I thought the parking garage was going to be sandwiched between the old and new tower? It doesn't look good fronting the street, especially because there's an unsightly parking garage literally across the street on Tucker. At least this project wasn't shelved completely like so many others.
- 10K
MattnSTL wrote:Did I read that wrong, or are all of the condos for the entire project now out? What happens to the people that had deposits down? I just lost a lot of excitement for this project. I know rental is a very important market component, but I would rather see a mix like the Syndicate. Hopefully the office tenant is still in.
Sounds like they're returning $750k in deposits.
The good news is that the office/retail portion is still on. That means LarsonAllen will still be relocating downtown. 18,000 sf of retail in the original building, 23,000 sf in the new one. 88,000 sf of office space.
The HUD loan requires the units be kept as rentals for five years.
I think this is a pretty smart move. The design of the new building looks pretty decent - the garage portion is atrocious. Couldn't they just make the openings in the garage look like windows so that it's not so garage-like?
- 6,775
dmmonty1 wrote:I think people are overreacting a bit. The fact that they're still building a new component to this project on the vacant lot is good news. And nine stories is nothing to sneeze at. I also don't believe the fact that these will be rental units is so terrible, either; after all, they can always go condo in the future. And despite what some people are saying, the new structure is not just a garage; the southern half is office space, and there is retail all around on the ground level. Seems like a good compromise to me, given the state of the economy. I can't believe anyone would prefer a surface parking lot to this alternative!
This is the correct analysis.
STLgasm wrote:I thought the parking garage was going to be sandwiched between the old and new tower? It doesn't look good fronting the street, especially because there's an unsightly parking garage literally across the street on Tucker. At least this project wasn't shelved completely like so many others.
For residences... this design is much better. The middle garage design was taking up valuable views of the park, while the "high rise" was looking smack at the opposite garage. Now with the new design everyone is facing the park.
- 6,775
zink wrote:STLgasm wrote:I thought the parking garage was going to be sandwiched between the old and new tower? It doesn't look good fronting the street, especially because there's an unsightly parking garage literally across the street on Tucker. At least this project wasn't shelved completely like so many others.
For residences... this design is much better. The middle garage design was taking up valuable views of the park, while the "high rise" was looking smack at the opposite garage. Now with the new design everyone is facing the park.
Huh???
- 390
Gone Corporate wrote:No bankruptcy for the developers.
No developers going to prison.
No tearing down buildings and then abandoning the site.
No half-finished site left to sit incomplete.
No Larry Rice attempt to move into the site.
While it's not as big as before, at least it's something. If not great, at least good.
I agree, they are saving that great looking building and it will be populated.
The photo caption in the print edition of the Post today identified this building as "The Railway Exchange Building". 
Also, for some reason, they chose to run a photo of some guy removing a boiler in the basement instead of showing a rendering of the project.
Also, for some reason, they chose to run a photo of some guy removing a boiler in the basement instead of showing a rendering of the project.
I personally think that this project is in some ways "settling" because of the downturn in the housing market. It pales in comparison to the old designs. Although I understand the issue with the economy, what the designers could have done was at least kept the design more modern albeit shorter. I also believe the garage could have been concealed more too. The design, with the exception of the first floor, looks like another hulking garage.
I still submit that this lot is too valuable and visible to have, what I believe, is a less-than-modest design built on it. To me, this is a poor infill on one of the few wide boulevards downtown. While I want the vacant lot to be developed and Larsen/Allen to move downtown, what's the harm in waiting until market conditions improve to get a better product?
I think downtown deserves better - at least design wise. I hope this design is just a rough draft.
I still submit that this lot is too valuable and visible to have, what I believe, is a less-than-modest design built on it. To me, this is a poor infill on one of the few wide boulevards downtown. While I want the vacant lot to be developed and Larsen/Allen to move downtown, what's the harm in waiting until market conditions improve to get a better product?
I think downtown deserves better - at least design wise. I hope this design is just a rough draft.
- 3,235
Have they started the conversion to apts on this building yet? Any Updates or est completion?
Demo work is still in progress from what I can tell, so actual conversion probably hasn't started yet. The building is under construction.
I have also been told by a Lawrence Group Architect that the rendering of the garage that was in the Post is not the design, and it will look much better. I'm anxious to see the real design.
I have also been told by a Lawrence Group Architect that the rendering of the garage that was in the Post is not the design, and it will look much better. I'm anxious to see the real design.
- 8,911
Project: Park Pacific
$120 million, Downtown
Developer: The Lawrence Group
Status: Condos nixed. Plans call for a parking garage, apartments and office space to open mid-2009.
What They’re Saying:
Financing in place but developer Steve Smith declined to name lenders: “There’s less money to go around. You have to have super strong deals and good relationships with lenders to get the loans.”
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... =printable
Walked by the building last Monday. They were going full speed ahead in gutting the inside.
Good news which I am not sure if people know, is that the accounting firm LarsonAllen has already planned to move into the Park Pacific and is planning to lease out 25,000 sq ft. They will be moving from their current 16,000 sqft location in Town and Country to downtown! Nice!
(Info from the Latest STL Business Journal)
Good news which I am not sure if people know, is that the accounting firm LarsonAllen has already planned to move into the Park Pacific and is planning to lease out 25,000 sq ft. They will be moving from their current 16,000 sqft location in Town and Country to downtown! Nice!
(Info from the Latest STL Business Journal)
- 10K
zink wrote:Walked by the building last Monday. They were going full speed ahead in gutting the inside.
Good news which I am not sure if people know, is that the accounting firm LarsonAllen has already planned to move into the Park Pacific and is planning to lease out 25,000 sq ft. They will be moving from their current 16,000 sqft location in Town and Country to downtown! Nice!
(Info from the Latest STL Business Journal)
And, Larson Allen just purchased a 25-person firm based in Maryland Heights, so it's like getting two businesses to move downtown!
Now THAT is awesome. We have steadily lost a lot of high value business to West County or Clayton in the past. DT is coming back 
Here's the May 2007 announcement of this move in MayorSlay.com. It lets you see that downtown's strongest ambassadors are often the businesses who are already here:
http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=690
http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=690
- 8,911
BAD BREAKS: Steve Smith, president of the Lawrence Group, had two bad breaks within a week's time.
The 52-year-old executive, who also is an off-road motorcycle racer, broke his collarbone Sunday in a race in Thayer, Mo. Then, he had to break the news on Monday that the architectural design firm had to lay off nine employees and cut everybody's pay by 10 percent "for a maximum of three months."
"We have had a solid, profitable year through three quarters," Smith said. "But we don't want to lose it all in the last quarter.
"We have a solid backlog of work that will kick in next year, but we see a soft spot in the next three months, and we don't want to take significant losses."
The company employs 200 in the St. Louis area.
Smith said there were no layoffs in "network offices" in other locations. In fact, Smith said, the office here is lending people "from St. Louis to other offices."
Smith is ranked third in Missouri in the over-50 off-road division, and had trouble holding on to his Austrian-made KTM 250 Sunday.
He thinks he has a better handle on renovation of the old Union Pacific Building at 13th and Olive streets the Lawrence Group is helping develop. It is a $120 million, 23-story project, with Alberici doing the structural work.
"We'll be under construction in December," Smith said. "It will be 195 apartments, 90,000 square feet of office and retail space and a parking structure on an adjacent lot."
Smith said the financing is complex, with a $16 million equity partner, a lender for bridge financing for historic tax credits, a bridge lender for tax increment financing and a construction lender.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
The 52-year-old executive, who also is an off-road motorcycle racer, broke his collarbone Sunday in a race in Thayer, Mo. Then, he had to break the news on Monday that the architectural design firm had to lay off nine employees and cut everybody's pay by 10 percent "for a maximum of three months."
"We have had a solid, profitable year through three quarters," Smith said. "But we don't want to lose it all in the last quarter.
"We have a solid backlog of work that will kick in next year, but we see a soft spot in the next three months, and we don't want to take significant losses."
The company employs 200 in the St. Louis area.
Smith said there were no layoffs in "network offices" in other locations. In fact, Smith said, the office here is lending people "from St. Louis to other offices."
Smith is ranked third in Missouri in the over-50 off-road division, and had trouble holding on to his Austrian-made KTM 250 Sunday.
He thinks he has a better handle on renovation of the old Union Pacific Building at 13th and Olive streets the Lawrence Group is helping develop. It is a $120 million, 23-story project, with Alberici doing the structural work.
"We'll be under construction in December," Smith said. "It will be 195 apartments, 90,000 square feet of office and retail space and a parking structure on an adjacent lot."
Smith said the financing is complex, with a $16 million equity partner, a lender for bridge financing for historic tax credits, a bridge lender for tax increment financing and a construction lender.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
- 5,433
Ouch- in more ways than one! 
Anyway, it's good to see the Park Pacific project moving forward- and with committed office tenants. I assume this parking structure is going to rise on the site where Cityside was supposed to be built? IMHO the design of it will either make or break the look of the overall project- hopefully much thought will be given to its design since it will face Tucker Boulevard.
Anyway, it's good to see the Park Pacific project moving forward- and with committed office tenants. I assume this parking structure is going to rise on the site where Cityside was supposed to be built? IMHO the design of it will either make or break the look of the overall project- hopefully much thought will be given to its design since it will face Tucker Boulevard.
- 6,775
ThreeOneFour wrote:Ouch- in more ways than one!
Anyway, it's good to see the Park Pacific project moving forward- and with committed office tenants. I assume this parking structure is going to rise on the site where Cityside was supposed to be built? IMHO the design of it will either make or break the look of the overall project- hopefully much thought will be given to its design since it will face Tucker Boulevard.
I would hope that maybe they would leave the City Side lot open. Plant some grass or something, and when the market inproves, they or someone else can build on it. I'd rather not have another parking garage right on Tucker.
I assume I'm remembering correctly, and the garage was sandwiched between City Side and the UP building?
Unfortunately I believe cityside was to be built above the parking structure so I would expect the parking structure to but up to Tucker. Hopefully the design will include street-level retail and a structure that doesn't scream "parking garage".
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I would hope that maybe they would leave the City Side lot open. Plant some grass or something, and when the market inproves, they or someone else can build on it. I'd rather not have another parking garage right on Tucker.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:It's easy to say what should be done when you're spending someone else's money.
For the minimal structural cost wouldn't it be beneficial for this developer to give themselves the option of building the Cityside tower at a later date. I understand the current design doesn't deviate much from the original.
They only say the latter when they disagree with the other's prescription. Otherwise, it's perfectly ok to do it.jlblues wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I would hope that maybe they would leave the City Side lot open. Plant some grass or something, and when the market inproves, they or someone else can build on it. I'd rather not have another parking garage right on Tucker.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:It's easy to say what should be done when you're spending someone else's money.
- 6,775
innov8ion wrote:They only say the latter when they disagree with the other's prescription. Otherwise, it's perfectly ok to do it.jlblues wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I would hope that maybe they would leave the City Side lot open. Plant some grass or something, and when the market inproves, they or someone else can build on it. I'd rather not have another parking garage right on Tucker.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:It's easy to say what should be done when you're spending someone else's money.
Of course the difference in this example is what I hope they would do, rather than what I insist they do.
This is one of the things that gives preservationists a bad name. A building sits empty and dilapidated for 20-30 years. Finally, someone buys it and wants to tear it down. The preservationist are outraged! "The developer should save that building and pour $10 million into it!" But a rational person asks, "If you wanted to save the building so badly, why didn't you buy it sometime in the past 30 years?"
One of my favorite charities is The Nature Conservancy. Instead of demanding someone do or not do something with their property, they simply buy it. Then they can do or not do whatever they want.
- 1,517
This is one of the things that gives preservationists a bad name. A building sits empty and dilapidated for 20-30 years. Finally, someone buys it and wants to tear it down. The preservationist are outraged! "The developer should save that building and pour $10 million into it!" But a rational person asks, "If you wanted to save the building so badly, why didn't you buy it sometime in the past 30 years?"
One of my favorite charities is The Nature Conservancy. Instead of demanding someone do or not do something with their property, they simply buy it. Then they can do or not do whatever they want.
I agree with you that this is the most effective preservation technique.
However, I disagree with your dismissal of the protests that arise when developers buy buildings to tear them down. Cities and their citizens have been able to determine land use and zoning for a long time. Private property owners do not always have the clear cut right just to tear a building down.
The real problem is not with preservationists’ buying properties, but with the general public opening up to local historic districts, which offer control over the district’s stock of buildings. There are far too many people who would like to see a certain important and threatened building be preserved, but would not support a local historic district due to the restrictions on their own activities with their homes and businesses.