1010 Pine is ~504k, technically fully occupied, but I'm pretty sure it does not factor into Colliers or CBRE's data because it is owner occupied. I could be wrong though.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2025Met Square alone has nearly a million square feet, and most of that is occupied with offices. Some of those buildings are deceptively large. I can't find numbers, but Southwestern Bell might be another half million fairly quickly. 909 Chestnut was 1.4 million all by itself in the day. There's millions of square feet vacant, but there are also millions that aren't.SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025Mmm...millions? Really? Where are you getting your data? Because it's more in the thousands lately. There are definitely not millions of sq ft of *occupied* office space downtown.
- 9,563
Are you having a stroke? Lewis Rice, Thompson Coburn, US Bank and Stifel allow occupy like 1.5m sq feet in a 2 block area aloneSRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025Mmm...millions? Really? Where are you getting your data? Because it's more in the thousands lately. There are definitely not millions of sq ft of *occupied* office space downtown.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025What you're describing is what the city has been doing for decades. But there is no scenario where we can drop the office aspect of downtown's economy entirely. Many of the remaining office buildings can't be reasonably converted and the city still relies on tons of tax revenue from occupied office buildings.SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025I'm definitely not pro-rah-rah move everything to the suburbs, don't get me twisted here on this. I'm just saying, reality dictates otherwise, unfortunately. To clarify, the city I don't feel is the center of "office-commercial" anymore. What the city is still, is a destination for dining, entertainment, and culture though. In that respect, yes, the city is still very much the center of it all.
My honest take about the state of the city, in particular downtown, is that downtown seriously needs to pivot away from office space in a big way. Downtown just isn't that place it once was. But that's not because of the lack of office workers. Office people were only seen in a 2-hour window for lunch on the streets. Sure, they added bodies to the daytime occupancy tally. But what really was the steam that brought life to the streets of downtown? It was goods and services. Downtown was a destination for conveniences and services. It makes sense long-term why downtown simply largely died...consider when downtown was peak hum, much of the suburban commercial corridors didn't exist yet. Certainly, no exurbs were pulling from it either.
Screw offices. The future of downtown is as a dense residential neighborhood WITH the return of goods and services...along with entertainment options. The cubicle workers aren't doing anything for downtown these days. So who cares if they disappear? And I can say that in an informed way...Considering I was just literally a part of management for a major office tower downtown. These people, trust me, are not sustaining downtown. They mostly stay inside...they eat at their desks...Coming down 5 days a week and filling up a parking garage, to go work in their cube and then go home, isn't going to bring downtown back from the dead any time soon.
No, the focus should be on converting office space to residential...either condo or apartment...and if the floorplate isn't feasible for that use, then a productive use that either generates useful product... such as a vertical hydroponic farm... And if we're going to keep the commercial space and not convert, then subdivide it and offer subsidies to start up business models or recent graduates who are embarking on starting their own medical practice.. or hell, light industrial manufacturing..etc etc..I mean, there is a litany of uses for these vacant spaces. You just have VERY unimaginative building owners and brokers holding fast to the commercial spaces downtown as is...they're hoping for a golden unicorn, which is likely never coming. Eventually, the back will break, and most of these buildings will have to reimagine their perpetually lifeless spaces.
By bumping up the residential population significantly, you'd be incentivizing retailers and restaurants to open shop. And that is a huge issue down there. Downtown is severely underserved for conveniences. Just look at why people who don't have kids choose places like Ballwin or Creve Couer instead of choosing to live in the urban core. Everything they need is in proximity. There is easy convenience out there. Now imagine that same easy convenience downtown, where everything is within walking distance from your door, as opposed to a drive. People don't like walking around downtown because it's frankly depressing. So much vacancy on the street level. What's the incentive?
You want downtown to turn around and people to give a sh*t about it again...give them reasons to want to be around. Initiate aggressive, competitive policies, zoning, and simple permitting. Yes, give the most insane bargain bin tax credits and incentives explicitly to office-to-residential conversion plans. Drive up the residential population with new attractive housing options, and then take that momentum and aggressively market to retailers, big and small, who are from outside the market, and give them big breaks and incentives too. If you want a thriving, lively, truly alive downtown.... money talks, bullsh*t walks. Make it into a true mixed-use neighborhood, kill the notion of it ever being an office central business district ever again. *deep inhale* I MEAN *****.
Downtown today has millions of square feet more occupied office space than anywhere else in the region, including Clayton.
- 2,632
I hope the final designs allow/account for a future Metrolink stop by 64. While it isn't even in the top five lines I would choose to build in the region, it's not unreasonable to eventually build a highway running line from Brentwood to Chesterfield Commons.
I could also see it being economically and politically easier for a smaller scale project that just focuses on Chesterfield. Maybe a gondola system with stations in Downtown Chesterfield and The District. Maybe run it east a bit to connect some of the highway adjacent office buildings and Maryville University.
I could also see it being economically and politically easier for a smaller scale project that just focuses on Chesterfield. Maybe a gondola system with stations in Downtown Chesterfield and The District. Maybe run it east a bit to connect some of the highway adjacent office buildings and Maryville University.
1) We'd be lucky if this place gets increased bus service.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2025I hope the final designs allow/account for a future Metrolink stop by 64. While it isn't even in the top five lines I would choose to build in the region, it's not unreasonable to eventually build a highway running line from Brentwood to Chesterfield Commons.
I could also see it being economically and politically easier for a smaller scale project that just focuses on Chesterfield. Maybe a gondola system with stations in Downtown Chesterfield and The District. Maybe run it east a bit to connect some of the highway adjacent office buildings and Maryville University.
2) I will leave St. Louis if we spend money on a gondola for Chesterfield.
Are you ever capable of spirited discourse without resorting to devolving to middle school taunts? ..And you're the one they love to quote in news articles...that's very telling for our region. Pfft... I really wonder if it will ever be possible to take you seriously my dude.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2025Are you having a stroke? Lewis Rice, Thompson Coburn, US Bank and Stifel allow occupy like 1.5m sq feet in a 2 block area aloneSRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025Mmm...millions? Really? Where are you getting your data? Because it's more in the thousands lately. There are definitely not millions of sq ft of *occupied* office space downtown.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025
What you're describing is what the city has been doing for decades. But there is no scenario where we can drop the office aspect of downtown's economy entirely. Many of the remaining office buildings can't be reasonably converted and the city still relies on tons of tax revenue from occupied office buildings.
Downtown today has millions of square feet more occupied office space than anywhere else in the region, including Clayton.
Also, my grandmother died of a stroke, you impotent *****. Thanks for that.
This CBRE data set? This is their most recent data on office submarkets and the number you're quoting isn't quite aligning with the complete information here... so I remain confused by the number you came up with. Not because of you, but for this here:Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025It's according to CBRE.SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025I'd be interested to see the source of that stat, to see the breakdown of what all of that 8.2 million occupied space is being used for and who by. Because that just sounds highly improbable to me.. for just downtown. I can see that possibly if you're lumping in downtown west and the near north riverfront too. But downtown core alone... how is "office" being defined in your information?Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025
Downtown CBD has 8.2 million sf of occupied office vs Clayton's 5.7 million. That's a difference of 2.5 million, aka millions. If Clayton's space was fully occupied, downtown would still have over 1 million sf of occupied space.
-Market stats by index shows that of the 14 million sq feet of net rentable, about 4 million is currently available. Leaving 10 million leased or committed at least. So 28% vacant of the total sq feet in the downtown immediate market.
-However, market statistics by district table show different, for the "CBD" category... total inventory for office sq ft is over 11 million sq ft. With about 3.5 million currently vacant. So, roughly 8 million leased or committed...
These 2 tables within the same report conflict one another. So, with that deviation in the statistics, which stat is actually accurate and which do you believe?
+1
"Downtown" on CBRE is the entire city of St. Louis, including Midtown, Cortex, CWE, Highlands, and downtown.SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2025This CBRE data set? This is their most recent data on office submarkets and the number you're quoting isn't quite aligning with the complete information here... so I remain confused by the number you came up with. Not because of you, but for this here:Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025It's according to CBRE.SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2025I'd be interested to see the source of that stat, to see the breakdown of what all of that 8.2 million occupied space is being used for and who by. Because that just sounds highly improbable to me.. for just downtown. I can see that possibly if you're lumping in downtown west and the near north riverfront too. But downtown core alone... how is "office" being defined in your information?
-Market stats by index shows that of the 14 million sq feet of net rentable, about 4 million is currently available. Leaving 10 million leased or committed at least. So 28% vacant of the total sq feet in the downtown immediate market.
-However, market statistics by district table show different, for the "CBD" category... total inventory for office sq ft is over 11 million sq ft. With about 3.5 million currently vacant. So, roughly 8 million leased or committed...
These 2 tables within the same report conflict one another. So, with that deviation in the statistics, which stat is actually accurate and which do you believe?
"CBD" is Downtown and Downtown West.
This is why you see a difference, since the city as a whole has more office space than downtown alone. The numbers referenced a few posts ago was comparing their CBD district to Clayton, which includes the entire city of Clayton.
I see now, thank you for delineating that difference.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2025"Downtown" on CBRE is the entire city of St. Louis, including Midtown, Cortex, CWE, Highlands, and downtown.SRQ2STL wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2025This CBRE data set? This is their most recent data on office submarkets and the number you're quoting isn't quite aligning with the complete information here... so I remain confused by the number you came up with. Not because of you, but for this here:
-Market stats by index shows that of the 14 million sq feet of net rentable, about 4 million is currently available. Leaving 10 million leased or committed at least. So 28% vacant of the total sq feet in the downtown immediate market.
-However, market statistics by district table show different, for the "CBD" category... total inventory for office sq ft is over 11 million sq ft. With about 3.5 million currently vacant. So, roughly 8 million leased or committed...
These 2 tables within the same report conflict one another. So, with that deviation in the statistics, which stat is actually accurate and which do you believe?
"CBD" is Downtown and Downtown West.
This is why you see a difference, since the city as a whole has more office space than downtown alone. The numbers referenced a few posts ago was comparing their CBD district to Clayton, which includes the entire city of Clayton.
It wasn't enough for the burbs to steal office tenants from Downtown STL, now they're taking our art too.
Sculpture at US Bank plaza is leaving downtown St. Louis for Chesterfield - STLtoday.com
Sculpture at US Bank plaza is leaving downtown St. Louis for Chesterfield - STLtoday.com
- 1,614
What the heck? That's annoying. Private property. But Annoying.
Yeah, that was my thought too. Not really impactful in the grand scheme of things, but just annoying.
Can we give them the Serra sculpture instead?
Can we give them the Serra sculpture instead?
https://www.westnewsmagazine.com/news/c ... a5a55.html
Article is quite the read.
-Developer wants the main retail garage reduced from 1,068 parking spaces across 5 floors to 617 spaces across 3 floors. But the city of Chesterfield requires at least 970 spaces.
-The developer says the parking requirement will limit how much retail the development can have, they argue that they fulfill the parking requirement if you include street parking.
-The mayor says Chesterfield bases it's parking mandate on "average accepted practices" and that Chesterfield should have a higher standard (LMAO).
-The mayor worries that 25 years from now, they may need more parking, so he's hesitant to support a variance to allow for less parking here.
-A city councilmember says the parking garage may be too far away to be used for the main downtown part of the development, but the developer says there will be even more parking provided across the development.
-A bus stop planned to be located in the center of the development is being moved because apparently neither the developer or Metro want it there (at least there will be bus access I guess).
This article largely about parking just epitomizes why suburban developments like this are so terrible.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Article is quite the read.
-Developer wants the main retail garage reduced from 1,068 parking spaces across 5 floors to 617 spaces across 3 floors. But the city of Chesterfield requires at least 970 spaces.
-The developer says the parking requirement will limit how much retail the development can have, they argue that they fulfill the parking requirement if you include street parking.
-The mayor says Chesterfield bases it's parking mandate on "average accepted practices" and that Chesterfield should have a higher standard (LMAO).
-The mayor worries that 25 years from now, they may need more parking, so he's hesitant to support a variance to allow for less parking here.
-A city councilmember says the parking garage may be too far away to be used for the main downtown part of the development, but the developer says there will be even more parking provided across the development.
-A bus stop planned to be located in the center of the development is being moved because apparently neither the developer or Metro want it there (at least there will be bus access I guess).
This article largely about parking just epitomizes why suburban developments like this are so terrible.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
There’s a huge counter that communities like Belleville could do with transit oriented development, but they seem to be sleeping on that. They don’t realize what they have with Metro running through there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 114
I have a feeling after the Chesterfield government's changes they request its going to resemble more and more of a typical suburban development, but with apartments in it, and far less of the oringinal goal.StlAlex wrote: ↑4:26 AM - Feb 28https://www.westnewsmagazine.com/news/c ... a5a55.html
Article is quite the read.
-Developer wants the main retail garage reduced from 1,068 parking spaces across 5 floors to 617 spaces across 3 floors. But the city of Chesterfield requires at least 970 spaces.
-The developer says the parking requirement will limit how much retail the development can have, they argue that they fulfill the parking requirement if you include street parking.
-The mayor says Chesterfield bases it's parking mandate on "average accepted practices" and that Chesterfield should have a higher standard (LMAO).
-The mayor worries that 25 years from now, they may need more parking, so he's hesitant to support a variance to allow for less parking here.
-A city councilmember says the parking garage may be too far away to be used for the main downtown part of the development, but the developer says there will be even more parking provided across the development.
-A bus stop planned to be located in the center of the development is being moved because apparently neither the developer or Metro want it there (at least there will be bus access I guess).
This article largely about parking just epitomizes why suburban developments like this are so terrible.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk