why am I not suprised. SLU tears down density and gives the city a flat green field. Do they have a fountain there yet?
actually I just remebered that there is indeed a fountain there already ..... long live biondi urban planning - making suburbs out of cities for the last 15 years
No, there is no fountain. That is across the street. This lot is just fenced and actually used as a dog park. Luckily, SLU did not tear down the state office building yet.
- 10K
This might actually be a good thing - in the long run, of course.
I think a smaller building - 4-5 stories or so, but with no setback - might actually be more appropriate for that site anyway. Save the high-rises for the blocks farther north. A shorter building might serve as a better "gateway" to Grand Center anyway.
Marquette has a mixed-use building just off its campus that might serve as a good model for Grand and Lindell:
![]()
I think a smaller building - 4-5 stories or so, but with no setback - might actually be more appropriate for that site anyway. Save the high-rises for the blocks farther north. A shorter building might serve as a better "gateway" to Grand Center anyway.
Marquette has a mixed-use building just off its campus that might serve as a good model for Grand and Lindell:
I think this is how it went down. Biondi saw JBlues post, put a new proposal on Salazaar's desk, Salazaar said he was nuts, Biondi pulls out first after realizing he is not getting a big chunk of Salazaar's fed tax credits and uses the economy as an excuse to save face. In the meantime, on the bottom of Biodi's bottom desk drawer is a print out of Jblues post. Another dream in Biondi's desire to be a player like Wash U.
Actually, some other unintended consequence that might be beneficial. Would Salazaar be interested in getting his hands on the defunct Metropolitan building? He can do a reasonable rehab (apartments), won't have to deal with SLU and still have his mega tax credits to spread around. The piggy bank would be free to do another office rehab project dowtown for themselves. Better yet, team up with Spinnaker to get Laural rolling while taking on a office space lease at 1400 Washington (I hope I got that adress right - new LEED office proposal where skyhouse was to be).
Actually, some other unintended consequence that might be beneficial. Would Salazaar be interested in getting his hands on the defunct Metropolitan building? He can do a reasonable rehab (apartments), won't have to deal with SLU and still have his mega tax credits to spread around. The piggy bank would be free to do another office rehab project dowtown for themselves. Better yet, team up with Spinnaker to get Laural rolling while taking on a office space lease at 1400 Washington (I hope I got that adress right - new LEED office proposal where skyhouse was to be).
Anyone that owns a piece of land at this important corner and couldn't get something up by now is a failure and should be ashamed of themselves.
- 1,026
yes you are correct - fountain is across the street. Prepare yourselves, therefore, for two fountains.
- 2,929
I think SLU is more interested in the quality of what they will build there. If they can't afford to do it right today, they'll hold off and do it right tomorrow. However, with their endowment down about 30% for the year, I would hold off new construction as well if I was on the board, no matter how much I want that makeshift frisbee lawn filled. Sure beats a one-story retail lot going there with a Qdoba and a copy store, profitable as those may be.Expat wrote:Anyone that owns a piece of land at this important corner and couldn't get something up by now is a failure and should be ashamed of themselves.
- 1,026
I hope you're right. .... but I'm becoming jaded in my early middle age.
and I agree about the shame (they should go to the box and feel shame - three emoticons for anyone who catches that reference)...
yes, the economy is bad now, but it wasn't bad until recently. They've had this property for how long now? Other universities seem to build on much tighter schedules. Hell Wash U's campus is under constant construction. They sprout new buildings like weeds.
yes, the economy is bad now, but it wasn't bad until recently. They've had this property for how long now? Other universities seem to build on much tighter schedules. Hell Wash U's campus is under constant construction. They sprout new buildings like weeds.
and this example just buttresses my long held opinion that SLU is its own worst enemy. IMO the biggest factor holding them back is their campus/social environment. There's just not much to do around there. Its improved drastically over the last ten years, true - but those improvements seem to come in spite of the university rather than because of it. They're eternally against bars and nightlife in the area. They tear down what could be a really vibrant urban fabric and replace it with green fields, fences and fountains. Take a look at Marquette, Georgetown, Fordham, Boston College etc etc ... they make their urban surroundings MORE vibrant and their campuses benefit accordingly. SLU seems to want Maryville's campus. A giant, sanitized suburban business park. Honestly, there's no excuse for not having a loop like street down there when you have a few thousand undergrads just sitting there waiting to spend their parents money. The only reason we don't have that is the university itself. They close the grind, 20 north ... tear down dense urban environments for seemingly no reason ....
ahh ... its just my opinion.
ahh ... its just my opinion.
- 2,929
For the sake of comparison:markofucity wrote:and I agree about the shame (they should go to the box and feel shame - three emoticons for anyone who catches that reference)...
yes, the economy is bad now, but it wasn't bad until recently. They've had this property for how long now? Other universities seem to build on much tighter schedules. Hell Wash U's campus is under constant construction. They sprout new buildings like weeds.
Endowment for Saint Louis University: $742,000,000 (2006)
Endowment for Washington University: $4,368,000,000 (2006)
Source: S&P Money Market Directory
To update, as these are 2006 figures, it is fair to assume that both SLU and WashU saw their endowments rise 10% in 2007. Within the last 6 months, the annual performance of both are down in the neighborhood of 20-35% from the 2007 levels.
Assuming a 10% 2007 increase and a 25% 2008 decrease, then SLU's endowment is in the neighborhood of $612M, down almost $130M from 2006. With the same formula, WashU's endowment is in the neighborhood of $3,604M, down $764M from 2006.
*All these are estimates; they can be up or down from the guesses.
*More so, these are conservative estimates; they may be much worse depending on exposure to now toxic investments.
WashU broke ground on their properties before the whole house of cards called "credit" fell into itself; hopefully, they've locked in the costs of the construction, including and especially raw materials, else they could be in real trouble. For SLU to break ground on their funky high rises today, they'd be eating way too deeply into their asset bases.
EDIT: Also note that the types of construction projects are different in nature and for how they would fit into their long strategies.
WashU's new construction is focused on the creation of an increased campus, with new academic buildings under construction. This is a pure construction focused on the extension of the University's mission.
Meanwhile, SLU's projects are part-urban revitalization, part-campus extension, and part-speculative investment. Should this be built, it would extend the offerings for academic and campus life, but it would also surely include Class A office space and residential, as well as non-student recreation (i.e.: movie theater). For these projects to land, they would need to have external investors pledge a percentage of participation, both in final construction but also in risk assumption. Concurrently, as these buildings could be seen as an investment, I'm sure they are seen as a long-term compounded private expenditure of and for the endowment.
With these markets, and at that location, I don't think an academic company should focus on constructing speculative office space today.
- 1,026
I'm aware that the endowments are hugely different in size - and that SLU therefore takes a larger hit when the markets go south. But still ... they've had this prperty for awhile. Well befoire the markets went south. And what are the endowments of the other urban, Jesuit universities that I noted? Why are they able to build up their urban enviroements while SLU is not? I honestly don't know their endowments so maybe I'm off base here, but I'd be suprised if they were not in the same ballpark (especially Marquette).
but I think there's a larger point: Why tear down existant buildigns without the funding/planning/will in place to build another? I would be more than happy if SLU would just sit on their hands and let the area develope naturally. But they don't - they actively work against such development. They tear down the grind to put up a fence. The Grind provided SLU with a good (non-alcohol based) student outlet. No more. Why tear down 20 North? why tear down the building previously on the site here at issue. Someone could have renovated it and put in student housing. Why attempt to tear down the buildings north of Grand to put in the new stadium when other plots area available (thankfully this was stopped). Why must the new research building be surrounded by football sized fields of lawn and fountain (at the cost of still more urban fabric).
The point is that SLU not only doesn't work for urban development in this are - they work AGAINST it.
but I think there's a larger point: Why tear down existant buildigns without the funding/planning/will in place to build another? I would be more than happy if SLU would just sit on their hands and let the area develope naturally. But they don't - they actively work against such development. They tear down the grind to put up a fence. The Grind provided SLU with a good (non-alcohol based) student outlet. No more. Why tear down 20 North? why tear down the building previously on the site here at issue. Someone could have renovated it and put in student housing. Why attempt to tear down the buildings north of Grand to put in the new stadium when other plots area available (thankfully this was stopped). Why must the new research building be surrounded by football sized fields of lawn and fountain (at the cost of still more urban fabric).
The point is that SLU not only doesn't work for urban development in this are - they work AGAINST it.
- 10K
markofucity wrote:and I agree about the shame (they should go to the box and feel shame - three emoticons for anyone who catches that reference)...
Slap Shot?
^^^^I had always heard that WashU was well-endowed, but really, I had no idea... 
I mean, WashU is 6 times bigger than SLU. You are right GC, this could explain the obvious difference of WashU's more significant and more frequent recent erections. Unfortunately, in their current impotent state, it appears that there will be little stirring around either WashU and SLU, and any efforts to encourage new developments will see little more than flaccid attempts from either of them for the foreseeable future.
I mean, WashU is 6 times bigger than SLU. You are right GC, this could explain the obvious difference of WashU's more significant and more frequent recent erections. Unfortunately, in their current impotent state, it appears that there will be little stirring around either WashU and SLU, and any efforts to encourage new developments will see little more than flaccid attempts from either of them for the foreseeable future.
- 10K
markofucity wrote:but I think there's a larger point: Why tear down existant buildigns without the funding/planning/will in place to build another? I would be more than happy if SLU would just sit on their hands and let the area develope naturally. But they don't - they actively work against such development. They tear down the grind to put up a fence. The Grind provided SLU with a good (non-alcohol based) student outlet. No more. Why tear down 20 North? why tear down the building previously on the site here at issue. Someone could have renovated it and put in student housing. Why attempt to tear down the buildings north of Grand to put in the new stadium when other plots area available (thankfully this was stopped). Why must the new research building be surrounded by football sized fields of lawn and fountain (at the cost of still more urban fabric).
The point is that SLU not only doesn't work for urban development in this are - they work AGAINST it.
IMO, SLU has always sought to control everything between Lindell and Laclede, Vandeventer and Grand, which is why they tore down 20 North and The Grind/Clark's. Remember the old warehouse that used to stand at the corner of Laclede and Vandeventer, where the village apartments are now? That thing was awful. It's always surprised me that they've allowed the building that used to house Colorado/Pasta House to stand for as long as it has. That site could be put to better use, as could the foreign language houses next to it.
The demolition of the Marina Building - Grand and Lindell - really made me mad. SLU said it wasn't saveable, but I beg to differ. The building was well-proportioned for the site and contained some viable businesses - Golden Dynasty, Vito's, Bullfeather's, the Feathers Apartments. Something like the building that Marquette built that I posted a picture of on the previous page would fit in well on this site - it could house student apartments with first floor retail. The McCormack Baron plan seemed a little ridiculous to me.
The research building looks great, but the way it's situated is ridiculous, especially with all the green space and long covered walkways around it.
SLU's endowment is pretty high in relation to other Jesuit schools, IIRC - bigger than Marquette's. Our endowment was up to $880 million this summer.
- 1,026
We should take over the administration building and force the appropriate staff/executives to read "The Life and Death of American Cities" (blanking on the author).
SLU has just never seemed to get it. They remind me of my father. God love him - but his honest opinion in all things urban development related is - "tear down old buildings, add parking, add green space." He honestly believes that this will lower crime and make for a more vibrant area. Its what I refer to as "the suburb mentality." Its just simply wrong. SLU's first instinct is almost ALWAYS in this direction.
SLU has just never seemed to get it. They remind me of my father. God love him - but his honest opinion in all things urban development related is - "tear down old buildings, add parking, add green space." He honestly believes that this will lower crime and make for a more vibrant area. Its what I refer to as "the suburb mentality." Its just simply wrong. SLU's first instinct is almost ALWAYS in this direction.
As a senior at SLU, I have seen first-hand how much the neighborhood has evolved since my enrollment in 2005. At that time, Midtown felt extremely deserted, but over time, places such as Laclede Coffee Co., Iggy's, Café Ventana, The U, Buffalo Brewery, Triumph Grill, the University Heights Lofts, and even the Chaifetz Arena have sprouted, all of which are becoming popular among students and adding some safety and fun to a neighborhood which many students still label as "ghetto." I really hope that the Villas of St. Louis (3949 Lindell) adds retailers that students would like, such as Jamba Juice or Trader Joe's.
That said, Midtown has a long, long way to go if it wants to have a "Loop" kind of feel. I understand that SLU may have hurt the desired urban feel for St. Louis by having grass, trees and statues everywhere, but my feeling is that SLU wants to create an "urban oasis." Besides academics, campus aesthetics are a huge reason why students choose SLU. I gave tours to prospective students and their families last year, and so many fall in love with how beautiful the campus is.
As far as the project on the corner of Grand and Lindell, I remember when the University announced to students that they were teaming up with McCormack Baron Salazar to plan for this $100 million project. Then again, at that time, SLU's endowment was inching very close to $1 billion; $970 million to be exact, as Father Biondi noted in the Fall '07 issue of Universitas.
Nevertheless, I wasn't surprised to hear that SLU scrapped the project on account of the current economic conditions. After all, in Biondi's October 2008 message to the University community, Biondi said that although SLU is in a strong financial position, the endowment is now valued at nearly $800 million, and because of decreasing donations, there is "pressure on future capital projects." The message continues to say that SLU hasn't even reached it's fundraising goal for the Arena yet.
The current economic conditions have not only been felt at SLU, but at WashU as well, where, according to the Business Journal, Chancellor Wrighton announced that WashU lost 25% of its endowment value, from $5.42 billion to $4.07 billion, and that WashU would slow the redevelopment of its Wohl Center and indefinitely delay the expansion of the Mallinckrodt Center.
Honestly, this is a difficult time for Universities in general. As for the future of the Grand and Lindell project, I would prefer SLU wait until the economy improves and then build a good quality product, such as the Arena or Doisy Reseach Center.
That said, Midtown has a long, long way to go if it wants to have a "Loop" kind of feel. I understand that SLU may have hurt the desired urban feel for St. Louis by having grass, trees and statues everywhere, but my feeling is that SLU wants to create an "urban oasis." Besides academics, campus aesthetics are a huge reason why students choose SLU. I gave tours to prospective students and their families last year, and so many fall in love with how beautiful the campus is.
As far as the project on the corner of Grand and Lindell, I remember when the University announced to students that they were teaming up with McCormack Baron Salazar to plan for this $100 million project. Then again, at that time, SLU's endowment was inching very close to $1 billion; $970 million to be exact, as Father Biondi noted in the Fall '07 issue of Universitas.
Nevertheless, I wasn't surprised to hear that SLU scrapped the project on account of the current economic conditions. After all, in Biondi's October 2008 message to the University community, Biondi said that although SLU is in a strong financial position, the endowment is now valued at nearly $800 million, and because of decreasing donations, there is "pressure on future capital projects." The message continues to say that SLU hasn't even reached it's fundraising goal for the Arena yet.
The current economic conditions have not only been felt at SLU, but at WashU as well, where, according to the Business Journal, Chancellor Wrighton announced that WashU lost 25% of its endowment value, from $5.42 billion to $4.07 billion, and that WashU would slow the redevelopment of its Wohl Center and indefinitely delay the expansion of the Mallinckrodt Center.
Honestly, this is a difficult time for Universities in general. As for the future of the Grand and Lindell project, I would prefer SLU wait until the economy improves and then build a good quality product, such as the Arena or Doisy Reseach Center.
- 2,929
Regarding endowment sizes (stop your schoolgirl giggling) of comparable universities, here’s a few others. Source is the 2006 S&P Money Market Directory of Pension Funds & Their Investment Managers (at your library in the resource section):markofucity wrote:... what are the endowments of the other urban, Jesuit universities that I noted? Why are they able to build up their urban enviroements while SLU is not? I honestly don't know their endowments so maybe I'm off base here, but I'd be suprised if they were not in the same ballpark (especially Marquette).
Saint Louis University: $742,900,000
Marquette University (Milwaukee): $231,000,000
DePaul University (Chicago): $230,461,000
Xavier University (Cincinnati): $94,728,000
Loyola College (Baltimore): $140,045,000
Rockhurst University (KC MO): $64,403,000
Regis University (Denver): $29,285,000
Others of note:
University of Missouri System (Mizzou, UMSL, Truman State, UMKC): $2,908,513,000
Washington University: $4,368,000,000
Harvard University: $25,900,000,000, the largest university endowment in the US
(*Note: other estimates of Harvard are $40B+ before the second half of 2008)
Where others have more updated figures, I defer to them all.
SLU’s endowment is actually rather robust, both for its overall size and relative to other comparable universities. Note that both the Doisy Laboratories and the Chaifetz Arena were built predominantly from fundraising, keeping the endowment very much in tact to build up SLU over the long term, reinvesting in scholarships, tenures, and continued academic pursuits.
The proposed construction projects, I assume (but may be off), would have been structured as a private equity investment pursuant to the profitability of the projects. Not an academic pursuit, but an investment made by the endowment, it would have been comparable to other large institutional participatory investments. Consider the Carpenters District Council’s decision to invest in the Paul Brown Building a few years ago: not only was it a source of new business for the union’s members (elemental to the investment being made), it also was profitable to the union pension fund, which made a private investment in the rehabilitation as it sought new business. In such a down market for real estate, however, SLU’s pulling out of building the new high rises today is a very smart move.
Wash U has a larger endowment, and its building currently underway is for academic purposes strictly, not seeking an external return on investment from market forces. I do not know whether or not Wash U’s endowment is participating in the funding of the new Engineering, etc. campus, but I would expect it to, based on the nature of endowments.
Noting that we are in the midst of deflation, down equity markets, floundering debt markets, gigantic Hedge Fund & Private Equity withdrawals, and the absolute crash and decimation of the credit markets, both domestic and globally, SLU should not be investing in quasi-speculative real estate.
The endowment should be spent reinvesting in the quality of the university during this time, not on external PE opportunities. When the time comes, though, I want to see that corner built up, and built up well.
- 1,026
You've all brought up very good points - and everyone here clearly knows what they're talking about. For the record, I agree that SLU should not invest in a building at this moment in time. But the point remains - why tear down a building unless you're ready to go on its replacement? They could have left it standing if the funding/planning was not in place. Then we wouldn't be left with a green field.