Class A Office Development in Creve Cœur

Discuss new retail, dining, business and residential projects within St. Louis County, including Chesterfield, Riverport, Earth City, Westport and more.
Clayco part of class A office development at Olive and 270

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 3fc30.html

Love how they highlight the central corridor in the renderings. Like that's the more desirable place to be. But you chose West County....
Last year I went up to a job interview in the morning rush hour right there at olive and 270. The traffic alone made that decision easy for me and an additional 750k sq foot of office space will just make it worse. Businesses love that are though
Image
Putting 38 homes under option agreements and the fact that it's 750,000 (no small footprint) leads me to believe this is being done for a large company/anchor tenant. Seems like a lot of work/too big of a project for spec. Wonder who would want that much room right there....
Example number 2,421 that the problem isn't Clayton, it's the *hole beyond that. If the Clayton & STL CBDs (or nodes along Metrolink) could capture just a quarter of the bs going out in the hinterlands we'd be a much, much stronger region,
MRNHS wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:51 pm
Putting 38 homes under option agreements and the fact that it's 750,000 (no small footprint) leads me to believe this is being done for a large company/anchor tenant. Seems like a lot of work/too big of a project for spec. Wonder who would want that much room right there....
My thoughts exactly. The fact that this isn't being announced as a multi-phase project makes me believe some company is looking to expand. Charter? Maybe Wells Fargo is looking for a non-city location?
chaifetz10 wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:16 pm
MRNHS wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:51 pm
Putting 38 homes under option agreements and the fact that it's 750,000 (no small footprint) leads me to believe this is being done for a large company/anchor tenant. Seems like a lot of work/too big of a project for spec. Wonder who would want that much room right there....
My thoughts exactly. The fact that this isn't being announced as a multi-phase project makes me believe some company is looking to expand. Charter? Maybe Wells Fargo is looking for a non-city location?
My thoughts would be Charter, as they currently have people spread out across multiple offices, Des Deres, two buildings at Riverport, and the old Town & Country Commons location. Seems like enough space for them to consolidate.
So insanely frustrating. A beautiful neighborhood being destroyed for this when there are so many lots capable of development in both the CBDs in the region. This could make a substantial impact but instead we have yet another suburban "campus."
^ & ^^ Didn't realize Charter was spread out as much as noted for which the location would make sense in terms of existing locations and work force & at end of day a county business staying within the county. Would assume that if someone like Charter reached out to its employee for feedback it would be resounding stay close to home response.

My question to this particular location, wasn't their an attempt to develop this area before but as another big box store location/commercial retail development?

What I see as frustrating is sometimes you wonder if executives pick a developer first and then gives them the basic parameters. I can understand Charter choosing Clayco if it is true on who this development is really for. Clayco delivers big developments (think Centene), is a national and reputable firm with main hometown presence. Unfortunately, if Clayco was given marching orders to consolidate along I270 corridor with real no play with existing properties it is not surprising they reach out and make their own space because it the gives them the most margin and no partners to have to share it with.

Unfortunately, even for west county It seems like a Charter consolidated presence in Westport Plaza would at least offer a location along I270 corridor that can be better served by transit/possibility of future light rail expansion, hotel, eateries and amenities all within a walkable area for its workforce and those coming and going from outside to its offices. Of course, Koman's property within CORTEX would make a great location to consolidate Charter's IT as well but means an intentional move into a city frowned upon by local executives.. Which gets back to my thought that sometimes it seems like who is chosen as a developer first and foremost
Assuming this a BTS Office HQ deal and not a spec development, the lead tenant tells their developer their site criteria (location, square footage, demographics, etc)...then it’s the developers job to go find a site that fits the criteria. If the lead tenant wanted to be in Downtown, CORTEX, CWE, etc...this project would be there, not here. So can’t blame the developer. He’s doing his job.

270 and 64 is the most regional pinpoint of St Louis Metro. So this project is no surprise to me. Safe area and super regional for employees. Big metro bus terminal at Ballas/64. Restaurants and retail nearby. Parkway school district. Ladue school district. Airport is 10 min away.

Lastly, every house in the “beautiful” neighborhood decided to sign a contract to sell (probably well above value), so who cares about the homes and good for the sellers. The homes are old and easily replaced elsewhere.

With all that said, I wish these companies would move to CBD, Midtown, or CWE to continue to grow and improve the urban core. But I understand that companies have a very hard decision between self-less regional betterment or satisfying what the company employees/execuives personally want.

Best idea I’ve heard is move Enterprise to ATT Tower Downtown and open up their HQ property to re-development. Couple that with the Family Courts property, that’s the best chunk of real estate anywhere in St Louis metro. Everyone wins in this move - Downtown and County.
kbshapiro wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:20 am
Best idea I’ve heard is move Enterprise to ATT Tower Downtown and open up their HQ property to re-development. Couple that with the Family Courts property, that’s the best chunk of real estate anywhere in St Louis metro. Everyone wins in this move - Downtown and County.
You make some good points. This would be prime.

Anybody heard anything in leadership doing anything to court tenants for AT&T?
I don't even see this as particularly contributing to sprawl. It's medium density suburban office replacing low density suburban housing of no particular merit. To me it's a bit of a sleeper. Big pile of not exciting. But if it keeps jobs in the metro area, fan-frigging-tastic. A plus. Even better if it brings jobs. And better an office right next to the highway than houses anyway. I can't really imagine this was a particularly nice place to live. Small. Unwalkable. No nearby services. Surrounded by busy streets and traffic noise. I'd say this is a winner.
Choose us! You can spend 1/3 of your life in a
symphonicpoet wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:53 pm
Big pile of not exciting.
!!!!!

*Recruiting Win!*


5 years later under the Corporate Mergers thread:

"WHY DO OUR COMPANIES KEEP DISAPPEARING?!?!?!?!"
newstl2020 wrote: Choose us! You can spend 1/3 of your life in a
symphonicpoet wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:53 pm
Big pile of not exciting.
!!!!!

*Recruiting Win!*


5 years later under the Corporate Mergers thread:

"WHY DO OUR COMPANIES KEEP DISAPPEARING?!?!?!?!"
Funny you should mention that. I think I kind of responded to it in the End to Western Sprawl thread. It's not much of a recruiting tool, but you have to please local folks as well. And who would go to MIT or CalTech and recruit to Chesterfield anyway? You'd save time by talking about St. Louis. When I was living in CoMO and traveling I would always tell folks it's about halfway between Kansas City and St. Louis, as no one had the slightest clue Columbia was even on the map. I recently had an acquaintance in New Jersey suggest that a convention in St. Louis might more easily draw folks from Phoenix since, you know, they're close together. Right? I kid you not. (Not that this was the limit of their misconceptions about the vast middle.) So, no, Chesterfield isn't much of a recruiting sell for those from out of town. But I can't imagine companies in North Bergen New Jersey specifically mention that when recruiting either. They probably just say "New York" and stop. Maybe they mention the river in between. Maybe not. (Probably not before the mailing address.) Your mileage may vary.

But I really don't see this as a loss in any way. Not a big gain. Kind of boring. But hey, boring to boring is a wash. So if it's boring that helps the economy? Again, houses. Indistinguishable from thousands upon thousands of others. Possibly tens of thousands. Next to a busy highway. And isolated from everything. Replaced with new higher density and presumably higher tax structures that will survive and contribute for anywhere from twenty five to fifty years, and maybe more. I absolutely wouldn't give this any incentives. But apart from that, where's the loss? Is this in line for incentives? (On which I have no say, being a city boy, but, you know, we all tell each other what to do anyway. So why let that stop me?) I don't know. You're welcome to disagree. But I don't see the harm in this at present. Mind you, saying the houses there are unremarkable doesn't mean they're ugly. Or bad. My own southside bungalow could be described much the same way: just one more brick box among thousands. Many are worth saving, but you don't need to save them all. And office seems a much better use right here than houses. Because of noise and pollution alone.
There's no harm in the development itself, the harm is that people in this region (our companies and our developers) are still gung ho on suburban development, when developing the urban core is what would move us forward.

In other words, I wouldn't show up to a meeting and oppose this development. I would tell the developer and the lined up tenant (assuming there is one) that they're missing the boat and part of the problem in our no to slow growth region.
^Exactly right.
This would require some statistical study, but it strikes me as entirely possible that the stance of local youth towards our urban core might be precisely why the region isn't growing. Would I like to see this in the city? You bet. Absolutely. Would be much more exciting. But it also might not sell as well for the developer. Maybe. I don't know their business and I don't want to criticize. That's really all. I figure they have some idea what they're doing, whether I care to be a part of it or not. You may continue suburb bashing now. I don't really mean to play devil's advocate. (Having never in my life voluntarily lived in a suburb. I try not to spend time in them, but I have friends there.)
No, I think you're right. I think there's this insular cycle that just feeds upon itself in St. Louis. Everyone is making a short-sighted, best for right now decision. But that's what holds us back.

The developer is probably right to assume that more local tenants prefer the suburban office and that our overall local youth are more comfortable in the suburbs and see little attraction to the city. So the developer makes the business decision to put it in the suburbs. And we maintain the business there. And the youth continue to see the suburbs as the decent place and the city as the declining place. And sprawl continues to build up spreading our non-growing population thinner and more westward costing the region more money in services.

Meanwhile the lack of growth overall and seemingly shrinking urban core is not eye catching or attractive to outside talent. The lack of investment in the city allows crime to build making it less desirable for both the local population and the outside population.

And so the next time there's a development proposal, the developer puts it in the suburbs, and the cycle just keeps on repeating.

Nobody is making a huge mistake or an obviously stupid decision for their own basic interests. The decisions are all defensible on that level. But those decisions combine to be terrible for the future of our region. And until we have some real powers step up to take on some risk with a long-term vision, we'll stay mired in this debilitating cycle.
^ Funny, I was just talking about this concept the other day on an similar topic. At some point the benefits of the collective community stopped being considered and everything became a "whats best for me and only me" approach. For example, look at the development incentives that are secured for high end luxury projects. Is it really in everyones best interest to tax abate high end houses, condos and apartments while school budgets, public safety and infrastructure lacks? I know its standard operating procedure these days and I'm espousing what many would say is a naive viewpoint but I do think there is a place for taking a more collective approach to things and still being profitable.
^ great comment. applies to the US in general; it's why we underfund our schools and can't even maintain our existing transportation infrastructure, let alone embark on things like high-speed rail in any real way. As for the local incentives. I can see why they were used and think they did help us get back some momentum in the city but now that we've reached a higher gear I think its beyond time we really tighten them up.
symphonicpoet wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:35 pm
This would require some statistical study, but it strikes me as entirely possible that the stance of local youth towards our urban core might be precisely why the region isn't growing.
Sorry but this is just completely wrong. The number of young adults has been growing for some time and its only intensifying. The city's population challenges (besides regional struggles with immigration and economy) are largely due to smaller household size and quality of life in north city, where people are leaving. We need a bigger pool of young people in the region to draw from, but the city's performance on getting what we do have is pretty good.
jstriebel wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:17 am
...
And the youth continue to see the suburbs as the decent place and the city as the declining place. And sprawl continues to build up spreading our non-growing population thinner and more westward costing the region more money in services.

Meanwhile the lack of growth overall and seemingly shrinking urban core is not eye catching or attractive to outside talent. The lack of investment in the city allows crime to build making it less desirable for both the local population and the outside population....
Again I just don't think this is the case.... tons of young adults increasingly are a) patronizing biz in the city and b) actually setting roots down. Central Corridor grew last decade at a decent rate for the region and many other n'hoods added investment and property values but not quite population. This decade it's even a higher level of performance while at the same time the edges are slowing down a bit. If anyone remembers Alex Ihnen, he did some good pieces on this subject of STL attracting young adults over on nextstl... I'll try to dig them up.

Anyway, I think clearly it is the older generations that grew up in the post-war era of decline that now are in positions of corporate and regional leadership that have kept/are keeping us back from reaching our potential,(and this includes some city leadership that don't recognize we're in a new environment) and not younger folks, who are more open to the promise of the core.
STLrainbow wrote:
symphonicpoet wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:35 pm
This would require some statistical study, but it strikes me as entirely possible that the stance of local youth towards our urban core might be precisely why the region isn't growing.
Sorry but this is just completely wrong. The number of young adults has been growing for some time and its only intensifying. The city's population challenges (besides regional struggles with immigration and economy) are largely due to smaller household size and quality of life in north city, where people are leaving. We need a bigger pool of young people in the region to draw from, but the city's performance on getting what we do have is pretty good.
Honestly, I think the city's chief population challenge is the national anti-immigrant movement dating back to the twenties and gaining steam in the fifties and recent past. That said . . .

Are the young people in the city now chiefly local, or chiefly from out of town? Certainly the city is doing much much better at attracting younger people these days. I will gladly (indeed joyously) grant you that. And as always, the city is the go-to place for recent immigrants. (It's just harder to come by them these days, and more and more of them are rich kids from South and East Asia that go to sexier places. Though obviously some do come here too. Note: my wife is East Asian and my best friend is South Asian. And both have friends, siblings, and cousins. And I'm privy to some of those discussions and efforts to sell St. Louis. (I try. I try hard. I assure you.)

Anyway . . . again, I think we fundamentally agree that the city is the place to be and that we need to sell it. It's where the growth could be. It could be sustainable. It is prettier and more environmentally friendly. It has history. It has art. It has culture. It has variety. It has immigrants bringing their culture, art, and history. (Though more are needed.)

And I really would like to see a good breakdown on where local young people are going now, and where young people in the city come from originally. This is all data that will be available in the next census, assuming certain parties don't destroy the census bureau. There's been a change from the last one, I feel. Will be interesting to see.
^ good question on where the strongest performance is coming from; I suspect as a whole transplants are more likely to consider the core over locals who grew up in the outer burbs, but back to the heart of the thread job location is a big factor in individual decisions; if you're coming here to work in a job along 270 in Creve Couer or Maryland Heights you're much less likely to decide to live in the city or even east of 170 than if you come to the region to work for a Clayton or downtown company.

Again, this is why I think overall our core's ability to attract young residents is pretty decent particularly given our lackluster regional growth and further-distant jobs concentration compared to most. (Indianapolis is an example of an under-performer imo.)
^I think I can agree with all of that. And that's a good explanation of why I'd very much like to see more business choosing to locate downtown. Maybe what we need is local executives who are excited enough to move. This will happen. Inevitably. The boomers currently running the show will retire. But it would be great if it could happen quicker. Explains why startups do a little better at promoting the urban core. How do you incentivize boomer retirement? (I love my boomers, mind. Just for the record. But I'm not moving back out to suburbia for them.)