300 South Broadway Tower

Renovations and new residential construction in downtown St. Louis, Washington Avenue, the Old Post Office, etc.
First unread post450 posts
BellaVilla wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:27 am
bwcrow1s wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:54 am
What can the city even do about privately owned garages and lots that could be so clearly utilized?
They can tax the heck out of them and harass them.

Send the building code inspectors all the time. send fore code inspectors there all the time. Tell them to niitpick every little thing. Cite them for anything and everything.

You can also hurt their business by performing road, sidewalk and utility work that will deter people from parking in the garages.

Just some ideas
Yet, none of those ideas create demand for square footage which is the biggest driver at the end of the day.

Downtown is struggling with three large empty buildings in ATT One Center, Jeff Arms and Railway Exchange which all would require significant parking options to land major anchor tenants and fill up with residents. So the idea that you would purposely and systematically go after business group in an area that needs as much business & options as possible sounds like you decided that shooting yourself in the foot wasn't good enough so you might as well shoot the other foot while at it.
stlien wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:06 pm
bwcrow1s wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:54 am
If a new tower construction can't financially bear to push one of those garages off the land, even with subsidies, what project ever will? Are we doomed to have these prisons up forever?

Yes, of course, the owner has to be selling it as well. What can the city even do about privately owned garages and lots that could be so clearly utilized?
Whats wrong with the garages other than their aesthetics? The garages, as is, serve a purpose. Several daytime employees park in both garages.
Because we're tearing down a legitimately historic structure when there are eyesores directly next to it. We're not adding any street wall building density, we're making a lateral move. We're not solving the commute and drive back to the county lifestyle, or even attempting to.

I'm all for this tower, it's just frustrating to continue to look at the way our prime real estate is being utilized though. Sure, no way around it, but my main concern is for the future, and wonder if we are going to be damned with garages and surface parking, indefinitely, if somehow there weren't strings to be pulled or people to be pushed on by the city to make this tower work on any of the other numerous sites in the immediate area.

Idealist? Probably. Am I being unrealistic? Likely. Just expressing my frustration. I know real estate Downtown isn't where it needs to be. I'm not advocating for predatory regulation over parking structures as mentioned above either. Downtown needs a master plan, though, if there isn't one. And because of the nature of the current real estate climate Downtown, leadership is willing to rob peter to pay paul for a new shiny building. Allowing demolition, throwing in more subsidies. I know they feel like they have no other choice, but do we think this will be a turning point for Downtown as a whole? Maybe I'm just being cynical.

Also, when you say "several daytime employees" are you being serious with that estimation? Or are they actually typically filled?
dredger wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:30 pm

Yet, none of those ideas create demand for square footage which is the biggest driver at the end of the day.
there clearly is demand as DT is having no problem filling residential units as they come online. any efforts to make DT less of a concrete wasteland and add more residential can only enhance that demand. if there's not much demand for commercial yet it's because the population isn't there yet, again, due in large part to an abundance of concrete and a lack of units.

dredger wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:30 pm

So the idea that you would purposely and systematically go after business group in an area that needs as much business & options as possible sounds like you decided that shooting yourself in the foot wasn't good enough so you might as well shoot the other foot while at it.
pretending that every "business option" is equivalently beneficial/non-detrimental to DT's health is nonsense. zoning exists for precisely this reason: to prevent poor/inappropriate land uses from eroding the city around them.
bwcrow1s wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:40 pm
Also, when you say "several daytime employees" are you being serious with that estimation? Or are they actually typically filled?
I believe Spire employees park at the west garage and the east garage is utilized by nearby firms such as Polsinelli. Could be hundreds of employees, I'm really not sure. Also, I'm not sure of the capacity of each garage.
urban_dilettante wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:36 pm
there clearly is demand as DT is having no problem filling residential units as they come online. any efforts to make DT less of a concrete wasteland and add more residential can only enhance that demand. if there's not much demand for commercial yet it's because the population isn't there yet, again, due in large part to an abundance of concrete and a lack of units.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. The price per square foot for those housing units was, as I recall from my house hunt a few years back, startlingly comparable to houses on much of the south side and I believe at or below the regional median. (Clearly quite a lot lower than the trendier neighborhoods to the west and south.) A lot of those housing units benefited from substantial historic tax credits not available to a new-build project even then. Which is to say that the "market rate" rent isn't necessarily a sustainable market rate for new high density housing. I really really want to see new build replace our surface parking. I really really want to see more demand around downtown. But I absolutely cannot knock a company that wants to build market rate new construction for dealing with the financial hand dealt to them. Sure, we need to tax lot size and land value a lot higher than developed square footage.

But this does add density. Be quite sure of it. Just because it's taking out an existing building doesn't mean there is no gain. It's replacing it with a much larger building that will generate a lot more rent; that will have more people in it and potentially around it every day. (Albeit at different hours than the current nine to five of the offices.) It's not as large a gain in density as it would be were the previous density zero rather than a positive number. But it's still a real gain. That will make a real difference. And add real taxes into real city coffers. Linear feet of street wall is not the only or best measure of density.

Though I surely do wish there were a way to do it without burning the irreplaceable fossil fuel that is historic buildings. And if property taxes weren't so screwed up it there might be a way to do it. I do feel your pain. Don't get me wrong. I just think it might be worth biting the bullet on this one.
stlien wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:10 am
bwcrow1s wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:40 pm
Also, when you say "several daytime employees" are you being serious with that estimation? Or are they actually typically filled?
I believe Spire employees park at the west garage and the east garage is utilized by nearby firms such as Polsinelli. Could be hundreds of employees, I'm really not sure. Also, I'm not sure of the capacity of each garage.
KPMG parks in the east garage (or at least 5 years ago I knew some employees that did). I think there is a skybridge from the building to the garage, so I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) most of the employees in that building park in the east garage.
symphonicpoet wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:48 am
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. The price per square foot for those housing units was, as I recall from my house hunt a few years back, startlingly comparable to houses on much of the south side and I believe at or below the regional median....Sure, we need to tax lot size and land value a lot higher than developed square footage.
but that's still a market. those units aren't sitting empty. even middle-end housing is better for DT health and future prospects than surface lots. it's undesirable to many precisely b/c it's a mess of surface lots and crumbling infrastructure. i was down there for a baseball game a few weeks ago (not like "down there" from the 'burbs but down there from Dutchtown) and the walk from my car (around 11th and Olive i think) to the stadium was pretty depressing. that we need to tax undeveloped land higher than developed land was the initial point that I and a couple others were making, to which a couple others responded "surface lots are legitimate businesses. leave them alone."
^Surface parking lots are not "businesses" and it isn't debatable. They do not have infrastructure expenses, capital expenditures, labor, employees, inventory, COGS, or any other relevant metrics that make them functioning businesses. If anyone wants to respond this that they aren't because they pave and upkeep the lot and pay utilities, I don't care. They are land speculators taking advantage of a broken system. Tax surface lots 90% of revenue for all I care. and 99.9% of the metro wouldn't care either. They could raise prices. Guess what would happen? People would carpool, uber from any number of parking lots further out, etc. This is not a hard issue for the city to resolve. We need to make downtown functional again and the first step is eliminating surface lots from existence.
urban_dilettante wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:18 pm
but that's still a market. those units aren't sitting empty. even middle-end housing is better for DT health and future prospects than surface lots. it's undesirable to many precisely b/c it's a mess of surface lots and crumbling infrastructure. i was down there for a baseball game a few weeks ago (not like "down there" from the 'burbs but down there from Dutchtown) and the walk from my car (around 11th and Olive i think) to the stadium was pretty depressing. that we need to tax undeveloped land higher than developed land was the initial point that I and a couple others were making, to which a couple others responded "surface lots are legitimate businesses. leave them alone."
It is absolutely a market. But . . . a very subsidized one. Maybe one that wouldn't be there on strictly new build/free(er) market terms. And I'm absolutely with you about changing the tax structure. Not here to defend surface lots. Not at all. Sorry if I came across that way. Just defending my own (tempered) excitement about a new building. Mild potential crane squee. This is all.

And framer's observation about the irony in county "retro" over on Boulevard II is . . . dead on.
300 South Broadway, STL:

Image

Faux 300 at The Boulevard II (extreme right):

Image
HDA posted these new renderings today on Facebook. These are the first official renderings showing One Cardinal Way and 300 South Broadway together and the skyline view. There is also another showing the 16th floor terrace.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Good find, Chris. Those are keepers!
Damn those are some sexy renderings. These buildings are so visible and will work wonders for the perception of downtown.
Looks great. Finally Downtown south of Market will have some real height and density. Can't wait until the Mike Shannon's site gets taken care of. Filling in the holes will lessen the blow to my heart of losing 300 S Broadway.

What else besides financing are they waiting on? Will they end up having to make the facade all glass like I recall the review board requesting? Or am I misremembering? Because it sounded like the eastern facade was going to be fiber board or something horrible.
bwcrow1s wrote:Looks great. Finally Downtown south of Market will have some real height and density. Can't wait until the Mike Shannon's site gets taken care of. Filling in the holes will lessen the blow to my heart of losing 300 S Broadway.

What else besides financing are they waiting on? Will they end up having to make the facade all glass like I recall the review board requesting? Or am I misremembering? Because it sounded like the eastern facade was going to be fiber board or something horrible.
I honestly don’t think that anything will be done at the Mile Shannon’s Site for some time. I am pretty sure they have a contractor for the project (Paric) as stated in a document detailing facade saving and construction costs. So they are only waiting on financing. I think the glass stipulation was for the preservation of the existing building if they went with that. I don’t think any more glass will be added as the renderings don’t appear to have much more glass. It’s all painted concrete like 212.
Strange. You'd think residents on the other side of the building would want panoramic views of the rest of Downtown, Arch, etc. too. I'm assuming the Busch facing glass facade (from the inside) would be floor to ceiling windows? Or is the glass just a facade and the interior views the same on all four sides? Thanks for the response.
bwcrow1s wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:52 pm
Strange. You'd think residents on the other side of the building would want panoramic views of the rest of Downtown, Arch, etc. too. I'm assuming the Busch facing glass facade (from the inside) would be floor to ceiling windows? Or is the glass just a facade and the interior views the same on all four sides? Thanks for the response.
The eastern façade will have balconies at the corners of it offering views of the Arch, River and Downtown. Now, the Southeastern balconies will have a few of the Arch, River and the parking lot city South of here. The façade facing Busch Stadium will be floor to ceiling and wall to wall glass. Those units will go for top dollar. Elsewhere, the "punched" windows will offer good views and will most likely be like 212 where they are almost floor to ceiling, but aren't at the same time.
It is a good thing that I shared the renderings when I did. HDA has since removed them from their Facebook album on "Multi-Family and Hospitality" projects. Hopefully they comeback soon and are uploaded to their website so we can see full size versions.
GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:36 pm
Damn those are some sexy renderings. These buildings are so visible and will work wonders for the perception of downtown.
The buildings will really change the perception to people traveling on 44 and 55 into Downtown from the South as well as people traveling on the Poplar Street brdige. They will be massive for this side of Downtown which makes them even better.
The building is vacated. These new signs have been put up since Monday when Jim told me that they had till August to vacate. I guess it happened sooner than we thought. The building is empty.


https://twitter.com/BuildingSTL/status/ ... 5719529473
Nashville has "no problem" tearing down historic high rises in the name of progress (new tower):
https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/ ... 797151002/
chriss752 wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:46 pm
The building is vacated. These new signs have been put up since Monday when Jim told me that they had till August to vacate. I guess it happened sooner than we thought. The building is empty.


https://twitter.com/BuildingSTL/status/ ... 5719529473
So.....is this thing approved and going to be built? Hope so!
survivor147 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:20 pm
chriss752 wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:46 pm
The building is vacated. These new signs have been put up since Monday when Jim told me that they had till August to vacate. I guess it happened sooner than we thought. The building is empty.


https://twitter.com/BuildingSTL/status/ ... 5719529473
So.....is this thing approved and going to be built? Hope so!
The plan is approved, just waiting to begin construction by getting building permits.
matguy70 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:14 pm
Nashville has "no problem" tearing down historic high rises in the name of progress (new tower):
https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/ ... 797151002/
Sullivan Tower was around 42' wide. Which very well could have fit some pretty nice apartments or offices but is a tad on the narrow side. It would have been economically difficult. 50' is usually the most narrow you'd want to go on a double loaded corridor. This is also part of a MUCH larger development taking up several city blocks:

Image

If I were advocating for better urbanism in Nashville, I'd still be opposed to and upset by this demolition for the same reasons. There's no shortage of surface lots in downtown Nashville.
Boston is putting a 30-story tower on top of an existing 90-year-old parking garage. We can’t do this to save a 90 year old nice building? https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/20 ... story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk