33 Floor Tower Planned for 300 South Broadway

Renovations and new residential construction in downtown St. Louis, Washington Avenue, the Old Post Office, etc.
First unread post267 posts
gary kreie wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:51 am
I’ve been here long enough to remember folks advocating for the razing of Cupples and even Union Station. And we lost the Ambassador Theater for an patch of grass. Too bad they can’t nudge the tower across the street to the parking garage site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean, there has to be a way, right? How much can a 60 year old parking garage actually be worth?
I had the same thought but someone said that a parking company bought the empty parking lot across from it and it sold for twice what the actual historic building is going for. I don't get that at all.
^If you are talking about the lot just South of this on Broadway in between Point 400 and Busch, I believe that was bought by a developer and sold to a parking company for roughly the same amount (Somewhere around 4M IIRC.)

As for the Busch Garages, those were sold for 50mil each when the current owners bought the team in 1996 (?) and I would imagine they have only increased in value since then, as parking is significantly more expensive than it used to be, and the theoretical build out of BPV should only increase their value.

Which, once again, brings the conversation back to the fact that we desperately need to make parking a less attractive investment by any means necessary. I would prefer enormous taxation for parking only structures that goes directly into a metrolink expansion fund but that's just me.
newstl2020 wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:16 am
^If you are talking about the lot just South of this on Broadway in between Point 400 and Busch, I believe that was bought by a developer and sold to a parking company for roughly the same amount (Somewhere around 4M IIRC.)

As for the Busch Garages, those were sold for 50mil each when the current owners bought the team in 1996 (?) and I would imagine they have only increased in value since then, as parking is significantly more expensive than it used to be, and the theoretical build out of BPV should only increase their value.

Which, once again, brings the conversation back to the fact that we desperately need to make parking a less attractive investment by any means necessary. I would prefer enormous taxation for parking only structures that goes directly into a metrolink expansion fund but that's just me.
500 S Broadway sold last year for north of $11 million.
^Thank you!

There's our issue. We can bemoan historical demolition but unless the city does something to discourage a surface parking lot being worth twice as much as a multi story historic building, can we really say we aren't actively asking for demolition? It is extremely hard to argue the problem is with the developers as much as it is our city's policy priorities.

(I know the surface lot is much larger than the plot of the building, and it isn't apples to apples. It is just too easy to sit on undeveloped land/buildings everywhere in this city.)
^But real estate values are established by the market, not by The City.
^Correct. Doesn't mean the city can't do things to change the incentive of how the market is valuing various real estate. Government entities do so constantly via numerous mechanisms i.e. TIF, brownsfield credits, etc.
Folks building new parking garages are preparing for the day when there will be a lot fewer privately owned cars, once the self-driving car revolution starts. Flat parking garage floors are part of that so the floors can be converted to housing. So in 10 years, the parking garage problem could solve itself.

Besides these two pieces in wired and the real deal, the Wall Street Journal had a piece published yesterday, but it is behind their firewall.

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/time-thin ... g-garages/

https://therealdeal.com/2018/01/31/self ... esponding/
gary kreie wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:51 am
I’ve been here long enough to remember folks advocating for the razing of Cupples and even Union Station. And we lost the Ambassador Theater for an patch of grass. Too bad they can’t nudge the tower across the street to the parking garage site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, I'm entirely with you. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Sorry. The Ambassador still irks me. I almost did a class project on a speculative reuse of that building in the days shortly before we lost it. I spent a quarter century as a stagehand. That one ices my bottom. I'm terrified about what will happen to the Orpheum now, what with the water problem. I am positively filled with dread.

I'd like to see the facade preserved, at least. I'd love to see the project moved to the parking garage site. (Sadly, other nearby parcels don't seem to have the sightlines.) I'm a little torn, because we could really use the development, but I really don't want to lose the historic building. What kills me most is losing buildings for surface parking. Or even just to decay.
symphonicpoet wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:30 am
What kills me most is losing buildings for surface parking. Or even just to decay.
Agree. If we are going to raze a historic 6 story building for a new 33 story tower which will add density and population in DT then I am all for it. Not for a parking lot and not for a building of similar size however.

I looked back a few pages but did see anything, what is the next step in this or when do we expect to hear something new?
pdm_ad wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:40 am
symphonicpoet wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:30 am
What kills me most is losing buildings for surface parking. Or even just to decay.
Agree. If we are going to raze a historic 6 story building for a new 33 story tower which will add density and population in DT then I am all for it. Not for a parking lot and not for a building of similar size however.

I looked back a few pages but did see anything, what is the next step in this or when do we expect to hear something new?
It was mentioned on twitter that Jack Coatar had recently applied to have the building blighted so it would seem that was the next step.
ImprovSTL wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:05 am
pdm_ad wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:40 am
symphonicpoet wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:30 am
What kills me most is losing buildings for surface parking. Or even just to decay.
Agree. If we are going to raze a historic 6 story building for a new 33 story tower which will add density and population in DT then I am all for it. Not for a parking lot and not for a building of similar size however.

I looked back a few pages but did see anything, what is the next step in this or when do we expect to hear something new?
It was mentioned on twitter that Jack Coatar had recently applied to have the building blighted so it would seem that was the next step.
He's going to try to blight a building that is currently occupied and in use by an extremely legitimate organization?

JFC this city.

I'm not going to cry for days about replacing this building with a 33-story tower, but FFS, do we have to do everything backwards here?
ImprovSTL wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:05 am
It was mentioned on twitter that Jack Coatar had recently applied to have the building blighted so it would seem that was the next step.
Lol. Blighted.

This has become such a joke.

Either develop it or don't, but no need to use antics like this. Again, wasn't the Preservation review just a formality? They can do what they want with the property if they purchase it, correct? Have they even explored other options for this building between subsidies and other property owners? I just feel like they aren't even trying to explore other avenues.
Coatar seems to be the blight king.
kinger wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:28 pm
newstl2020 wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:16 am
^If you are talking about the lot just South of this on Broadway in between Point 400 and Busch, I believe that was bought by a developer and sold to a parking company for roughly the same amount (Somewhere around 4M IIRC.)

As for the Busch Garages, those were sold for 50mil each when the current owners bought the team in 1996 (?) and I would imagine they have only increased in value since then, as parking is significantly more expensive than it used to be, and the theoretical build out of BPV should only increase their value.

Which, once again, brings the conversation back to the fact that we desperately need to make parking a less attractive investment by any means necessary. I would prefer enormous taxation for parking only structures that goes directly into a metrolink expansion fund but that's just me.
500 S Broadway sold last year for north of $11 million.
As a throwback, the P-D article from that time: What's happening at 500 South Broadway?

An interesting quote (not that I think anything will come of it):
Premier and Giarratana Development operate independently, even though Tony Giarratana, who leads the development company, is the parking company's co-owner.

Chapman said Premier will continue to use 500 South Broadway as is, primarily as parking for Cardinals games. He said that even though no change is in sight, the company always looks at the possibility of "future vertical development" at its parking lots.

Giarratana Development is busy in downtown Nashville. Its projects include 505, a 45-story tower of 550 apartments and condos under construction.
^Gotcha, good find thank you. So theoretically there is still the potential for development in play, it isn't like it was sold to a company that is 100% mothballing it as a parking lot.
Correct, but we can assume that they're not just going to give it up for what they paid for it. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't ask for 3x what they actually paid.
^From my reading of the post above the developer (out of Nashville) also controls the parking company that purchased 500 S Broadway. So, presumably, he wouldn't sell at a much higher premium to himself incurring taxes on the sale. I am not an accountant so I could be wildly wrong. My point was more that it was purchased by a parking company owned by a developer, as opposed to a parking company that owns parking lots with no ties to anything else. So I'm optimistically reading that as a positive.
As I've mentioned previously in this thread, Giarratana/Premiere Parking did buy this lot a while back, but have since sold it to a REIT. They did retain management of the parking, though, which is why their signs are still on it.
^Thank you, definitely not the least confusing situation ever. Statements retracted. A parking REIT? Ugh.
Friday at BOA this projects re-development bill was perfected by the vote of 16-7, one more vote to go.
I know that there are a great many people who are upset this project would go up in place of an existing building, but my god, I hope this project comes to fruition.

I'm a St. Louis optimist. I already love St. Louis to death, but I think St. Louis is capable of waking up and being truly fantastic.

There are things to complain about, sure, but I see such potential in St. Louis. I get so excited when I think about all the projects going on there: Ballpark Village (can't wait to see what happens with the remaining three lots), this 33-story project, other potential downtown projects (Jefferson Arms, Railway Exchange), the Arch grounds, Union Station, the new SLU hospital, the NGA project, City Foundry, the growth in the Central West End, Cortex, the happenings in the Grove/FPSE, and so much more. The Central Corridor of St. Louis, from downtown to Clayton, is strengthening and I can't wait to see what it all looks like in 2020.

And yeah, there are a great many things the city could do better. Laclede's Landing should be better connected to downtown, downtown needs more jobs, etc. But I think the projects already in place lay a great groundwork for that to happen in the near future. I predict downtown St. Louis, and the city as a whole, will have a very, very different feel five years from now.

It's why, in the next year or two, I hope to move my family across the state from Kansas City to St. Louis. I've already started looking into jobs. I'd want to work downtown. Meanwhile, my wife absolutely loves the Maplewood area.
Love your post, and thank you! I used to live in KC and was disgusted by the entire STL bashing they seemed to do.
KansasCitian wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:39 pm
There are things to complain about, sure, but I see such potential in St. Louis. I get so excited when I think about all the projects going on there: Ballpark Village (can't wait to see what happens with the remaining three lots), this 33-story project, other potential downtown projects (Jefferson Arms, Railway Exchange), the Arch grounds, Union Station, the new SLU hospital, the NGA project, City Foundry, the growth in the Central West End, Cortex, the happenings in the Grove/FPSE, and so much more. The Central Corridor of St. Louis, from downtown to Clayton, is strengthening and I can't wait to see what it all looks like in 2020....

It's why, in the next year or two, I hope to move my family across the state from Kansas City to St. Louis. I've already started looking into jobs. I'd want to work downtown. Meanwhile, my wife absolutely loves the Maplewood area.
Hope you're able to come! As for this particular project, with all the massive stuff going on in the core, some of which you mention and plenty more, I'm not too excited about a heavily subsidized residential tower on an already contributing site, At this point, I'm really wanting to see the last of the historics downtown back in action and generally supportive of significant subsidy to accomplish that; but for new luxury living outside of the already approved BPV TIF zone not so much, especially when it's not infill. If the demand is there for more high-rise apartment construction, it will be met by others. But it looks like it's going to get approved right or wrong.
Sorry, I haven't been following this one. What incentives are they trying for?

I wonder if this will make infill more expensive on he parking lots and garages nearby since property owners might hold out for someone willing to pay (or politicians wiling to incentivize) a price commensurate with building a big tower, which won't come as often as more modestly tall buildings.