a total clown show. It's like they literally aren't even trying.
Oh well, maybe those future condo towers can provide fantastic infill to our real BPV (Cupples).
Count me in as officially jumping on the eminent domain bandwagon
Also, I am completely clueless as to why they are currently proposing to build the (potentially) Stifel occupied office tower in one of the two most prime locations on the site for residential condo/apartment development. That makes me think they have COMPLETELY written on this component of the project, which is an absolute joke to me as I have said all along they could EASILY sell out two buildings on those two lots. At the VERY least you would think they would at least design blueprints and try their hand at pre-selling the buildings. I don't think they would have any problem at all doing so.
The Cardinals wouldn't even have to lay out any money. They could set up an "office" during games out on the Ford Plaza or whatever they call the centerfield plaza that is accessable from the outside as well on non-game days. Seems like a total clown show. It's like they literally aren't even trying.
Oh well, maybe those future condo towers can provide fantastic infill to our real BPV (Cupples).
Count me in as officially jumping on the eminent domain bandwagon
Once again, just to clarify, this is what is currently proposed for the site.
1 - I have no idea how something 13 stories tall could ever be delusionally referred to as the "Premiere office building in the region." Yeah, ok.
2 - Also love that they have failed to include the Arch in the renderings.
3 - The South-East corner of the proposed site plan (to the right of the only proposed building) looks as though they are anticipating it to be a hotel. Notice the drive in the site plan that looks to be the drive-up entrance featured in front of many hotels.
4 - The garage bordering the East of the site looks like even more of a monstrosity in the site plan that it is in real life.
5 - Say what you will about him, but I think it would be great to get Trump involved in a condo-hotel tower on the "400" block of this site. The man gets things done. Also, for him, it would be a relatively small risk, as this would pale in comparisson to many of his projects. He also does not have anything else in the metro. Wonder if anyone has placed any calls. Going to go ahead and guess not. (Edit: On second thought, maybe the "100" block, as this would have direct metrolink access from/to the airport. Although he may still prefer the 400, talk about branding. Slap that TRUMP sign dead center field.)
1 - I have no idea how something 13 stories tall could ever be delusionally referred to as the "Premiere office building in the region." Yeah, ok.
2 - Also love that they have failed to include the Arch in the renderings.
3 - The South-East corner of the proposed site plan (to the right of the only proposed building) looks as though they are anticipating it to be a hotel. Notice the drive in the site plan that looks to be the drive-up entrance featured in front of many hotels.
4 - The garage bordering the East of the site looks like even more of a monstrosity in the site plan that it is in real life.
5 - Say what you will about him, but I think it would be great to get Trump involved in a condo-hotel tower on the "400" block of this site. The man gets things done. Also, for him, it would be a relatively small risk, as this would pale in comparisson to many of his projects. He also does not have anything else in the metro. Wonder if anyone has placed any calls. Going to go ahead and guess not. (Edit: On second thought, maybe the "100" block, as this would have direct metrolink access from/to the airport. Although he may still prefer the 400, talk about branding. Slap that TRUMP sign dead center field.)
Not only delusional but incorrect. It should be "premier". A premiere is a debut. Indicative of the quality of this project.newstl2020 wrote:I have no idea how something 13 stories tall could ever be delusionally referred to as the "Premiere office building in the region." Yeah, ok.
This eyesore should not be allowed to be built on that spot. It's the Gateway One (now Peabody) building revisited.
A mistake in appearance and location.
- 11K
I mostly disagree - by itself it's not so good (like Gateway One). But it all really depends on what gets built next to and around it.
- 549
^ Just as important are the selection of the glazing system and (especially) how the building meets the ground.
I wish it was taller, but personally don't see it as offensive. Not good per se, but not bad. And now that I think about it, because the building is so close to the outfield, a tall high-rise (on this 300 block location) might look really out of scale from inside the stadium. Some of the other blocks in BPV might be a different story.
I wish it was taller, but personally don't see it as offensive. Not good per se, but not bad. And now that I think about it, because the building is so close to the outfield, a tall high-rise (on this 300 block location) might look really out of scale from inside the stadium. Some of the other blocks in BPV might be a different story.
Why do we always accept second-best in this city? This building stinks. We need something inspiring, not a bland box. Especially on this spot that many will see often, in person and on TV.
- 339
I'm with you...that building is ugly. It's almost like they're waiting long enough so that anything built on site will be accepted by the public.the count wrote:Why do we always accept second-best in this city? This building stinks. We need something inspiring, not a bland box. Especially on this spot that many will see often, in person and on TV.
- 6,775
Any chance that is just a generic building stuck in the photo as an example?
- 2,386
^I wouldn't think so. Those were pulled from the presentation they gave to city officials when requesting the bond issuance from the city for infrastructure improvements (or TIF, whichever it was), back in January. I *believe* at that point we got something along the lines of construction would be starting this summer. Sound familiar?
I agree that the building above is basically awful and is completely misplaced in the development. I might be less against this if it was placed on the 500 block (North-West corner). It actually might create a nice transition from the garage/BOA building into the development. Obviously there could be a MUCH better design in any case.
I just don't get why they are giving the most profitable lot BY FAR for condos/apartments in this entire area to a puny office building. Yeah, it'd be nice to get this thing off the ground, but this just seems so ill-conceived it almost seems as though the are conspiring to kill the entire thing off. It is just a dumb move anyway you look at it.
I agree that the building above is basically awful and is completely misplaced in the development. I might be less against this if it was placed on the 500 block (North-West corner). It actually might create a nice transition from the garage/BOA building into the development. Obviously there could be a MUCH better design in any case.
I just don't get why they are giving the most profitable lot BY FAR for condos/apartments in this entire area to a puny office building. Yeah, it'd be nice to get this thing off the ground, but this just seems so ill-conceived it almost seems as though the are conspiring to kill the entire thing off. It is just a dumb move anyway you look at it.
Here's DeWitt telling us the same thing in May 2010. He then said they'd be ready to start this thing in late 2010. That was more than a year ago.
http://countondowntown.com/2010/05/ball ... ge-update/
http://countondowntown.com/2010/05/ball ... ge-update/
Quoted for Truth!xing wrote:Excuse m languag, but that looks like sh*t.
If that gets built respect points continue to drop.
I think the building, while not the most attractive I've ever seen, just looks ugly in that rendering. If you watch the 3-D rendering of BPV in the video on the BPV page at the Cardinal's website, it doesn't look nearly that bad (they also say it's supposed to be 14 stories, not 13). In fact, it looks completely different, although they do use that same image later in the video (What?). That page also says it will have "bleachers with views into Busch Stadium." Bleachers on an office building? I suppose they mean at the top... but who knows. You can easily see the "decks" with ballpark views, which look pretty cool but appear to be just patios, not bleachers. Anyway, watch that video to see what I mean. I actually like the overall look of the proposed development and its density, and yes, they do say it's supposed to get started this summer. I called the Cardinals' front office today and the guy who answered said the same thing, but offered nothing more on it.
What are the advantages of a new office building downtown when most of the ones downtown as it is are hurting for tenants?
The advantages, from what I understand, would be to attract a large corporation as an anchor for the entire development. Before they pulled out a few years ago, this was to be Centene Corporation (remember?).rawest1 wrote:What are the advantages of a new office building downtown when most of the ones downtown as it is are hurting for tenants?
- 2,386
Many people have been using this "why are we building more office space when what we have isn't full?" question in response to new office buildings downtown. (You see this a lot on StLToday comment sections)
You (anyone thinking this) do realize that in order to retain the growing companies we currently have, it is necessary to build new CLASS A office space with new technology and up to date features, right?
I just hate this particular block for it.
You (anyone thinking this) do realize that in order to retain the growing companies we currently have, it is necessary to build new CLASS A office space with new technology and up to date features, right?
I just hate this particular block for it.
Well what specific needs do these "growing companies" have that can't be filled by the office buildings that already exist? And what's going to be in this office space that makes it different from other offices?
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
Are there known "large corporations" that have expressed interest? Which ones?kopper wrote:The advantages, from what I understand, would be to attract a large corporation as an anchor for the entire development. Before they pulled out a few years ago, this was to be Centene Corporation ([url=[/url]).rawest1 wrote:What are the advantages of a new office building downtown when most of the ones downtown as it is are hurting for tenants?
- 2,386
^Stifel Financial has long been rumored to be taking the space in the building proposed thusfar.
^^Many older buildings have physical and technological constraints that cause them to be deemed all but obsolete by many established (Read: LARGE) companies.
1) The data load required by virtually all companies now is exponentially larger than it was when these building were built, and many simply are not wired to handle the current needs of these company's employees. Some of the buildings are extremely hard to upgrade, and others literally cannot be upgraded to the necessary requirements.
2) Physically, many of the buildings that are current options simply are not built to modern standards and are seen as vastly sub-par from an occupancy standpoint. In an age where effeciency (particularly regarding energy) is everything, companies use all the PR they can, especially in regards to being "green." The largest way they do this is through occupying LEED certified buildings, virtually all of which are relatively new construction. This theoretically saves on cost and provides vvaluable PR for the company. Often, this refers to floor to cieling windows with energy saving glass and the size of the floorplates in addition to physical components such as building waste management/water/energy usage. You cannot retro-fit an existing building to have different size windows or floorplates.
3) They desire high quality surroundings. If your company is making money and your employees could have upgraded facilities and brand new surroundings...why would you NOT want to?
4) Everyone needs options, that's what makes this America
The key is keeping our established companies and luring new companies via new high class office space, and then back-filling the built space with young companies. Then repeat. And repeat, etc.
^^Many older buildings have physical and technological constraints that cause them to be deemed all but obsolete by many established (Read: LARGE) companies.
1) The data load required by virtually all companies now is exponentially larger than it was when these building were built, and many simply are not wired to handle the current needs of these company's employees. Some of the buildings are extremely hard to upgrade, and others literally cannot be upgraded to the necessary requirements.
2) Physically, many of the buildings that are current options simply are not built to modern standards and are seen as vastly sub-par from an occupancy standpoint. In an age where effeciency (particularly regarding energy) is everything, companies use all the PR they can, especially in regards to being "green." The largest way they do this is through occupying LEED certified buildings, virtually all of which are relatively new construction. This theoretically saves on cost and provides vvaluable PR for the company. Often, this refers to floor to cieling windows with energy saving glass and the size of the floorplates in addition to physical components such as building waste management/water/energy usage. You cannot retro-fit an existing building to have different size windows or floorplates.
3) They desire high quality surroundings. If your company is making money and your employees could have upgraded facilities and brand new surroundings...why would you NOT want to?
4) Everyone needs options, that's what makes this America
The key is keeping our established companies and luring new companies via new high class office space, and then back-filling the built space with young companies. Then repeat. And repeat, etc.
This is because they are using the old renderings. What they show in the rendering is not what is currently proposed.kopper wrote:I think the building, while not the most attractive I've ever seen, just looks ugly in that rendering. If you watch the 3-D rendering of BPV in the video on the BPV page at the Cardinal's website, it doesn't look nearly that bad (they also say it's supposed to be 14 stories, not 13). In fact, it looks completely different, although they do use that same image later in the video (What?). That page also says it will have "bleachers with views into Busch Stadium." Bleachers on an office building? I suppose they mean at the top... but who knows. You can easily see the "decks" with ballpark views, which look pretty cool but appear to be just patios, not bleachers. Anyway, watch that video to see what I mean. I actually like the overall look of the proposed development and its density, and yes, they do say it's supposed to get started this summer. I called the Cardinals' front office today and the guy who answered said the same thing, but offered nothing more on it.
Also, that video raised my blood pressure by at least a factor of 5. Was that serious? His phone went off during the interview. Talk about focus and commitment. They also state they are aiming to develop two blocks firstnext to the stadium. This is even more of a travesty, as this means another one of the most prime blocks is not even going to have a tower, but low-rise retail on the whole thing. Jesus. The blatent disregard for potential and risk is absolutely eating me up.