Flood the market with office and housing space that will take decade to absorb. Really pretty simple
But then again, this tower does not get built without a major empoyer leasing the space in advance. One can only hope the city would be smart enough to demand that these contracts be for firms no already in downtown before granting any TIF or other help.
DeBaliviere wrote:One problem I have is that it could single-handedly bust the downtown housing and office markets, but other than that, it's great.
I still don't quite get this argument...
I think the argument is that there's already a lot of office space available in vacant/semi-vacant building existing downtown already. A tower that large is most likely not going to be filled completely with new tenants, so they'll have to come from the surrounding buildings downtown - thus causing even more vacant/semi-vacant buildings.
However, if what was said on Page 1 is true:
jlblues wrote:
bpe235 wrote:MW tower... ??? anyone got any details???
Details: (Straight from the mouth of Kevin McGowan)
MW stands for McGowan|Walsh...
71-story, mixed-use building. First 20-something stories would be hotel on top of (what looked to be) about 6-8 stories of parking, next 25 or so stories are office, then condos the rest of the way up. The site hasn't been finalized, but it is narrowed down to six sites. The preferred site is along Chouteau Lake. Didn't say exactly where, but I think close to the ballpark. It would have around 350,000 SF of office space, of which, according to Kevin, ~300,000 SF is being seriously considered by a local company. If Chouteau Lake is a go, and the office tenant commits (which probably depends on the lake happening) it could be going up in five years...
AND that local company is currently in St. Louis or St. Charles county (think Citimortgage, MasterCard, Engergizer, etc...) then things will be fine.
TheWayoftheArch wrote:I put my money on Edward Jones.
Citi and Mastercard just built new campuses.
Express Scripts new home is going up by UMSL.
They could put their signage up and get marketing from cards games and rams alike.
It's very possible. I do know that Citi's already out of space - to the point where they're farming work out to other Citi locations around the country. They're already considering building a second building at Progress Point, but one could always hope they'd consider selling (and for a profit, I'd imagine - it's one of the only locations where they actually own the building) and leasing space somewhere else.
I have an idea, let's put AG Edwards in this tower. Then we can tear down the nonsense on Jefferson Avenue.
But, I agree with DeBal. Unless this means that some great company is moving to town, I am not crazy about the idea of one monster tower taking all the thunder.
Expat wrote:Unless this means that some great company is moving to town, I am not crazy about the idea of one monster tower taking all the thunder.
What if it was a company from the suburbs?
And, yes that is the MW Tower. I assume that is the "new" rendering, it looks pretty much the same as the rendering I saw, although it does seem a bit sleeker. It is hard to tell because the rendering I saw was from front and this is from the side.
I too hope it's an out of state employer. If it's a company from the suburbs i'd be disappointed given that it'll proabably take alot of tif funds for the project to happen.
jlblues wrote:The $600 million dollar project to which Kevin was referring IS the MW Tower and it is also the project for which "a Wall Street firm has offered to supply 85% financing". If you are at all familiar with commercial real estate development, an 85% financing commitment for a project like this would be surprising for any project in any city, let alone St. Louis, and an extremely positive development. I am sure there are some big conditions for that kind of commitment, but it really sounds like this might be doable.
A couple of corrections: There would be 600,000 SF of office space, not 300,000 SF, of which, half is being considered by some mystery local company. I would imagine that 50% of the office space pre-leased would be enough to get the financing, provided the hotel portion falls into place. The condos will sell, no problem. I would also imagine, the financing is conditional upon some movement on Ballpark Village and/or Chouteau Lake, depending on the site chosen.
Two tidbits overheard that I'm sure will send some forumers into a frenzy:
The building would be over 1000 feet tall. That might include the HD antenna on top, but still...
And, the name of the hotel operator starts with a W...
Expat wrote:Unless this means that some great company is moving to town, I am not crazy about the idea of one monster tower taking all the thunder.
What if it was a company from the suburbs?
And, yes that is the MW Tower. I assume that is the "new" rendering, it looks pretty much the same as the rendering I saw, although it does seem a bit sleeker. It is hard to tell because the rendering I saw was from front and this is from the side.
I would prefer a company from outside of the metro area. But, I certainly am not against companies moving from the suburbs to the city. Especially for a new signature building. Actually, if this building is preleased, than I can't complain.
How many condo's? Enough to impact the condo market downtown?
More than anything, I want to see new construction downtown. But, I would prefer smaller buildings popping up all over downtown, over one big tower.
To be honest, I did get excited when I saw the rendering. Of course, I want to see a shiny new tower in DTSTL. But, I am wary of a 'Co-op City/Bronx" scenario. Perhaps it will make more sense as we learn more about it.
"half is being considered by some mystery local company"
On an unrelated note, according to Steve Patterson's blog (urbanreviewstl.com), there is a great deal of buzz/rumor going on today that AT&T (SBC) are going to place their buldings on the market.
I hope that its not they who are moving a few blocks.
That would be bad. Unless they have some kind of sale leaseback transaction that they are working on (Assuming they have full ownership of their buildings)
stlmike wrote:"half is being considered by some mystery local company"
On an unrelated note, according to Steve Patterson's blog (urbanreviewstl.com), there is a great deal of buzz/rumor going on today that AT&T (SBC) are going to place their buldings on the market.
I hope that its not they who are moving a few blocks.
SBC said they moved to San Antonio to be closer to the center of their market right after they invested in Mexico's Telefono. So now that they are nationwide and renamed AT&T, should they consider moving back to St. Louis to be closer to the center of their market?
What if we promise to allow the CEO into the St. Louis country club? Or is the latter too petty of a reason to move all those people from San Antonio and disrupt their lives.
jlblues wrote:RBB - you missed my correction on July 11.
jlblues wrote:The $600 million dollar project to which Kevin was referring IS the MW Tower and it is also the project for which "a Wall Street firm has offered to supply 85% financing". If you are at all familiar with commercial real estate development, an 85% financing commitment for a project like this would be surprising for any project in any city, let alone St. Louis, and an extremely positive development. I am sure there are some big conditions for that kind of commitment, but it really sounds like this might be doable.
A couple of corrections: There would be 600,000 SF of office space, not 300,000 SF, of which, half is being considered by some mystery local company. I would imagine that 50% of the office space pre-leased would be enough to get the financing, provided the hotel portion falls into place. The condos will sell, no problem. I would also imagine, the financing is conditional upon some movement on Ballpark Village and/or Chouteau Lake, depending on the site chosen.
Two tidbits overheard that I'm sure will send some forumers into a frenzy:
The building would be over 1000 feet tall. That might include the HD antenna on top, but still...
And, the name of the hotel operator starts with a W...
JMedwick wrote:Flood the market with office and housing space that will take decade to absorb. Really pretty simple
I understand what is being alleged, but it seems to me to be more of an economic sophism than reality.
A move by a firm from an older office building to a brand new one shows a preference for newer office space on their part (thus the move). Supply is meeting demand. To truely understand economics, one must be able to see what is unseen as well as what is obvious to the naked eye. So, in the wake of a new building, yes, there will be some vacancies in the outdated buildings. But cursing the new building assumes that all of the firms were bound to stay in those old buildings.
I think a more likely reality, for let's say, Met Square not being built would result in a HOK office in Clayton or a campus out along 40, etc.
Businesses need to stay competitive and sometimes this includes having access to the best office space available. New office space drives down office prices and increases quantity demanded, so there should be a natural increase in firms locating in the area.
But that only takes into consideration the workings of a free market economy. Government financing/subsidation of tower could increase supply when there is no correlating demand. Was this the case with Met Square or will it be with MW Tower?
stlmike wrote:"half is being considered by some mystery local company"
On an unrelated note, according to Steve Patterson's blog (urbanreviewstl.com), there is a great deal of buzz/rumor going on today that AT&T (SBC) are going to place their buldings on the market.
I hope that its not they who are moving a few blocks.
SBC said they moved to San Antonio to be closer to the center of their market right after they invested in Mexico's Telefono. So now that they are nationwide and renamed AT&T, should they consider moving back to St. Louis to be closer to the center of their market?
What if we promise to allow the CEO into the St. Louis country club? Or is the latter too petty of a reason to move all those people from San Antonio and disrupt their lives.
They didn't completely move SBC. They moved mainly just the executive branch.
Bastiat, while I agree with your points and in a perfect free market, can't argue with the outcomes, I still do not agree that the city should not be warry of the project canablizing other downtown towers.
From the city's perspective, which by defintion must be wider than that of the individual developer, you have to consider what a new tower would mean to the overall image of downtown. The complaints in the past of the met square, as I understand it, is that the met square came in and, as you said, became the perfered office space in the city. Given the low quality of older competitiors like the Marquett Building, the Security Building, and the Mercantile Libary building, these building were vacated, leaving downtown with one shinny new tower surrounded by vacant buildings.
Is this an outcome the city should support? Is one large tower and vacant buildings best for the precived health of the city? I would argue no. This is what the city must guard against. Not so much to protect all old building from competition, which I agree would eventualy hurt the downtown office market much more, but more to protect the perception of downtown as a vibrant place.
To that end, new construction is great. But downtown must make sure there is a market for all new office space created and that the market isn't just musical chairs downtown. Let the new office space happen. Make the other towers compete with the quality. But if you are going to subsidize the new tower, then make sure that you are actualy adding to the downtown employment and making downtown more vibrant, not just emptying out other buildings to fill a new one, with no plan for what will happen with the older buildings.
