New St. Louis County HQ

sc4mayor · PostOct 04, 2019#12019-10-04T00:17+00:00

From the Post-Dispatch:

St. Louis County eyes replacement for county government building
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 88ffe.html

Another alternative, he said, would be to enter an agreement with a developer to build both sites in a project that could also include a hotel, private offices, parking and ground-level retail.

chriss752 · PostOct 04, 2019#22019-10-04T00:19+00:00

This could be interesting.

dbInSouthCity · PostOct 04, 2019#32019-10-04T00:19+00:00

Unless the county plans to add another 700 employees to the current 700 in the new building they only need 105,000 SF, which is half the size of the current building

framer · PostOct 04, 2019#42019-10-04T02:13+00:00

"Officials...are studying the feasibility of demolishing and replacing the austere...county government building that has grimaced over downtown Clayton for nearly half a century".

Jeez; I guess the writer doesn't care for the building. Well I do, and I certainly hope they find a way to retrofit and save the current building. Actually, I think it's awesome. This is another classic example of MId-Century Architecture, and deserves some love. We have to preserve our architectural heritage.

aprice · PostOct 04, 2019#52019-10-04T13:40+00:00

Apart from the solid wall treatment along Central, I like it a lot too.
The knee-jerk reactions to demo buildings is so idiotic. I know that it's sometimes cheaper to the building owners but demo and new construction have a terrible environmental costs and are a waste of our future historic fabric.

sc4mayor · PostOct 04, 2019#62019-10-04T14:43+00:00

It is a pretty austere structure in my opinion, though that doesn't mean there isn't some merit to saving it. Personally, I'm not really a big Mid-Century fan so I'm mostly indifferent to whatever the County wants to do with it.

But there could be some options for preservation. It sounds like either the park to the west of the current structure or the parking lots to the east are the primary candidates. So there could be some potential for the County to get a new, modern, efficient, HQ (with the appropriate fire safety measures) while possibly selling off the old one for conversion to office space in the private sector.

I do think it could make a lot of sense for the County to team up with a developer on a larger plan combining mixed uses. Plus it could give an opportunity for a guy like Montgomery to get his plans off the ground with a large ready-made tenant. And that likely wouldn't require a property tax levy for County residents.

shadrach · PostOct 04, 2019#72019-10-04T16:33+00:00

Personally, I've never liked this building or the whole county government area. It feels like a vertical version of Meramec Community College (which itself feels like all four Parkway school district high schools stitched together on one footprint.)

Anyway, I'll echo sc4mayor's post. Save part, team up with a developer and come up with a vibrant mixed use plan.

kipfilet · PostOct 12, 2019#82019-10-12T23:23+00:00

It's a great brutalist building

Trololzilla · PostOct 13, 2019#92019-10-13T06:02+00:00

^ I believe that's an oxymoron

symphonicpoet · PostOct 14, 2019#102019-10-14T14:45+00:00

^Your mileage may vary, but things like the Louis Kahn's Salk Institute campus in San Diego are pretty near unversaly acknowledged as both brutalist and masterpieces of the first rank.

As for me, I like the current county HQ just fine.

sc4mayor · PostOct 14, 2019#112019-10-14T15:35+00:00

^ The problem isn't so much aesthetics though. It may look just fine from the outside but it has no fire suppression system, the offices are small and cramped, the wide corridors and concourses waste a ton of space, it's riddled with asbestos. Ernie Trakas said the County Council offices are "barely functional."

I'd rather see the County move into a nicer, modern and efficient space. Preferably part of a larger redevelopment plan that would fill in some of these empty parking lots. If the County wants to preserve the old building and sell it off, that's fine with me...but I think it's time they move on to something better.

symphonicpoet · PostOct 14, 2019#122019-10-14T17:47+00:00

^I'm not saying they should stay there. I just hope to see the building preserved and used. It's a decent looking building. I can't believe it isn't sprinkled though. There's no excuse for that. I've seen sprinklers retrofitted into buildings many many times older. The rest is, meh. Every building in town has asbestos. Wrap it and don't mess with it. My house. Probably your house. All the schools. It's . . . incredibly common. The configuration is potentially more of an issue. And I don't doubt it needs a communications and A/V update. But adaptive reuse could fix all of that.

aprice · PostOct 14, 2019#132019-10-14T18:45+00:00

I agree with all of SP's points but will say that there's probably some contradiction in saying "retrofit for sprinklers" and "don't touch the asbestos" in the same statement.
That being said, you still have to do asbestos abatement before & during demolition. It's almost more of a reason not to tear down a building.

symphonicpoet · PostOct 14, 2019#142019-10-14T20:11+00:00

^It probably depends where the asbestos is. If it's a popcorn ceiling, then you win, it's a contradiction. If it's pipe wrap and duct seals then I don't see why it would be a problem to work around it. It's probably a little bit of all of the above, I suppose. All too often is. I still can't believe it's not already sprinkled. That boggles my mind. But then . . . I do know an ancient wood ceilinged theatre with knob and tube wiring that isn't sprinkled. Gorgeous old barn. Scares me just a bit to hang a light there for several reasons.

Trololzilla · PostOct 15, 2019#152019-10-15T06:56+00:00

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑
Oct 14, 2019
^Your mileage may vary, but things like the Louis Kahn's Saulk Institute campus in San Diego are pretty near unversaly acknowledged as both brutalist and masterpieces of the first rank.

Agreed on the Salk Institute - it's a fantastic design. Perhaps my distaste for Brutalism stems from my love of anything Bauhaus - a better blend of form and function, IMO. I really wish there was more Bauhaus stuff in the region.

gone corporate · PostOct 17, 2019#162019-10-17T18:53+00:00

Nice. And I know exactly where they can build their new buildings. You see, there's this awesome street named Clark, and it has a couple blocks of parking lots just west of Tucker, alongside City Hall of the City of Saint Louis. I know that this would mean getting the City and County playing in the same sandbox, but yeah, looks like the County's running out of time in their current digs...

This is the perfect opportunity for City and County reunification. I don't care if it's County absorbing the City as the newest municipality, or whatever. This is the moment where the desire for reunification meets an eight-figure immediate need of the County's to take care of its own self.

sc4mayor · PostNov 05, 2021#172021-11-05T15:01+00:00

Faced with $50 million in needed upgrades, St. Louis County considers replacing administration building in Clayton
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 04ef8.html

quincunx · PostNov 05, 2021#182021-11-05T16:15+00:00

Sounds like a good time to consider merging.

SouthCityJR · PostNov 05, 2021#192021-11-05T19:39+00:00

How can the cost estimates jump from 27 to 35 to 50 million in just a few years? Seems like a massive jump.

Laife Fulk · PostNov 05, 2021#202021-11-05T19:57+00:00

Increased cost of materials and labor could definitely eat into a good chunk of that. The timeline has been 2016: $27.5M, 2019: $35M, 2020: $37M, and 2021: $50M. Add in aging infrastructure where the longer it takes, the more probably needs to be replaced, and it checks out to me.

symphonicpoet · PostNov 05, 2021#212021-11-05T21:41+00:00

quincunx wrote: ↑
Nov 05, 2021
Sounds like a good time to consider merging.

I do like the idea of a merger, but I'm not sure how it solves this particular problem, as I can't imagine the city has adequate space in better shape. City hall has its own laundry list of needs last I heard. And there's probably not enough space between that, the old Municipal Courthouse, and whatever else the city has in inventory nearby combined. I say do it anyway and accept the fact that there will be a bill in the short term. Now, if you could move the entire state government into 909 Chestnut . . .

quincunx · PostNov 05, 2021#222021-11-05T22:04+00:00

The broad point is fragmentation makes us house poor.

The BT plan had the merged gov't located downtown, so they figured there was enough space for it.

symphonicpoet · PostNov 05, 2021#232021-11-05T22:43+00:00

^I'd be more than a bit surprised if they got to the level of detail of considering square footage for offices. Nothing in their plan gave me that kind of confidence.

dredger · PostNov 05, 2021#242021-11-05T23:22+00:00

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑
Nov 05, 2021
Increased cost of materials and labor could definitely eat into a good chunk of that. The timeline has been 2016: $27.5M, 2019: $35M, 2020: $37M, and 2021: $50M. Add in aging infrastructure where the longer it takes, the more probably needs to be replaced, and it checks out to me.

I would also add that a lot of budgets, especially public or government, start at what 5-10% design level? when your really don't see a true scope of work & serious material quantities/takeoffs or even the complexities of geotech & utitlities until you can get to 60-70% design and borings/field prep? for those who are a lot more familiar with the process of getting a project out to bid..
My opinion is a budget shouldn't be stated until a certain design level is reached but the downside is some more cost upfront. However, it will go a long way in dealing with some of the big swings that are also partially self inflicted by nothing more than guesstimates.

quincunx · PostMay 31, 2023#252023-05-31T13:02+00:00

Dang. Expansive options.

StlToday - Want a new St. Louis County government building? Contractor suggests options.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 89597.html