I knew it was run by Scott, fell under their jurisdiction or whatever but I didn’t realize they “owned the land” or whatever we want to call it. I figured when it was time to sell, it would be done by some some kind of higher authority that would get the money. DoD or something like that. Same place money would go when they shut down a base and sell some of the land off.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 17, 2022^ only certain DoD entities can hold land and property. NGA is not one of them, so that falls on the nearest installation that can and in this case thats Scott AFB, so its their property. if NGA was located about 30-40 miles to the west it would fall under the Army/Fort Leonard Wood.
- 2,925
@dbInSouthCity Is it reasonable to anticipate that the Second Street site could be repurposed to new use within the defense and/or intelligence sectors under a new operator? Being an existing (if outdated) Intel HQ, I'd bet it could find continued use by DoD or another like entity, such as it being newly available and secured office space, or even redevelopment as a secured data center. Or, do you think it more likely that Scott AFB will sell the Second Street site to a private sector buyer?
- 1,792
My hope is the State of Missouri Buys it and converts to a State Historic Site or integrate as part of Jefferson National Memorial. The historic buildings on site date back to the civil war. Would any private operator want to take on the financial burden of maintaining those structures. I suppose they could demo them but considering the care which NGA put in to maintaining them you have to think they value them.
Not sure what would make sense to do with the office building portion though. The site is probably only attractive to Sigma Aldrich or AB and I don't see how to make a park of the parking lot and still have a functional office space. Besides i would rather new office jobs focus in downtown if they are looking for more space even for AB and Sigma Aldrich.
Also DoD doesn't have a strict profit motive so they could sell to state or other governmental body significantly lower than what the property is worth as a commercial property.
Not sure what would make sense to do with the office building portion though. The site is probably only attractive to Sigma Aldrich or AB and I don't see how to make a park of the parking lot and still have a functional office space. Besides i would rather new office jobs focus in downtown if they are looking for more space even for AB and Sigma Aldrich.
Also DoD doesn't have a strict profit motive so they could sell to state or other governmental body significantly lower than what the property is worth as a commercial property.
One option might be moving MEPS over there. Could open up a redevelopment opportunity near city hall...? Probably too big but it a thought. Dunno.
- 2,925
^The idea of an intelligence agency HQ opening up to a new tenant is really intriguing me. I'm aware of certain security standards that certain intelligence agency buildings maintain, which long-story-short are incredibly boutique and not really anything a standard private sector real estate investor would want to pay to maintain. Yet, having these features potentially makes such a structure something extremely attractive to the right authorized tenant. Maybe the building becomes something that could be handed-off to a comparable government entity? I really don't know the Second Street campus that well, not enough to speak intelligently about it, other than to assume that there's some really cool features there that could keep it within government agency and/or DoD hands.
It's a really curious thing, not something for which I can think having much in the way of precedent. I can dig MEPS going there, and expanding, but I doubt they'd go there alone if they did go there. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but maybe it could be a new opportunity for STL to attract more DoD or military branch office operations here. With Scott AFB having current ownership, I wonder if there could be a part of the USAF going in there. Or, recognizing Scott AFB's vital role in military logistics, if more government logistics assets could come into play there.
It's a really curious thing, not something for which I can think having much in the way of precedent. I can dig MEPS going there, and expanding, but I doubt they'd go there alone if they did go there. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but maybe it could be a new opportunity for STL to attract more DoD or military branch office operations here. With Scott AFB having current ownership, I wonder if there could be a part of the USAF going in there. Or, recognizing Scott AFB's vital role in military logistics, if more government logistics assets could come into play there.
- 9,526
Possible, yea but doubtful. There is a big push (non covid related as most DoD cannot be done from home anyway) to reduce admin space across the enterprise and with congress not planning any BRAC anytime soon, the push is to figure out space requirements based on mission and consolidate in as few facility as possible and demo the rest (on bases) and sell off basesgone corporate wrote: ↑Jun 17, 2022@dbInSouthCity Is it reasonable to anticipate that the Second Street site could be repurposed to new use within the defense and/or intelligence sectors under a new operator? Being an existing (if outdated) Intel HQ, I'd bet it could find continued use by DoD or another like entity, such as it being newly available and secured office space, or even redevelopment as a secured data center. Or, do you think it more likely that Scott AFB will sell the Second Street site to a private sector buyer?
So having these whatever amount that it is in square feet come off the Scott rolls will be the driver, could they sell to another federal non DoD agency, maybe if there is a buyer
- 2,052
These aren't the best photos, but I was in the area and curious where construction was so I snapped a few quick photos. The mixed use building ad was at the north west corner of Cass and Jefferson.
+2
As NGA shifts into new construction phase, it’s also eyeing a more diverse workforce
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/economy ... -workforce
![]()
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/economy ... -workforce
- 339
Does anyone have recent photos of this? I can imagine it's looking pretty close to finished.
- 9,526
I’ll have to double check because I may have misheard at a recent meeting but move in wasnt expected till 2026Elek.borrelli wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2022Does anyone have recent photos of this? I can imagine it's looking pretty close to finished.
They are saying late 2025 into 2026 for move in now. Slipped from 2025. The structure itself is all there and basically dried in now. There is surely a lot of work remaining to run all the MEP, finishes, then outfit the whole building with everything NGA requires that a normal office building does not have. That's more or less noted in the article. Remember, the construction of the building itself is only $700 million of the roughly $1.7 billion project. That other billion is all the NGA stuff. so 2-3 more years is not really surprising.
- 2,052
The article had a 2nd photo added:Elek.borrelli wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2022Does anyone have recent photos of this? I can imagine it's looking pretty close to finished.
- 339
Interesting how it's a $1 billion + project, and it looks like something you'd see in Chesterfield lol
Thanks for the updates!
Thanks for the updates!
^ It’s not really that interesting when you consider the mission and the use. Plus, it was $1.7 billion. Only about $700 million of that went into the structure and the property.
The real money spent will be inside…stuff the general public will never see.
The real money spent will be inside…stuff the general public will never see.
- 2,052
Been a while since we've posted a photo of the NGA project - anyone been by recently? How's it looking?
- 1,792
So I wish they could have settled on a little better configuration. The loss of buster brown shoe building particularly stung and i still think its loss was not necessary.
I also question any assertion that it will be a boon for the area in terms of property values, retail, development, etc.
I dislike that the new metrolink extension route goes straight up Jefferson and prefer the Florrisant Ave. route.
I definitely hate that McKee was able to profit in any way from this deal.
But I still think keeping NGA was better than not for the city. Its a sober pragmatic view, not polyana. Ultimately there were costs to keeping NGA. It was a bitter pill but I still think it was worth it. Time will tell.
I also question any assertion that it will be a boon for the area in terms of property values, retail, development, etc.
I dislike that the new metrolink extension route goes straight up Jefferson and prefer the Florrisant Ave. route.
I definitely hate that McKee was able to profit in any way from this deal.
But I still think keeping NGA was better than not for the city. Its a sober pragmatic view, not polyana. Ultimately there were costs to keeping NGA. It was a bitter pill but I still think it was worth it. Time will tell.
- 3,428
Still wish they would have defined a soft perimeter further out that included all current residences and a higher level of safety from crime etc that might encourage builders to build new homes attractive enough for the high tech workers to want to live there and walk to work. As they do on a lot of bases that have homes on the base but separated from the sensitive areas of the base.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As far as I know, those homes still are access controlled by military ID. So that would really limit the pool of people who could use them. I am not sure you would have enough interest for it to be worth it.gary kreie wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2023Still wish they would have defined a soft perimeter further out that included all current residences and a higher level of safety from crime etc that might encourage builders to build new homes attractive enough for the high tech workers to want to live there and walk to work. As they do on a lot of bases that have homes on the base but separated from the sensitive areas of the base.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 3,428
If you lived inside a new outer perimeter, you would be given IDs for all family members of course. But when you got to the current inner perimeter gates, you'd need a different ID to get in -- just like now. So, teens, say, living with you in your home in the outer perimeter could get in to their homes and bring friends, but not get into the inner fence. A clearance approved for the inner perimeter would automatically work for the outer perimeter too. This is what I've seen on other bases with highly sensitive operations and residential.jshank83 wrote: ↑Apr 17, 2023As far as I know, those homes still are access controlled by military ID. So that would really limit the pool of people who could use them. I am not sure you would have enough interest for it to be worth it.gary kreie wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2023Still wish they would have defined a soft perimeter further out that included all current residences and a higher level of safety from crime etc that might encourage builders to build new homes attractive enough for the high tech workers to want to live there and walk to work. As they do on a lot of bases that have homes on the base but separated from the sensitive areas of the base.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am just not sure there would be much demand in this setup short of an actual base setup where housing is free. And I don't the city/government buying up a bunch of land and building houses for free worker housing. I am guessing there are better uses of that moneygary kreie wrote: ↑Apr 17, 2023If you lived inside a new outer perimeter, you would be given IDs for all family members of course. But when you got to the current inner perimeter gates, you'd need a different ID to get in -- just like now. So, teens, say, living with you in your home in the outer perimeter could get in to their homes and bring friends, but not get into the inner fence. A clearance approved for the inner perimeter would automatically work for the outer perimeter too. This is what I've seen on other bases with highly sensitive operations and residential.jshank83 wrote: ↑Apr 17, 2023As far as I know, those homes still are access controlled by military ID. So that would really limit the pool of people who could use them. I am not sure you would have enough interest for it to be worth it.gary kreie wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2023Still wish they would have defined a soft perimeter further out that included all current residences and a higher level of safety from crime etc that might encourage builders to build new homes attractive enough for the high tech workers to want to live there and walk to work. As they do on a lot of bases that have homes on the base but separated from the sensitive areas of the base.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 9,526
Military also doesn’t provide housing for civilians in the military and there aren’t that many uniformed military working at NGA
- 1,793
How is this not done yet? I like the changes to Jefferson