Millennium Hotel Site Redevelopment

doellingd · PostDec 11, 2021#2012021-12-11T18:40+00:00

I'm baffled. In this thread, we've had nearly 10 years of conversations about the near impossibility to renovate a luxury building that was constructed rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

In newer threads, we're having conversations around proposals, active developments and completed projects from a "luxury" building developer known to build rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

By maintaining our low standards of quality construction are we not just putting ourselves in the same position 30, 40 years from now - where we'e holding out hope that there's some viability to renovate these lesser iconic buildings vs being white elephants that need to be torn down?

quincunx · PostDec 11, 2021#2022021-12-11T18:42+00:00

Also skyscrapers are overrated and can become albatrosses. We have a few.

dweebe · PostDec 11, 2021#2032021-12-11T19:37+00:00

doellingd wrote: ↑
Dec 11, 2021
I'm baffled. In this thread, we've had nearly 10 years of conversations about the near impossibility to renovate a luxury building that was constructed rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

In newer threads, we're having conversations around proposals, active developments and completed projects from a "luxury" building developer known to build rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

By maintaining our low standards of quality construction are we not just putting ourselves in the same position 30, 40 years from now - where we'e holding out hope that there's some viability to renovate these lesser iconic buildings vs being white elephants that need to be torn down?

So what do you want at the Millennium complex? What conversations are acceptable to you?

STLAPTS · PostDec 11, 2021#2042021-12-11T20:47+00:00

doellingd wrote: ↑
Dec 11, 2021
I'm baffled. In this thread, we've had nearly 10 years of conversations about the near impossibility to renovate a luxury building that was constructed rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

In newer threads, we're having conversations around proposals, active developments and completed projects from a "luxury" building developer known to build rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

By maintaining our low standards of quality construction are we not just putting ourselves in the same position 30, 40 years from now - where we'e holding out hope that there's some viability to renovate these lesser iconic buildings vs being white elephants that need to be torn down?

The "low quality" of construction you refer to is difficult enough to get out of the ground. A lot has changed since St. Louis was built that makes building to a similar quality impossible. I.e, labor laws and other forms of regulation.

rbeedee · PostDec 18, 2021#2052021-12-18T18:48+00:00

doellingd wrote: ↑
Dec 11, 2021
I'm baffled. In this thread, we've had nearly 10 years of conversations about the near impossibility to renovate a luxury building that was constructed rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

In newer threads, we're having conversations around proposals, active developments and completed projects from a "luxury" building developer known to build rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

By maintaining our low standards of quality construction are we not just putting ourselves in the same position 30, 40 years from now - where we'e holding out hope that there's some viability to renovate these lesser iconic buildings vs being white elephants that need to be torn down?

Genuine question--are there revisions to our building code that you think need to be made? I am sure our current code is not optimal, but I have not seen anyone make specific suggestions about what should be changed. I tend to look at the code mostly from a safety perspective and many of the issues people have with existing buildings seem to be aesthetic, land use, or property owner-related, which I don't think the general building code is well-positioned to address.

If someone wants to build but not maintain a building, or a building sits vacant for years with no maintenance, deterioration is inevitable, no matter how well the building was built. New owners will have to spend big bucks on renovation/rehab or demolition, especially on an unusual property that is not easy to adapt to a variety of uses. That is more of a market issue than anything else--we remain a high vacancy/low rent/low land value region in general.

The law of unintended consequences also comes into play here in terms of cost, where investment goes, etc. Like I said, I am open-minded about code revisions but would want to see something specific proposed.

chriss752 · PostDec 18, 2021#2062021-12-18T19:20+00:00

I noticed that there appears to be a broken window on one of the upper floors facing the arch

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UrbanPlanner2022 · PostDec 19, 2021#2072021-12-19T00:06+00:00

chriss752 wrote: ↑
Dec 18, 2021
I noticed that there appears to be a broken window on one of the upper floors facing the arch

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the swat training uses blanks but they will still break a window if you miss your target.

symphonicpoet · PostDec 19, 2021#2082021-12-19T06:43+00:00

rbeedee wrote: ↑
Dec 18, 2021
doellingd wrote: ↑
Dec 11, 2021
I'm baffled. In this thread, we've had nearly 10 years of conversations about the near impossibility to renovate a luxury building that was constructed rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

In newer threads, we're having conversations around proposals, active developments and completed projects from a "luxury" building developer known to build rather inexpensively, with poor infrastructure and minimal maintenance.

By maintaining our low standards of quality construction are we not just putting ourselves in the same position 30, 40 years from now - where we'e holding out hope that there's some viability to renovate these lesser iconic buildings vs being white elephants that need to be torn down?
Genuine question--are there revisions to our building code that you think need to be made? I am sure our current code is not optimal, but I have not seen anyone make specific suggestions about what should be changed. I tend to look at the code mostly from a safety perspective and many of the issues people have with existing buildings seem to be aesthetic, land use, or property owner-related, which I don't think the general building code is well-positioned to address.

If someone wants to build but not maintain a building, or a building sits vacant for years with no maintenance, deterioration is inevitable, no matter how well the building was built. New owners will have to spend big bucks on renovation/rehab or demolition, especially on an unusual property that is not easy to adapt to a variety of uses. That is more of a market issue than anything else--we remain a high vacancy/low rent/low land value region in general.

The law of unintended consequences also comes into play here in terms of cost, where investment goes, etc. Like I said, I am open-minded about code revisions but would want to see something specific proposed.

I think people have made more recommendations to changing zoning and tax code. I think you're quite right, the building code isn't the right tool to address things. But zoning and tax policy could use an update. Tax more for land and less for square footage, for instance, to encourage density. Eliminate parking minimums and charge more for drainage off flat lots, since it puts a bigger load on the sewer system. (Also a bigger load on the road infrastructure. And arguably safety, when street racers use lots as staging and show areas.) There's absolutely room for change, but I'll grant that building code might not be the right tool. And national and state safety standards aren't really at issue here. The only role I can see for building code is enforcement actions against negligent property owners who let their buildings decay and take insufficient measures to secure and preserve them. And in the end . . . that kind of enforcement has historically fallen very hard on owner occupants on the north side, while nary a whisper is heard near the palaces of the fancy absentee landlords who do the most to create the problem. (And often obtain sound, if vacant properties at bargain basement prices. Before letting them fall down.)

quincunx · PostDec 19, 2021#2092021-12-19T13:51+00:00

We had a chance to charge for impervious surfaces, but voted it down.

https://nextstl.com/2019/03/impervious- ... ge-prop-s/

symphonicpoet · PostDec 20, 2021#2102021-12-20T05:53+00:00

^I forgot about that. Maybe we need to get that back on the ballot, but with a better campaign to inform the public about the benefits.

sc4mayor · PostAug 18, 2022#2112022-08-18T20:07+00:00

So, this is interesting. In an article detailing code violations at the Millennium…a spokesperson for Millennium Hotels told the BJ they have no plans to sell the property and intend to refurbish it at some point in the future.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... tions.html

STLEnginerd · PostAug 18, 2022#2122022-08-18T20:35+00:00

I really hope it can be saved.

dream reno includes a new coat of paint.

chriss752 · PostAug 18, 2022#2132022-08-18T20:38+00:00

^For some reason that reminds me of Nyan Cat.

EssTeeEll · PostAug 18, 2022#2142022-08-18T20:39+00:00

Things that make you go, "Hmmmm." That's interesting for multiple reasons. Why only $50 in fines? That can't be the max, right? There's also been discussion ad nauseum that the building is simply too much to rehab/it was too cheaply built. Were these just echo chamber comments that originated from someone who didn't really know? Also, how connected or essential is the shorter section of the hotel to the taller tower portion? I wonder if selling off that part makes any amount of sense.

Anyways, thanks for the afternoon buzz. Haha.

GoHarvOrGoHome · PostAug 18, 2022#2152022-08-18T20:43+00:00

Probably only fined $50 because they actually do a good job of keeping up the property all things considered. Sure it could use some TLC, but they have security there around the clock. Imagine what it would look like today if it was just abandoned.

RockChalkSTL · PostAug 18, 2022#2162022-08-18T20:48+00:00

If it gets renovated, I'd like to see a complete re-do of its base and grounds. I think it's pretty land-wasting and it'd be awesome if we could have something more urban.

Maybe we could finally have something that interacts with Memorial Dr.? A walk down Memorial Dr. right now is like walking past that wall at Boston City Hall for nearly half a mile.

It blows my mind that the only retail space on Memorial Dr. with signage facing the Arch grounds is the axe-throwing bar on Washington. That has got to change.

dbInSouthCity · PostAug 18, 2022#2172022-08-18T20:49+00:00

I like how the building inspect isnt aware of police/swat training that happens there and thinks there are shootouts in the building

GoHarvOrGoHome · PostAug 18, 2022#2182022-08-18T20:56+00:00

Would like to see a base worthy of bookending Clark and the BPV area as a whole

quincunx · PostAug 18, 2022#2192022-08-18T21:15+00:00

Developers and hoteliers, including Steve Smith of the Lawrence Group and Bob O'Loughlin of Lodging Hospitality Management, in 2018 said they had been approached years before by Millennium about possible redevelopments.

But Smith at the time said St. Louis didn't rank at the top of Millennium's list for big investments worldwide. O'Loughlin, who recommended demolition of the property, said it was built cheaply, with infrastructure that just "isn't that good." And a hotel consultant, Gary Andreas, said the property had problems with mold. Smith and O'Loughlin did not respond to requests this week for comment.

STLEnginerd · PostAug 18, 2022#2202022-08-18T21:33+00:00

chriss752 wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
^For some reason that reminds me of Nyan Cat.

hmm Millen-Nyan Hotel then... ugh

debaliviere · PostAug 18, 2022#2212022-08-18T22:05+00:00

RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
If it gets renovated, I'd like to see a complete re-do of its base and grounds. I think it's pretty land-wasting and it'd be awesome if we could have something more urban.

Yep, and extend Clark to Memorial. It would be a great site for a signature hotel tower on one side of Clark and an apartment building on the other.

_nomad_ · PostAug 18, 2022#2222022-08-18T22:09+00:00

debaliviere wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
If it gets renovated, I'd like to see a complete re-do of its base and grounds. I think it's pretty land-wasting and it'd be awesome if we could have something more urban.
Yep, and extend Clark to Memorial. It would be a great site for a signature hotel tower on one side of Clark and an apartment building on the other.

And a pedestrian/bike bridge to the arch grounds over the highway

Miss Shell · PostAug 18, 2022#2232022-08-18T22:19+00:00

_nomad_ wrote:
debaliviere wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
If it gets renovated, I'd like to see a complete re-do of its base and grounds. I think it's pretty land-wasting and it'd be awesome if we could have something more urban.
Yep, and extend Clark to Memorial. It would be a great site for a signature hotel tower on one side of Clark and an apartment building on the other.
And a pedestrian/bike bridge to the arch grounds over the highway

They should have just extended the lid over the highway more. Not sure if they could have done it to Clark, but at least from Pine to Walnut.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

dredger · PostAug 18, 2022#2242022-08-18T23:29+00:00

debaliviere wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Aug 18, 2022
If it gets renovated, I'd like to see a complete re-do of its base and grounds. I think it's pretty land-wasting and it'd be awesome if we could have something more urban.
Yep, and extend Clark to Memorial. It would be a great site for a signature hotel tower on one side of Clark and an apartment building on the other.

Yes, I'm of mind that Cordish/DeWitt should buy the parking garage and Millennium for a future redo/next long term phase of BPV between BPV/Broadway and Memorial Drive. Of Course in the wish list it doesn't have to be Cordish/DeWitt but dig up the rumor/utter speculation of Taylor family looking at parcel for future Enterprise Tower as anchor incorporating some hotel/residential into the mix.

pattimagee · PostSep 13, 2022#2252022-09-13T18:08+00:00

Maybe a good sign?

Millennium Hotel Site Redevelopment

Choose Display Mode