urbanSTL

On the Aquarium Idea:

Downtown Kansas city is getting an aquarium. It will be going into an existing department store within an already very 'kid friendly complex' (Crown Center – where I work). The department store is looking to downsize and the area (headquarters of Hallmark) is looking for a new draw for kids/families, so they are converting 1/2 of the up-scale department store into an small aquarium ($15M -2 stories - 100,000 sq ft):

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... t-15m.html

This "Sea Life" company has aquariums all over the world. In America they have several that are open and one in Mall of America and another in Dallas both opening this year. I think something like this would be a great addition to the Forest Park ‘neighborhood’.

^ Should be a new topic. Can moderators move it?

$15 mil for a 100,000 sqft aquarium... that sounds like it will be a gold fish only aquarium.


Consider this. The St. Louis Science Center is spending $10 million for a 12,000 sqft expansion which is only a HALL! Nothing actually inside of it.
I mean the maintenance cost of an aquarium must be outrageous as well.

That's much more than simple construction cost, if that is an accurate figure. 10M/12K sf = $834.00/sf.

^^ This is very cheap – compared to Atlanta’s $250-$300M (world class) behemoth. Also - no tax subsidies were planned/announced. Actually has me scared as to how "cheesy" this is going to be.

Halls is an existing building with extensive attached parking. I can only assume they picked this location because they don't need to do too much structural rehab. Keeps the cost down. Plus they aren't going for Sea World here. “Plans call for the aquarium to feature 30 displays of marine life, including sharks, rays and seahorses, as well as regional freshwater fish.” (from http://www.kmbc.com/r/26806881/detail.html) Imagine World Aquarium (City Museum) meets Bass Pro and Cabelas (fish displays) but larger. I would doubt any science will go on here, as this will be considered an amusement park as much as anything (if it is like the others ones in Tempe of Cali), but kids don’t care about that.

Private developers like Sea Life Centres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Life_Centres) come to cities like KC (not just LA or NYC) and create a money making “cultural attraction” without city help. They seem to be working with the city here and surrounding development to help promote itself while not asking for any money. I don’t know how many family/school visits Crown Center gets every year but the number is in the tens or hundreds of thousands. School buses by the hundreds will be dropping kids off by the thousands, year round in KC.
St. Louis has a world class zoo visited by MILLIONS of people, many of them families with kids, and it is located directly across the street. The science center is less than a mile down the same street (Oakland Ave.) The area (FP hospital) is primed for a development like this (but hopefully bigger).

I was at the Ellendale Neighborhood Assn. meeting last night. Alderman Waterhouse answered a few questions about development in the 24th Ward, and mentioned more or less in passing that the FP Hospital property was going to be sold for $20 million and the buildings are going to be demolished. He did not mention who the buyer was or what plan the buyer may have in mind. I don't have any other details. What is frustrating to me, as a resident of the ward, is that apparently the alderman knows about a big project coming down the pipeline that will clearly have a big impact on the neighborhood, but there is no engagement with the community on the issue. I understand that he may not know an abundance of details either, but I think it would be healthy to share what's in the works with the community. Ideally this would be through a 24th ward website so everyone in the neighborhood with an interest could find out some info as details emerge. The fact is that right now, unless you regularly attend the NA meetings, which most people can't do, its really difficult to get any info on whats happening in the neighborhood. Any project involving this much property at a busy intersection, with dense residential to one side and a park entrance to the other needs both community input and some good design requirements. Big projects in this ward do not have a good track record for urban design (St. Louis Marketplace, Restaurant Depot) and I worry that this could be another case where "junk" gets built and we have to live with it for 50 years.

Scott Ogilvie
Independent for Alderman Ward 24
ward24stl.com

DaronDierkes wrote:Neighborhood Association meetings (depending on the neighborhood) don't happen often enough to actually keep people informed. Neighborhood newsletters are helpful, but you're right a regularly maintained website would be very helpful.

John and I are obviously going to be upset if the hospital get's destroyed. The past few decades have proven that St. Louis cannot replace torn down buildings with better ones, and your two examples, St. Louis Marketplace and Restaurant Depot, are very good reasons to be alarmed. Why did we destroy the St. Louis Arena? What are we using that land for now?

While I don't disagree, the Hospital would be very difficult to retrofit for some other use. I also believe that most of the buildings are is pretty rough shape. At the very least those buildings would need a ton of work. The parking garage on Hampton is literally crumbling, so that for sure has to go. Also, the building configuration is awkward for most other uses.

With all that said, I will be disappointed if they put in Junk like whats being proposed by SLU High.

I understand the need and desire to keep old buildings. They usually have aesthetic appeal, they tell us about our culture/history, and they provide space for small businesses. However, there needs to be an integration of old and new buildings (I prefer more older ones).

If there is someone buying this property we should find out who it is and submit conceptual proposals that make this a legitimate TOD.

A retrofit here would be difficult if not a clinical use like the excellent idea of an animal hospital, because of the complex and expensive infrastructure hospitals are laden with. Seth proposed a possible mixed-use with residential, but I'd just simply say that unless there is proven higher value-in-use in demolition and reconstruction (and we haven't heard anything yet from the alderman or anyone else), the sustainability of adaptive reuse MUST trump anything else. Closing business is not an acceptable excuse to demolish a soon-to-be vacant complex. The FPH is not McDonald's (who does typically demolish buildings immediately following a store closure so as to not leave any appearance of company blight). This building could be suitable for many things, and I'm going over there now to check it out.

john w. wrote:A retrofit here would be difficult if not a clinical use like the excellent idea of an animal hospital, because of the complex and expensive infrastructure hospitals are laden with. Seth proposed a possible mixed-use with residential, but I'd just simply say that unless there is proven higher value-in-use in demolition and reconstruction (and we haven't heard anything yet from the alderman or anyone else), the sustainability of adaptive reuse MUST trump anything else. Closing business is not an acceptable excuse to demolish a soon-to-be vacant complex. The FPH is not McDonald's (who does typically demolish buildings immediately following a store closure so as to not leave any appearance of company blight). This building could be suitable for many things, and I'm going over there now to check it out.

My father used to work there from the time it was Deaconess till just after its time as a Tenet Hospital. Part of the reason it remained in use was in part due to the commitment of the people like my father and his bosses making every effort to keep the building complex full. This was by no means an easy task. With SLU and BJC continuing to expand and provide the newest technology, the downsizing of FPH became imminent. FPH struggled to maintain tenets and make necessary upgrades under any of the controlling powers. Being under Tenet didn't make matters any easier, but I will stop short of acknowledging anything further regarding Tenet's corporate failures.

Regardless, that hospital was designed based on an outdated model. Even if it were to be used by clinical tenants, it is not a very user/worker friendly building. Then factor in the costs to upgrade that building and things become tough. Also, those in the medical fields like to have their services located closely to other medical facilities. Thats why you see so many places with some version of the "medical mile". This is especially true for research facilities. If this were to merely be doctors offices it would be a waste of the space, given that no collection of offices would likely fill even a majority of this space...unless there was a major tenant, which brings us back to my above comments.

If Waterhouse is right, which he is often aware of property exchange and development before the media or the community, then it seems others have come to the same conclusion I am making (not that my conclusion is 100% correct by any means) .

I also feel that given the City of STL continues to look for ways to grow and improve it tax base, population and work force, this site could be beneficial. Building a better version of the Highlands on the FPH site, especially if it is a TOD, would be good for the city.

Now, if some of the buildings could be salvaged, then so be it. We need to be more sustainable in our building practices.

I'm not completely opposed to demolition - I think this could have continued as a viable hospital complex without the recent mismanagement (none of which was local) - but if the air has gone out of it, and it can't compete with nearby options, then so be it.

This is PRIME real estate, right by two highways, not overly far from Metro, and with a view to the park and Zoo (which has 3 million annual visitors). For both the Ward and the City - whatever is developed here (again, all speculation given my limited info) needs to be something that will serve us well for decades to come. It would be a disaster otherwise, and I fear that given our outmoded zoning and recent examples in the Ward, there's a danger that not enough thought will go into it - it will just be sold as "X million dollar development coming to Dogtown."

So what would serve us well? Any number of things, it could be office / institutional space, retail, apartments / condos - but most appropriately for an area this large - all three. Even more importantly, it needs to connect with the rest of the neighborhood - it needs to make the pedestrian experience on Hampton / Oakland / Clayton better, not worse - it needs to address these streets with doors, not parking lots, and perhaps the part requiring the most vision, it needs to leave open the possibility of incorporating future public transportation developments. That sentence was really long. What are some future transit opportunities? Maybe its a station for the Hampton Bus to meet with BRT down 64 and 44? Maybe its a future terminus for an expanded Delmar Trolley that runs through the Park and past the Zoo? If this seems pie-in-the sky - keep in mind that there is another large space - the old Fox 2 building / helipad - directly across the street. This is a big intersection that abuts a dense neighborhood - lets push for something that serves all of us for decades into the future.

Scott Ogilvie
Independent for Alderman Ward 24
ward24stl.com

ward24stl wrote:I'm not completely opposed to demolition - I think this could have continued as a viable hospital complex without the recent mismanagement (none of which was local) - but if the air has gone out of it, and it can't compete with nearby options, then so be it.

This is PRIME real estate, right by two highways, not overly far from Metro, and with a view to the park and Zoo (which has 3 million annual visitors). For both the Ward and the City - whatever is developed here (again, all speculation given my limited info) needs to be something that will serve us well for decades to come. It would be a disaster otherwise, and I fear that given our outmoded zoning and recent examples in the Ward, there's a danger that not enough thought will go into it - it will just be sold as "X million dollar development coming to Dogtown."

So what would serve us well? Any number of things, it could be office / institutional space, retail, apartments / condos - but most appropriately for an area this large - all three. Even more importantly, it needs to connect with the rest of the neighborhood - it needs to make the pedestrian experience on Hampton / Oakland / Clayton better, not worse - it needs to address these streets with doors, not parking lots, and perhaps the part requiring the most vision, it needs to leave open the possibility of incorporating future public transportation developments. That sentence was really long. What are some future transit opportunities? Maybe its a station for the Hampton Bus to meet with BRT down 64 and 44? Maybe its a future terminus for an expanded Delmar Trolley that runs through the Park and past the Zoo? If this seems pie-in-the sky - keep in mind that there is another large space - the old Fox 2 building / helipad - directly across the street. This is a big intersection that abuts a dense neighborhood - lets push for something that serves all of us for decades into the future.

Scott Ogilvie
Independent for Alderman Ward 24
ward24stl.com

I too share many of these thoughts. With this being such a prime location visually, in proximity and from a transportation perspective, I could have a large impact on the development in not only Dogtown, but the city as a whole. With the Highlands, the FPH site, the Fox site and vacant space in "downtown Dogtown", there could be big things that happen here. But, as you suggested, we have to be careful to do things right or a negative precedent will be set merely for the sake of any development being good development.

The building itself appears in fine condition, as I walked down its first floor halls after work this afternoon. I couldn't take photos because security was visible and watching, but I was told by a knowledgeable security person that the current tenant, Success Health Care, is engaged in a lawsuit with the owners, which is a collective group of doctors. Reportedly, the current tenant is owed money by the building's owners for maintenance costs, and this remains unresolved. It was confirmed that only psychiatric and emergency room services are operating at this hospital (apparently actually known as St. Alexis hospital and not FPH), and the grounds were barren. The building condition was visibly excellent, however it physically may not provide for the type of operational efficiency now expected by contemporary institutional medical care facilities like a modern hospital. It's inarguably well situated at this intersection, and so some sort of TOD would make a lot of sense.

john w. wrote:The building itself appears in fine condition, as I walked down its first floor halls after work this afternoon. I couldn't take photos because security was visible and watching, but I was told by a knowledgeable security person that the current tenant, Success Health Care, is engaged in a lawsuit with the owners, which is a collective group of doctors. Reportedly, the current tenant is owed money by the building's owners for maintenance costs, and this remains unresolved. It was confirmed that only psychiatric and emergency room services are operating at this hospital (apparently actually known as St. Alexis hospital and not FPH), and the grounds were barren. The building condition was visibly excellent, however it physically may not provide for the type of operational efficiency now expected by contemporary institutional medical care facilities like a modern hospital. It's inarguably well situated at this intersection, and so some sort of TOD would make a lot of sense.

Even if the building is in visually excellent condition, is it worth preserving without a major medical/clinical tenant?
Could other uses be possible via retrofit?

the central scrutinizer wrote:

zun1026 wrote:Even if the building is in visually excellent condition, is it worth preserving without a major medical/clinical tenet?
Could other uses be possible via retrofit?

FYI: It's tenant.

That what happens when you rush through a post. ...and have Tenet on your mind

$18.9 for most, but not all of the buildings... over 500,000 sq.ft. of space.

Who would/could buy that?

It seems that site could be getting closer to reaching a new use.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ it's a huge site - a commercial developer might. I don't know enough to know if that price is ridiculous or not.

I wonder what a developer would want with that? I can't see much else working in there other than something medical or educational.

^ I could see residential as a possible reuse. My guess, it sits for a while and is eventually torn down for new construction. It's a fantastic location. New construction here, and at the old Fox 2 location across Hampton, along with a re-use of Gratiot School would do dogtown well.

moorlander wrote:^ I could see residential as a possible reuse. My guess, it sits for a while and is eventually torn down for new construction. It's a fantastic location. New construction here, and at the old Fox 2 location across Hampton, along with a re-use of Gratiot School would do dogtown well.

Just to clarify, I meant the buildings, not the site. The site has limitless possibilities IMO.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Right. The buildings will not be reused.

I wish I was in a position to develop that property....so very much!