I know how old they are, but the roadway inn and regency inn were built in the 1960s and torn down in the 1980s and 1990s, therefore 20-30 years later.pdm_ad wrote: ↑Mar 27, 2024^ These towers are almost 60 years old but, yes, that's still a short lifespan.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... -city.html
According to Zachary Wilson (manager of development incentives for the city’s nonprofit economic development agency, St. Louis Development Corp.)
“There’s been numerous developers that have reached out to SLDC and the city to renovate or do something with this site".
According to Zachary Wilson (manager of development incentives for the city’s nonprofit economic development agency, St. Louis Development Corp.)
“There’s been numerous developers that have reached out to SLDC and the city to renovate or do something with this site".
- 36
I wasn't aware of the Rodeway Inn tower at Jefferson & Market (a closed parking lot, today)
I appreciate you sharing this information.
I also hope this site winds up being renovated with the current buildings that stand at this location today.
They're handsome examples of 50's & 60's architecture. It surprises me that a common view is that most of these structures across our city are ugly and deserving of nothing less than demolition.
All that we will be left with is a grassy lot after it's torn down anyway. Then we'll all have flashbacks of the San Luiz Motel again. (We really don't like all these parking lots where buildings once stood) oh, and the Midas Hospitality location at Wells Fargo is our newest empty lot.
Thanks all for reading my rambling keyboard venting post. I usually just come here to read all of your opinions and see the great pictures Chris puts up.
Keep the all new buildings west of Tucker and east of Kingshighway.
I appreciate you sharing this information.
I also hope this site winds up being renovated with the current buildings that stand at this location today.
They're handsome examples of 50's & 60's architecture. It surprises me that a common view is that most of these structures across our city are ugly and deserving of nothing less than demolition.
All that we will be left with is a grassy lot after it's torn down anyway. Then we'll all have flashbacks of the San Luiz Motel again. (We really don't like all these parking lots where buildings once stood) oh, and the Midas Hospitality location at Wells Fargo is our newest empty lot.
Thanks all for reading my rambling keyboard venting post. I usually just come here to read all of your opinions and see the great pictures Chris puts up.
Keep the all new buildings west of Tucker and east of Kingshighway.
It would be a damn shame to lose the tower.
Come on; it's a landmark! It still appears in every illustration of the STL skyline. It's a classic example of Mid Century architecture.
If this were Nashville or Seattle or Austin we'd get a trio of shiny new towers. But, being a no-growth region with a troubled Downtown, all we're gonna get is a couple of 5-over-2s that will eventually go up after years of sitting empty.
I can't believe how many of you guys are actually in favor of demoing a 30-story building.
Come on; it's a landmark! It still appears in every illustration of the STL skyline. It's a classic example of Mid Century architecture.
If this were Nashville or Seattle or Austin we'd get a trio of shiny new towers. But, being a no-growth region with a troubled Downtown, all we're gonna get is a couple of 5-over-2s that will eventually go up after years of sitting empty.
I can't believe how many of you guys are actually in favor of demoing a 30-story building.
I don't think people want to lose the tower. But it needs a hell of a lot of work, and that work is prohibitively expensive.framer wrote:It would be a damn shame to lose the tower.
Come on; it's a landmark! It still appears in every illustration of the STL skyline. It's a classic example of Mid Century architecture.
If this were Nashville or Seattle or Austin we'd get a trio of shiny new towers. But, being a no-growth region with a troubled Downtown, all we're gonna get is a couple of 5-over-2s that will eventually go up after years of sitting empty.
I can't believe how many of you guys are actually in favor of demoing a 30-story building.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
- 3,757
I agree!! We need to keep this tower and renovate at any expense. The City could do some initial site work and abatement to make reno more attractive. They've got the cash (Rams). I am fine with demo of everything but the tower. I know it is cost-prohibitive, but sometimes as a City you have to spend a little extra to maintain your landmarks. I would expect any developer to go the route of AT&T and get this tower on the National Register of Historic Places.framer wrote: ↑Mar 28, 2024It would be a damn shame to lose the tower.
Come on; it's a landmark! It still appears in every illustration of the STL skyline. It's a classic example of Mid Century architecture.
If this were Nashville or Seattle or Austin we'd get a trio of shiny new towers. But, being a no-growth region with a troubled Downtown, all we're gonna get is a couple of 5-over-2s that will eventually go up after years of sitting empty.
I can't believe how many of you guys are actually in favor of demoing a 30-story building.
- 2,419
If the tower could be preserved, except with a new street-fronting base and with a couple of other new 30-story towers on the site, I would be very happy.
It could be kind of neat to see a juxtaposition of new and old on that site.
I just don't think the city of St. Louis or any developer is going to pony up what it would take to make fixing all of that building's issues financially feasible.
It could be kind of neat to see a juxtaposition of new and old on that site.
I just don't think the city of St. Louis or any developer is going to pony up what it would take to make fixing all of that building's issues financially feasible.
Could someone share some information about the state of the building? Everyone keeps saying its in terrible shape and it would be cost prohibitive to renovate and we all know buildings that were abandoned for much longer than 10 years have been successfully renovated. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but some context would be nice.
- 9,543
Condition is no better or worse the some others that have been renovated, like current Jefferson Arms but that’s never been the issue, it’s the shape and trying to shape it into modern uses.
- 488
I'd personally let the company who is spending the money do anything reasonable with the site. If they want to tear down & build a hotel or apartments or condos, great. If they want to tear down for parking lot, thats not reasonable.
I've lived in St Louis for 15 years. I don't understand the desire to keep it the way it is, that's crazy to me. I don't love tearing down buildings for no reason but this siteplan is awful. Cities should grow and change and that's okay. Keeping everything the way it always was is a great way to keep our city stagnant.
I've lived in St Louis for 15 years. I don't understand the desire to keep it the way it is, that's crazy to me. I don't love tearing down buildings for no reason but this siteplan is awful. Cities should grow and change and that's okay. Keeping everything the way it always was is a great way to keep our city stagnant.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... 0561c.htmlDeveloper Steve Smith said on Friday that when the hotel closed in 2014, Millennium’s owner hired Smith’s company, what’s now known as New + Found, to evaluate the property’s potential for redevelopment.
His team created a plan to convert the tower into apartments and keep the south end a hotel. The ballroom could have been transformed into parking. And they had considered trying to list the hotel in the National Register of Historic Places in order to qualify for historic tax credits.
Smith said the property had some mold issues and needed some environmental cleanup, but nothing that would have been cost prohibitive at the time. Today, the economics of the project have obviously changed, he said.
The owner, he recalled, thought the site would only increase in value once the renovations of the Gateway Arch grounds wrapped up. Ultimately, though, the owner never moved forward with any plans.
“It’s the front door of our region. It’s on every postcard of the Arch,” Smith said. “It’s a terrific site. We need it to get redeveloped.”
- 3,757
^^ I would feel better about demo of the tower if I knew something spectacular or at least worth the demo was going there. As many speculate, if the 30 story tower is demolished, either the site could site empty for years or the site will see something less that spectacular there. I understand the building is in bad shape and not so useful in modern terms, but it is worth saving the tower IMO. Again, this thing is a landmark that has dotted our skyline for my entire life. I like to idea of keeping the tower as part of a modern tower meets old tower mixed development. All of this seems unlikely under the current environment/market. I hope I am wrong and I get your point, but unless this site is utilized as a prominent riverfront property should be, I say keep the tower.
- 488
Agreed - if its a strip mall obviously doing a tear down seems like a terrible idea. I don't anticipate someone spending all this money to acquire & demo to make a capital return of a strip mall or parking lot, so my assumptions are it will be something pretty decent.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Mar 28, 2024^^ I would feel better about demo of the tower if I knew something spectacular or at least worth the demo was going there. As many speculate, if the 30 story tower is demolished, either the site could site empty for years or the site will see something less that spectacular there. I understand the building is in bad shape and not so useful in modern terms, but it is worth saving the tower IMO. Again, this thing is a landmark that has dotted our skyline for my entire life. I like to idea of keeping the tower as part of a modern tower meets old tower mixed development. All of this seems unlikely under the current environment/market. I hope I am wrong and I get your point, but unless this site is utilized as a prominent riverfront property should be, I say keep the tower.
I'd also prefer that something was built there, this thing sitting vacant in another 10 years is a massive loss for St. Louis. A vacant building that some people like the architecture of is bad. We should try to grow as a city. Stopping a decent development because people are used to this building being there doesn't help us convince the next resident to move here or convince anyone who has a job opportunity here of how dynamic the city is.
- 2,419
I've lived in St. Louis for five years and agree with you.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Mar 28, 2024I've lived in St Louis for 15 years. I don't understand the desire to keep it the way it is, that's crazy to me. I don't love tearing down buildings for no reason but this siteplan is awful. Cities should grow and change and that's okay. Keeping everything the way it always was is a great way to keep our city stagnant.
The site plan for this building, sandwiched between the downtown CBD and a national park featuring the nation's tallest monument, is atrocious.
I truly love the idea of having Clark St. cut through the site to Memorial Dr., with a pedestrian bridge over the highway into the park.
I've long disliked the setup of Memorial Dr. It has never failed to surprise me that only one ground level business, Top Notch Axe Throwing, has signage facing the Arch grounds along the north and south segments of the road.
- 339
Keeping the tower while adding 400+ units to the site would be super easy. I have attached an example of an arrangement I believe would be most beneficial. I say the developer should tap Studio Gang and see if they can one-up One Hundred.
- 3,757
^ Love the idea of adding something epic like 100. Studio Gang would be perfect!
- 1,607
I have to imagine that the sub level parking structure and the loads it was designed to handle could also be an issue.
Given the consistent under-shoot mentality of our leadership I simply don't want to see this come down and turn into a BPV connector to the Arch Grounds. I think the absolute worst case scenario is where this becomes green-ish space with a ped bridge. Worse than a strip mall, because that will at least bring more retail downtown.
Given the consistent under-shoot mentality of our leadership I simply don't want to see this come down and turn into a BPV connector to the Arch Grounds. I think the absolute worst case scenario is where this becomes green-ish space with a ped bridge. Worse than a strip mall, because that will at least bring more retail downtown.
- 3,428
I would love to see Johnny Morris buy this space and build a year-round Big Cedar lodge with a large amusement park area for kids. I wouldn’t even mind if it included a big Bass Pro Downtown like in OKC. It would be a great tourist attraction to complement the Arch for families visiting to see the Arch, the river, baseball, or soccer games.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A quick check-in on the site of Cincinnati's former Millennium Hotel:
3CDC reveals short-term plan for former Millennium Hotel site Feb 14th 2024
3CDC reveals short-term plan for former Millennium Hotel site Feb 14th 2024
Nearly four years ago, the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority acquired and shuttered the former Millennium Hotel, later demolishing it with an eye toward future development.
The site’s long-term future has not yet been decided, but the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. (3CDC) recently gave more details about what its short-term future could look like.
Once a $209 million transformation of the Duke Energy Convention Center is complete, the site will be used as outdoor convention space for now, an amenity many convention groups desire, according to local tourism officials. Early renderings show a park-like atmosphere with two major clusters of trees, walking paths, tables and chairs, a small stage, as well as both paved and grass-covered open space.
Why is it so difficult to shape this into modern uses like apartments? It was already a hotel. Just make the rooms bigger?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Mar 28, 2024Condition is no better or worse the some others that have been renovated, like current Jefferson Arms but that’s never been the issue, it’s the shape and trying to shape it into modern uses.
Anyway, I know the bizjournal piece says multiple developers have asked about it, everything I’ve heard points to a full site demo
I'm undereducated but seems like it could be doable.
- 9,543
No, the entire thing is for sale and now it’s a race to buy by multiple firms
As I suspected earlier there was definitely some wires crossed between the city with the ED process.
As I suspected earlier there was definitely some wires crossed between the city with the ED process.
- 3,762
^ do you mean there was miscommunication or just bureaucratic process?