I also thought those renderings made that office tower look significantly bigger, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
For sure. I saw 9 floors of office space on that other one and assumed it had more space than the 4 floors of office in the Pennant Building despite the smaller floor plan. A harmless mistake, or so I thoughtKansasCitian wrote:I also thought those renderings made that office tower look significantly bigger, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
- 2,386
Edit: Nothing rude nor condescending in any of the above. SC4Mayor, you made a random uniformed comment dismissing the ability of St. Louis to fill a smaller office building than has already been leased in its spot. That's not rude, that's correcting your lazy mistake.urbanitas wrote:No, no, it is entirely my fault. I should have anticipated your assumptions and reflexive need for a defensive response, and provided a link for you with all of the relevant project information...sc4mayor wrote:My apologizes, no need to be rude about it.....urbanitas wrote: LOL. It's an 85000 sf office building, with 5000 sf of retail, and 3 parking levels...
It is also at least $12 million cheaper than the Pennant building, and yet the design is 100x superior aesthetically.
It looks significantly larger than the Pennant Building.
Edit 2: That said, I do rather like the rendering you posted and that would be an excellent addition to downtown. Nice find.
^ Fully admitted to that mistake, I thought the building in the rendering was larger than it is. Like I said I apologize.
For what it's worth, the Pennant Building isn't opening fully leased and other proposed office projects haven't had that much luck in the downtown area, including the Cupples X proposal not far from this site. The vacancy rate downtown is 18.7%, so filling office space is obviously a bit of an issue. I wouldn't really consider downtown's challenge in filling office space an uniformed or lazy comment.
For what it's worth, the Pennant Building isn't opening fully leased and other proposed office projects haven't had that much luck in the downtown area, including the Cupples X proposal not far from this site. The vacancy rate downtown is 18.7%, so filling office space is obviously a bit of an issue. I wouldn't really consider downtown's challenge in filling office space an uniformed or lazy comment.
- 2,386
^Agreed on the office space issues. Definitely are, but with PWC leasing ~60K sq ft that would be more than enough alone to construct the other building you posted as well.
I don't think there's disagreement on the challenges and headwinds, the main thing that gets me (and quite a few others that have been here for a long time) is dismissal of St. Louis as "worthy" or "able" for developments that aren't even second guessed in many cities tiers below ours. I've had a longstanding belief that this type of thinking is a large part of what's been holding our region back from more explosive growth seen in some other peer to slightly larger cities. So I have a natural pre-disposition to react poorly to such things.
Carry on.
I don't think there's disagreement on the challenges and headwinds, the main thing that gets me (and quite a few others that have been here for a long time) is dismissal of St. Louis as "worthy" or "able" for developments that aren't even second guessed in many cities tiers below ours. I've had a longstanding belief that this type of thinking is a large part of what's been holding our region back from more explosive growth seen in some other peer to slightly larger cities. So I have a natural pre-disposition to react poorly to such things.
Carry on.
Hey man I'm right there with ya. I was not at all trying to put down St. Louis or say the city wasn't worthy of such projects. I think most of this just stems from me being mistaken on the size of the building when I first saw it lol. PwC could totally fill that one urbanitas posted, now that I know what the square footage is haha.newstl2020 wrote: I don't think there's disagreement on the challenges and headwinds, the main thing that gets me (and quite a few others that have been here for a long time) is dismissal of St. Louis as "worthy" or "able" for developments that aren't even second guessed in many cities tiers below ours. I've had a longstanding belief that this type of thinking is a large part of what's been holding our region back from more explosive growth seen in some other peer to slightly larger cities. So I have a natural pre-disposition to react poorly to such things.
I 100% agree about getting fired up over the opinion that some have that St. Louis doesn't deserve such things. Believe me, I'm no different and I don't share that opinion. If St. Louis is worthy of a project like One Hundred, it's worthy of dozens of buildings like the ones pictured here.
The parking podium should be under the future (taller) building just north of the current Pennant Building. The Pennant Building should have no podium whatsoever. I believe this was a fundamental design error in the complex. The first six floors of a new building just north of the Pennant will have no south facing view now (unless they build another podium under the new building).
Definitely will be another garage unless they work out a deal with the Busch West garage.STLinCHI wrote:The first six floors of a new building just north of the Pennant will have no south facing view now (unless they build another podium under the new building).
- 2,386
^What would a deal with the Busch West garage have to do with below grade parking for a future tower on this site?
(I would imagine the cost of below grade is 100% driving this decision and would imagine all future phases will have parking podiums as well, unfortunately)
(I would imagine the cost of below grade is 100% driving this decision and would imagine all future phases will have parking podiums as well, unfortunately)
Below grade is a possibility, but if they can add several floors of parking to have a better view for a higher rent, they'll do that. And, digging down is expensive. When Phase 2 was originally unveiled, the office and hotel would've had underground parking, but the cost was determined to be too much, so they brought the parking up and built accordingly.newstl2020 wrote:^What would a deal with the Busch West garage have to do with below grade parking for a future tower on this site?
(I would imagine the cost of below grade is 100% driving this decision and would imagine all future phases will have parking podiums as well, unfortunately)
- 2,386
^Yes, as with all things DeWitt it seems to come down to how little they can spend 
True, but I would hope future phases use higher quality materials. This Phase is fine with materials, but the future phases need to stand out a bit. Parking screens shouldn't be so prevalent especially since they'll be covering the other buildings. Who knows, and this is a big maybe, maybe they'll big a gigantic garage on one of the parcels and build non-garage buildings on the other two parcels. I wouldn't like that unless the garage could be built upon at a later time.newstl2020 wrote:^Yes, as with all things DeWitt it seems to come down to how little they can spend
- 2,386
Oof. I really hope not. A standalone garage on one of the remaining parcels would be an unmitigated disaster. Luckily there's no signs they have any intention of doing so, especially considering they could have very easily and very cheaply done this immediately after completing the bar-mahal.
Expect Cordish / Cardinals to utilize in future phases, whatever formula generated the best return in the first two phases. Don't forget that this entire project is about capturing as much indirect ballpark-generated spending as possible. In their ideal world, every single visitor to Busch (Enterprise too for that matter) would drink at their bars, eat at their restaurants, stay in their hotel rooms, park in their garages, and even live in their apartments...
Below-grade parking costs at least 2.5x more per space. The city didn't demand it, so why would they spend more than they need to for the same amount of revenue? And, of all the potential uses, demand for ballpark-adjacent parking seems to be the least satiable. So, don't be surprised when whatever is eventually built on that NW corner lot gets a parking podium nearly as tall as the Pennant building.
Below-grade parking costs at least 2.5x more per space. The city didn't demand it, so why would they spend more than they need to for the same amount of revenue? And, of all the potential uses, demand for ballpark-adjacent parking seems to be the least satiable. So, don't be surprised when whatever is eventually built on that NW corner lot gets a parking podium nearly as tall as the Pennant building.
- 2,632
Is it me, or has ballpark parking skyrocketed in value the past couple of years? Drove past a $40 lot yesterday, still almost full.
^ I was at a day game a few weeks ago and the lots south of the highway were all around $25 or so. But $40 wouldn’t shock me at all. Especially closer to the ballpark.
- 2,419
As development (hopefully) ramps up around that area in the coming years, it wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing more and more fans willing to pay $40 or more for the convenience of a surface lot.
It's why I keep saying that I'm rooting for parking podiums on all of the remaining Ballpark Village parcels. I'd like to see the ballpark garages and surface lots squeezed by competition from the Cardinals/Cordish.
It's why I keep saying that I'm rooting for parking podiums on all of the remaining Ballpark Village parcels. I'd like to see the ballpark garages and surface lots squeezed by competition from the Cardinals/Cordish.
- 1,864
Is it possible that they're also increasing prices as the season comes to an end and the playoff race is coming down to the wire? I'm sure there's some dynamic pricing involved as they know there's greater interest as the Cards go into these last few home stretches in a tight NL Central race.
^ Excellent point. In my uneducated guess I would say that's probably what it is. The more important these games get the more people will be willing to pay to park at them.
- 596
A few pics I taken today while on one of the short riverboat cruise. ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gives a bit more perspective in how OCW fits in the skyline ![]()
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The PwC Pennant Building is coming along. Looks like bricks in palettes for the street or sidewalk.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()







^ Thanks for the pics Chris! Do you know what those metal things are for that are sticking out of the Pennant garage?



