Chemical Building - 777 Olive Street

irocktheparty2000 · PostSep 28, 2006#1012006-09-28T21:17+00:00

vollum wrote:Lowest priced unit (756 Sq. ft) is $170,418 on the lowest floor and $193,808 on the highest floor...Lowest priced 2BR2BA (1,178sq ft) is $265,545 on the lowest floor and $301,992 on the highest floor. There are 3 2BR 2BA plans. Also some 3BR plans with 2 or 2.5BAs.

So pre-construction prices are set at $225 - $250 a SF.

urban elitist · PostSep 28, 2006#1022006-09-28T21:21+00:00

irocktheparty2000 wrote:
vollum wrote:Lowest priced unit (756 Sq. ft) is $170,418 on the lowest floor and $193,808 on the highest floor...Lowest priced 2BR2BA (1,178sq ft) is $265,545 on the lowest floor and $301,992 on the highest floor. There are 3 2BR 2BA plans. Also some 3BR plans with 2 or 2.5BAs.

So pre-construction prices are set at $225 - $250 a SF.

Egads!

gerwitz · PostSep 28, 2006#1032006-09-28T21:27+00:00

More precisely, $219 (954 sq ft for $208,724) through $294 (3339 sq ft penthouse for $981,432)

Interestingly, the highest cost/foot for a non-penthouse is one of the smallest units: 696 sq ft on the 17th floor for $201,499 (that's $290/sq ft for the arithmetic-averse). I assume that's got a killer view, because this building sure has some.

debaliviere · PostMar 02, 2007#1042007-03-02T14:24+00:00

Update from the P-D:

DOWNTOWN REHAB: Chemical Building gets $1 million in credits

03/02/2007

The Missouri Department of Economic Development awarded $1 million in brownfield redevelopment credits for the Chemical Building, a 17-story building at 721 Olive Street in downtown St. Louis. Civitas Development, the Los Angeles-based owner of the building, is planning a $22 million rehabilitation for mixed use, including retail on the first floor and apartments and condos above it.

The building, which will be renamed The Alexa, needs massive environmental cleanup, officials said. The owner also is seeking between $5 million and $6 million in state and federal historic tax credits for the renovation.

steve · PostMar 02, 2007#1052007-03-02T16:16+00:00

The Chemical Bldg needs environmental cleanup? Who knew?

Anyway, good news. When is this puppy supposed to get started again?

the central scrutinizer · PostMar 02, 2007#1062007-03-02T17:18+00:00

steve wrote:When is this puppy supposed to get started again?

I don't know. When did it start the first time?

sftostl · PostMar 02, 2007#1072007-03-02T19:42+00:00

I've been in communication with the sales guy here. According to his last email to me on 01/30/07:

"...As far as our deposit we require $2,500 to make a reservation (refundable for 14-days) then an additional $2,500 after the 14th day and then 4% (including the above $5,000) of the total purchase price 60-days after the 2nd deposit.

Also we anticipate having the building ready for occupancy late 2008 or early 2009."

This is really all I can contribute at this point.

jcity · PostMar 05, 2007#1082007-03-05T02:49+00:00

I like the name Chemical Building better than the Alexa.

stldtfan · PostMar 05, 2007#1092007-03-05T03:27+00:00

I like Alexa. It is so East STL.......

framer · PostMar 05, 2007#1102007-03-05T04:33+00:00

It'll always be The Chemical Building to me.

stldtfan · PostMar 05, 2007#1112007-03-05T15:04+00:00

I like Alexa, Alexus or Jasmine......

So on a less humorous note... when did the name change occur? Does anyone know why? Developer's daughter's name perhaps?

MattnSTL · PostMar 05, 2007#1122007-03-05T16:05+00:00

^You got it.

Expat · PostApr 05, 2007#1132007-04-05T15:06+00:00

vollum wrote:The website mentions valet parking. I wonder if the condos in this development will include on site parking spaces?

It sounds like they are creating underground parking. No better sign of a city on the mend.

mikel · PostMay 17, 2007#1142007-05-17T14:04+00:00

A construction fence on the Olive Street side went up yesterday from the main entrance east to the alley. I wonder if that means major interior demolition work will accelerate.

Also Dooley said he has three years on his lease. You can only get in his place now from 8th street.

shadrach · PostMay 17, 2007#1152007-05-17T14:20+00:00

I love Dooley's. I worry about their fate.

I'm reminded of DeeDees, another great place that Downtown misses.

southcitygent · PostJun 21, 2007#1162007-06-21T15:51+00:00

I drove by last night and noticed a handwritten sign on the construction fence that said something like "Missouri tax breaks for out of town workers". Does anyone know what that’s about? I shudder to think it might be related to the construction arson.

innov8ion · PostJun 21, 2007#1172007-06-21T16:22+00:00

southcitygent wrote:I drove by last night and noticed a handwritten sign on the construction fence that said something like "Missouri tax breaks for out of town workers". Does anyone know what that’s about? I shudder to think it might be related to the construction arson.

What construction arson? At the Alexa? And I had seen union personnel protesting outside the Alexa.

stldtfan · PostJun 21, 2007#1182007-06-21T17:43+00:00

southcityagent might be referring to the Arson in CWE last weekend. Unions can protest (and they always do), but I really hope it is some looney, rather than an organized unit responsible for these arsons. I would hate to think that any "sane" person would sabotage any project.

doug · PostJun 21, 2007#1192007-06-21T18:33+00:00

Dooleys could open at the Truman.

southcitygent · PostJun 21, 2007#1202007-06-21T19:29+00:00

Why are the unions protesting this project?

bastiat · PostJun 21, 2007#1212007-06-21T19:37+00:00

southcitygent wrote:Why are the unions protesting this project?

If what has been posted is true, the owner has contracted workers other than union workers. This means that the owner does not have to pay the inflated price of the union workers. This means less work for unions. If allowed to go on, very few people would bother hiring the unions. Hence, the animosity of union members towards non-union members and the people who hire them.

This leads to speculation that unions try to limit others from hiring who they wish by sabotaging their projects. I too, hope it is not true. Could you imagine the Chemical Building go up in flames?

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 21, 2007#1222007-06-21T19:41+00:00

Bastiat wrote:
southcitygent wrote:Why are the unions protesting this project?

If what has been posted is true, the owner has contracted workers other than union workers. This means that the owner does not have to pay the inflated price of the union workers. This means less work for unions. If allowed to go on, very few people would bother hiring the unions. Hence, the animosity of union members towards non-union members and the people who hire them.

This leads to speculation that unions try to limit others from hiring who they wish by sabotaging their projects. I too, hope it is not true. Could you imagine the Chemical Building go up in flames?

I guess if enough projects are burned, insurance companies may not insure future projects? I don't know - it seems that if you burn a building being built by non-union employees, that they will just start over and the non-union employees will have more work!

Expat · PostJun 22, 2007#1232007-06-22T01:43+00:00

We can count on Bastiat to take that leap. I am assuming the Alexa hasn't gone up in flames, so no need to go there

.

shinpickle · PostJun 22, 2007#1242007-06-22T14:25+00:00

It would be pretty tough to burn down the Chemical Bld, all the floors are concrete.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 22, 2007#1252007-06-22T15:13+00:00

shinpickle wrote:It would be pretty tough to burn down the Chemical Bld, all the floors are concrete.

Yeah, but I bet some of those chemicals are flamable!

Chemical Building - 777 Olive Street

Choose Display Mode