Centene Corporation HQs

juiceinkirkwood · PostJan 07, 2009#3262009-01-07T19:09+00:00

2taall wrote:Let's not build anything big. Let's stay as little as our St. Louis minds.

You guys win.

Just curious, why is it always new forum members that can't seem to argue with a level head and logic? Why do they resort to insulting when people disagree with them?

moorlander · PostJan 07, 2009#3272009-01-07T19:11+00:00

^huh?

2taall

junior member

Joined: 07 Jul 2005

threeonefour · PostJan 07, 2009#3282009-01-07T22:30+00:00

2taall wrote:Let's not build anything big. Let's stay as little as our St. Louis minds.

You guys win.

I hesitate to say this, because I don't think another debate about building height vs. overall density is what this conversation needs, but I prefer horizontal density to vertical density FWIW.

In most parts of the city, I'd rather have 20 buildings with five stories than one 100-story tower. If we're talking about downtown specifically, I'd rather have five 20-story buildings than one 100-story structure. While a supertall structure would make St. Louis postcards a bit more interesting, shorter and more numerous structures could fill in the many gaps in our urban fabric and IMHO would do more to add to street-level activity.

Centene shaving a few stories off their Clayton tower isn't a big deal to me. I just wish this was going up in downtown St. Louis instead.

jmedwick · PostJan 07, 2009#3292009-01-07T22:41+00:00

ThreeOneFour wrote:I just wish this was going up in downtown St. Louis instead.

And as an addendum, I am happy to see this going up in downtown Clayton rather than as some office park in the Valley or St. Charles.

juiceinkirkwood · PostJan 08, 2009#3302009-01-08T01:21+00:00

Moorlander wrote:^huh?

2taall

junior member

Joined: 07 Jul 2005

I was looking more at 107 posts. I was a member here for a year without posting or even lurking.

threeonefour · PostJan 08, 2009#3312009-01-08T01:45+00:00

JMedwick wrote:And as an addendum, I am happy to see this going up in downtown Clayton rather than as some office park in the Valley or St. Charles.

Agreed. I know my previous comments weren't all that objective.

framer · PostJan 08, 2009#3322009-01-08T06:05+00:00

This is funny stuff:

It seems that some of the residents of the Crescent (a nine-story condo building in the heart of downtown Clayton, mind you) are complaining about the possibility of additional floors on Centenne's second tower. I guess it will block their views or something. Never mind that there's already a 30-story tower right across the street from their front door, not to mention the rest of the highrises in Clayton!

Mark Mehlman, the Crescent's developer, says some of his buyers have threatened to sell their units if the second Centenne tower is higher than 11 floors.

Read about this and a bunch of other Centenne updates in this week's West End Word.

debaliviere · PostJan 08, 2009#3332009-01-08T14:28+00:00

Framer wrote:This is funny stuff:

It seems that some of the residents of the Crescent (a nine-story condo building in the heart of downtown Clayton, mind you) are complaining about the possibility of additional floors on Centenne's second tower. I guess it will block their views or something. Never mind that there's already a 30-story tower right across the street from their front door, not to mention the rest of the highrises in Clayton!

Mark Mehlman, the Crescent's developer, says some of his buyers have threatened to sell their units if the second Centenne tower is higher than 11 floors.

Read about this and a bunch of other Centenne updates in this week's West End Word.

They (Centene) wouldn't have had that problem downtown. Or the eminent domain issues. F-em.

dredger · PostJan 08, 2009#3342009-01-08T16:20+00:00

Maybe those who are threatening should call the Koplar family about building the tower at Kingshighway and Lindell (hopefully I spelled and/or at least got the owner right). They would get a much better western view overlooking Forest Park as well as getting a great sunset, full sunlight during the second half of the day and a great neighborhood to boot.

framer · PostJan 09, 2009#3352009-01-09T05:15+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:

They (Centene) wouldn't have had that problem downtown. Or the eminent domain issues. F-em.

I don't blame Centene for the Downtown fiasco. After all, they wanted to move Downtown; they tried to move Downtown. I'm sure the City did everything they could to get them Downtown. I put the deal's failure squarely on Cordish's shoulders (of course, I wasn't in the boardroom, so it's just speculation on my part).

newstl2020 · PostJan 26, 2009#3362009-01-26T17:44+00:00

Looks like they are excavating the basement levels by the webcam view today. Should see some real progress soon.

debaliviere · PostJan 26, 2009#3372009-01-26T18:35+00:00

Framer wrote:
DeBaliviere wrote:

They (Centene) wouldn't have had that problem downtown. Or the eminent domain issues. F-em.

I don't blame Centene for the Downtown fiasco. After all, they wanted to move Downtown; they tried to move Downtown. I'm sure the City did everything they could to get them Downtown. I put the deal's failure squarely on Cordish's shoulders (of course, I wasn't in the boardroom, so it's just speculation on my part).

Yeah, but if they really wanted to be downtown, they could have chosen another location besides Ballpark Village.

kustramo · PostJan 28, 2009#3382009-01-28T00:24+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:
Framer wrote:
DeBaliviere wrote:

They (Centene) wouldn't have had that problem downtown. Or the eminent domain issues. F-em.

I don't blame Centene for the Downtown fiasco. After all, they wanted to move Downtown; they tried to move Downtown. I'm sure the City did everything they could to get them Downtown. I put the deal's failure squarely on Cordish's shoulders (of course, I wasn't in the boardroom, so it's just speculation on my part).

Yeah, but if they really wanted to be downtown, they could have chosen another location besides Ballpark Village.

Yeah, I would have to agree with that. There are plenty of spaces to build downtown, yet they ended up getting what they wanted in the first place. It seemed like a power play to me.

jcity · PostJan 31, 2009#3392009-01-31T23:18+00:00

the residents of the Crescent?! haha. what a joke. maybe they need to move out of Clayton then. ooh, the new tower will be too tall.

2taall · PostFeb 01, 2009#3402009-02-01T19:27+00:00

Did anyone find out if the tower is only 17 floors or are they continuing with the 23 or 24 stories?

moorlander · PostFeb 01, 2009#3412009-02-01T19:28+00:00

just 17 unless another tenant is found asap.

framer · PostFeb 03, 2009#3422009-02-03T04:54+00:00

Here's a link to the West End Word article I mentioned a while back. It's full of good info:

http://www.westendword.com/NC/0/1183.html

2taall · PostFeb 04, 2009#3432009-02-04T05:36+00:00

I would hate to this building just be another stubby 15-17 floor on the Clayton skyline, especially given the prominant location.

moorlander · PostFeb 10, 2009#3442009-02-10T18:41+00:00

Centene project scaled back, new investor named

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ily29.html

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 10, 2009#3452009-02-10T18:45+00:00

^ All-in-all not bad I say. a bit smaller, but still substantially larger than what was there before.

moorlander · PostFeb 10, 2009#3462009-02-10T18:46+00:00

^ exactly... it should fit in nicely.

Pending approval from the board of alderman, construction could begin within weeks.

This was my favorite quote. I look forward to seeing the cranes out my window.

framer · PostFeb 11, 2009#3472009-02-11T05:11+00:00

I just hope they don't cheap-out on the design and materials. This could end up being one of the nicer buildings in Clayton, if done right. Quality in modern architecture is all in the details.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 11, 2009#3482009-02-11T16:09+00:00

Clayton OKs smaller Centene project

By Margaret Gillerman

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

02/11/2009

CLAYTON — Clayton officials approved a revised redevelopment agreement Tuesday night for the Centene Corp. headquarters project that adds an investor— the Koman Group — and paves the way for construction to begin promptly on a 17-story office and retail tower.

The new agreement reduces the size of the project — knocking four stories off the tower — and reduces the estimated cost to $186 million from $215 million.

"This is the final piece that needs to be done in the private-public partnership," said Michael Tobin, a vice president of Chicago-based U.S. Equities.

Tobin added that construction should begin "as soon as possible." His firm and St. Louis-based Clayco are the other partners in the project.

Clayton officials said the new agreement means greater tax revenue protection for the city.

moorlander · PostFeb 11, 2009#3492009-02-11T16:29+00:00

The amount of retail in the project has been reduced to 28,125 square feet instead of 34,000 square feet. A new stipulation of the redevelopment agreement requires the developers of the project — St. Louis-based Clayco and Chicago-based U.S. Equities — to provide PILOTs of $2 per square foot for first floor retail tenants that do not generate retail tax revenue.

I'm not firmiliar with PILOT's. Can anyone shed some light?

mill204 · PostFeb 11, 2009#3502009-02-11T16:41+00:00

Intro paragraph of the wikipedia article:

A PILOT is a payment in lieu of taxes (also sometimes abbreviated "PILT"), made to compensate a local government for some or all of the tax revenue that it loses because of the nature of the ownership or use of a particular piece of real property. Usually it relates to the foregone property tax revenue.

Centene Corporation HQs

Choose Display Mode