So another 6 months have passed. Did the historic tax credits expire? I seem to remember those (fairly substantial) credits expiring in June. Also, does anyone know if there has been any movement on the Ameren-related flooding lawsuit (or others)?
^ I can't answer your question on that but I don't understand why tax credits would've been approved or issued if work didn't start.
On another note, I have an idea of how to redevelop this building and it's probably been said before.
The old department store portion has floor plates the size of the block, so I would turn those floors into parking. Once you get up to the floors that have the atrium between them, renovate those into some apartments, maybe a hotel and maybe some office space. The first floor could be home to a Target and some other smaller businesses. I'm sure this idea has been talked about before but I think it would work now.
As for the number of apartments, I'm not sure. Maybe over 400. A 175 room hotel would work too. Office space can work dependent on the situation.
The building is just so large to be redeveloped adequately without having to overhaul how to make space work. You'd probably have to overhaul it so much that historic tax credits wouldn't be able to be issued again. Besides, it doesn't;t look like there's any historic features in the building. It's mostly on the outside.
This is going to be one of those projects, along with AT&T and Butler Brothers, that will be the last empty buildings to be redeveloped in Downtown. All of the other ones are small enough or have plates reasonable enough to be redeveloped adequately. The Big 3, as I refer to them, complicate things greatly.
On another note, I have an idea of how to redevelop this building and it's probably been said before.
The old department store portion has floor plates the size of the block, so I would turn those floors into parking. Once you get up to the floors that have the atrium between them, renovate those into some apartments, maybe a hotel and maybe some office space. The first floor could be home to a Target and some other smaller businesses. I'm sure this idea has been talked about before but I think it would work now.
As for the number of apartments, I'm not sure. Maybe over 400. A 175 room hotel would work too. Office space can work dependent on the situation.
The building is just so large to be redeveloped adequately without having to overhaul how to make space work. You'd probably have to overhaul it so much that historic tax credits wouldn't be able to be issued again. Besides, it doesn't;t look like there's any historic features in the building. It's mostly on the outside.
This is going to be one of those projects, along with AT&T and Butler Brothers, that will be the last empty buildings to be redeveloped in Downtown. All of the other ones are small enough or have plates reasonable enough to be redeveloped adequately. The Big 3, as I refer to them, complicate things greatly.
- 3,762
^ can it support the weight of a couple thousand cars on the bottom floors? i mean, i know it's a hearty old building but i'm sure the architects never intended that kind of load. is it typical for such conversions to reinforce the structure for additional load bearing?
I’m not 100% sure but I know the Syndicate Building has parking on the 2nd floor and that was never there. I think a parking garage conversion on the lower floors would require some reinforcement.urban_dilettante wrote:^ can it support the weight of a couple thousand cars on the bottom floors? i mean, i know it's a hearty old building but i'm sure the architects never intended that kind of load. is it typical for such conversions to reinforce the structure for additional load bearing?
This might have its own thread but...
Is the Macy’s garage going to have to be torn down? Or what’s its status? I figure it is closed because of structural issues but I really don’t know.
Is the Macy’s garage going to have to be torn down? Or what’s its status? I figure it is closed because of structural issues but I really don’t know.
- 2,623
Most of the tenants have been kicked out, including the indian place and Pharaoh's. Liquor store is still kicking and so is Subway last time I walked past. Tearing down that garage is going to be a challenge though with Gitto's right there.
Also back to the RX, I know the exhibition industry isn't doing great right now, but with the right hotel partner the retail base plate would be a great place for small conferences/conventions. Good way to eat up some SF.
Also back to the RX, I know the exhibition industry isn't doing great right now, but with the right hotel partner the retail base plate would be a great place for small conferences/conventions. Good way to eat up some SF.
I want to know more the status of the building itself, not who is in it.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2020Most of the tenants have been kicked out, including the indian place and Pharaoh's. Liquor store is still kicking and so is Subway last time I walked past. Tearing down that garage is going to be a challenge though with Gitto's right there.
As in can the garage be reopened or is the building so far gone it will need torn down to be used again? Just wondering if it will just sit as is until it can be torn down or if it is actually feasible to fix and reopen.
- 337
I can't seem to find the article but I am like 90% sure the garage is condemned and can not be used in its current status. Would be to costly to upgrade to make it suitable so taking it down is the best option.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2020I want to know more the status of the building itself, not who is in it.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2020Most of the tenants have been kicked out, including the indian place and Pharaoh's. Liquor store is still kicking and so is Subway last time I walked past. Tearing down that garage is going to be a challenge though with Gitto's right there.
As in can the garage be reopened or is the building so far gone it will need torn down to be used again? Just wondering if it will just sit as is until it can be torn down or if it is actually feasible to fix and reopen.
- 2,928
What's the biggest problem with the old Railway Exchange? Parking. So far, redevelopment efforts for the building haven't really incorporated redevelopment of parking for the building, and I bet that's a big reason why they've so far been unable to get tenants to sign onto the building. No parking, no tenants. Plus, even if you could get everyone to park at another garage, you'd still have the problem of a hulking condemned garage as your new neighbor.
I believe the block on which the Famous-Barr garage is located should be totally dedicated to being a new garage, something as big as the garage at the Enterprise Center. It absolutely should include the ground-level parking at the NE corner. Make the whole ground floor retail. Maybe put a couple floors of office space on the very top, or at least a green roof and maybe some solar panels. All reasonable attempts should be made to incorporate the existing buildings on this block - the old Gitto's and whatever that is on the NW corner. But, those two weird structures should not stand in the way of getting this entire block redeveloped. Keep in mind that this block is directly behind One Met Square and has no viable views of the Gateway Arch, which a lot of businesses desire; having this block be a new garage is pretty darn good use for it.
Plus, you get a new garage here, you reduce the needs for those two awful garages on Chestnut just to the south, furthering the chances that those sites will be greater opportunities for redevelopment and new construction.
I believe the block on which the Famous-Barr garage is located should be totally dedicated to being a new garage, something as big as the garage at the Enterprise Center. It absolutely should include the ground-level parking at the NE corner. Make the whole ground floor retail. Maybe put a couple floors of office space on the very top, or at least a green roof and maybe some solar panels. All reasonable attempts should be made to incorporate the existing buildings on this block - the old Gitto's and whatever that is on the NW corner. But, those two weird structures should not stand in the way of getting this entire block redeveloped. Keep in mind that this block is directly behind One Met Square and has no viable views of the Gateway Arch, which a lot of businesses desire; having this block be a new garage is pretty darn good use for it.
Plus, you get a new garage here, you reduce the needs for those two awful garages on Chestnut just to the south, furthering the chances that those sites will be greater opportunities for redevelopment and new construction.
- 2,623
My idea is to tear down the garage and move one of the historic structures next to the other. It would probably be easier to move the Ivory building next to Gitto's on the Southeast corner of the lot. Charlie Gitto's is an important landmark restaurant for downtown that should be preserved, but the building itself is nothing special without the tenant.
If it was legally guaranteed that the Kiener garages would be demolished within a year or two of a new block sized garage opening here, I'd be more OK with this suggestion...but I think we all know that's not going to happen. Instead there will be four garages (3 of them on the corner of 7th and Pine alone and quite frankly the Wainwright extension on the remaining corner isn't much better) which won't really do anything but deaden the streets that front them. Sure, some street level retail would be nice, but there's still nothing but cars on top of that...and that does nothing to bring more people around, create real density or add street-life.
I'm also not sure a massive block sized garage here is even necessary. I would think a small garage to provide the largest tenant or two with new parking, while leaving a portion (maybe half) of the block open to some other development would be easy considering the space at the two St. Louis Centre garages and the Central Garage across the street from this one. I would think those three existing garages (all of which are already next to or adjacent to the RX) and a small replacement for the Macy's garage would be more than enough. I would also add a stipulation that any small replacement garage have office, residences, or a hotel (or some mix of uses) on top of it. Again, this should be a legal requirement. St. Louis needs to move away from building boring parking garages that do nothing but park cars, downtown is already littered with those. Yes, I understand that most people drive here, but there is no reason we couldn't provide some of that parking and new uses, density, and activity with it. And hey, maybe convince a few people to use the nearby train instead for a change.
Building parking garages in a vain attempt to lure people and office tenants from the suburbs hasn't exactly worked well for downtown St. Louis. Need to do something different. The City should start with eliminating parking minimums so a large development like this (or any development really) wouldn't be required provide exclusive space to park cars. They could just lease existing capacity inside of neighboring garages, especially in parking rich downtown.
Provided Hudson Holdings is eventually successful in renovating the RX, that garage is coming down. That's always been a part of their plan, as they own both structures. So if the RX does eventually open again that "hulking, condemned" garage won't be there to block their views.
I'm also not sure a massive block sized garage here is even necessary. I would think a small garage to provide the largest tenant or two with new parking, while leaving a portion (maybe half) of the block open to some other development would be easy considering the space at the two St. Louis Centre garages and the Central Garage across the street from this one. I would think those three existing garages (all of which are already next to or adjacent to the RX) and a small replacement for the Macy's garage would be more than enough. I would also add a stipulation that any small replacement garage have office, residences, or a hotel (or some mix of uses) on top of it. Again, this should be a legal requirement. St. Louis needs to move away from building boring parking garages that do nothing but park cars, downtown is already littered with those. Yes, I understand that most people drive here, but there is no reason we couldn't provide some of that parking and new uses, density, and activity with it. And hey, maybe convince a few people to use the nearby train instead for a change.
Building parking garages in a vain attempt to lure people and office tenants from the suburbs hasn't exactly worked well for downtown St. Louis. Need to do something different. The City should start with eliminating parking minimums so a large development like this (or any development really) wouldn't be required provide exclusive space to park cars. They could just lease existing capacity inside of neighboring garages, especially in parking rich downtown.
Provided Hudson Holdings is eventually successful in renovating the RX, that garage is coming down. That's always been a part of their plan, as they own both structures. So if the RX does eventually open again that "hulking, condemned" garage won't be there to block their views.
Going back to Chris comments above. The solution of keeping ground floor as retail and converting the rest of the old department floors as parking seems like the way to go for developing the building. You could break up the parking for that matter as I believe the department store was six stories if I got that correct.. Say 1-2 floors for major tenant, 2-3 floors as premium for residences who want to park in same building and 2-3 floors. Hotel self parking and valet can easily be accomplished in a different garage.
As far as the last remaining big downtown rehabs. Unfortunately or simply reality in my mind is that a a major tenant 909 chestnut has to be found and probably at least some success with NOW district or BPV phase III attracting a major office tenant from out of the area before you see any big rehab go full steam ahead. It comes down to residential as hotel development will be quiet for a while and office will be minimal without a major tenant move. So in my mind, jobs to an area brings tenants and retail which is what Railway exchanges need to happed to move forward..
As far as the last remaining big downtown rehabs. Unfortunately or simply reality in my mind is that a a major tenant 909 chestnut has to be found and probably at least some success with NOW district or BPV phase III attracting a major office tenant from out of the area before you see any big rehab go full steam ahead. It comes down to residential as hotel development will be quiet for a while and office will be minimal without a major tenant move. So in my mind, jobs to an area brings tenants and retail which is what Railway exchanges need to happed to move forward..
- 2,928
Garage gets done after the big building? That may be putting the cart in front of the horse.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2020Provided Hudson Holdings is eventually successful in renovating the RX, that garage is coming down. That's always been a part of their plan, as they own both structures. So if the RX does eventually open again that "hulking, condemned" garage won't be there to block their views.
Also, no doubt I don't want garages all over Downtown. Still, they are a necessary thing. When we have self-driving fleets of Uber cars for every person, then we can get rid of them, but we aren't there yet. Right now, we have a condemned garage that's a hindrance to getting tenants into the Railway Exchange. If you're gonna have it, at least make sure that it's as good as it can be.
Addn.: Build it well enough, and this new hypothetical garage can do double-duty for both Railway Exchange and 909 Chestnut.
^ That wasn't what I said. Though I believe it could be done if the city and developer made a good faith effort to use the existing neighboring garages. But I don't expect logical things like that to happen in St. Louis. Hudson said from the beginning the plan was to demolish and replace the garage. It's likely that would be done before the building opens. I was just suggesting any new replacement garage (and I do believe there will eventually be a new garage on this block) be smaller and used in conjunction with the ample parking nearby instead of the size of a full block.
However...you do give me a bit of pause by bringing 909 into it though. A large block sized garage could service both buildings, though I believe it would have to be in conjunction with RX leasing space in its existing neighboring garages (like STL Centre). I'm no engineer and I'm sure it could be done, but I feel a single garage serving two buildings each with over 1 million square feet of space would be cartoonishly huge.
I really hope the "self-driving uber" thing was just tongue and cheek because I think the idea that a country like America (basically a third world country wearing a Gucci belt) will have ubiquitous self-driving cars in the next few decades is just laughable. Instead we could simply build upon our existing transit system (which has a station right here and would service both this building and 909) and start getting some of these cars off the street now, start reducing our dependence on ugly garages now...instead of waiting decades for a technology that's still in its infancy. The idea is to take cars off the road...not give everyone a self-driving uber. That's not going to do anything to solve congestion or the scourge of vehicle emissions on the environment, even if it does slightly ween us off parking garages eventually...slightly being the key word...all these self-driving cars have to be stored somewhere.
However...you do give me a bit of pause by bringing 909 into it though. A large block sized garage could service both buildings, though I believe it would have to be in conjunction with RX leasing space in its existing neighboring garages (like STL Centre). I'm no engineer and I'm sure it could be done, but I feel a single garage serving two buildings each with over 1 million square feet of space would be cartoonishly huge.
I really hope the "self-driving uber" thing was just tongue and cheek because I think the idea that a country like America (basically a third world country wearing a Gucci belt) will have ubiquitous self-driving cars in the next few decades is just laughable. Instead we could simply build upon our existing transit system (which has a station right here and would service both this building and 909) and start getting some of these cars off the street now, start reducing our dependence on ugly garages now...instead of waiting decades for a technology that's still in its infancy. The idea is to take cars off the road...not give everyone a self-driving uber. That's not going to do anything to solve congestion or the scourge of vehicle emissions on the environment, even if it does slightly ween us off parking garages eventually...slightly being the key word...all these self-driving cars have to be stored somewhere.
- 3,762
why would we ever do something that has worked previously and is wildly successful in the rest of the developed world when it doesn't make a sh*t-ton of money for a handful of super wealthy people?sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2020Instead we could simply build upon our existing transit system (which has a station right here and would service both this building and 909) and start getting some of these cars off the street now, start reducing our dependence on ugly garages now...instead of waiting decades for a technology that's still in its infancy.
- 2,623
Agree. If downtown STL ever wants to get rid of its parking addiction, transit needs to become a much better value proposition. Both in terms of coverage, headways, and fare price.
gone corporate wrote:My personal hell. As if Americans can get even lazier and disengaged while driving.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2020When we have self-driving fleets of Uber cars for every person, then we can get rid of them, but we aren't there yet.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- 2,928
SC4Mayor: I think that any garage to be built on that space must consider tenants for multiple buildings. It was designed originally for just retail shoppers and Famous-Barr employees, which may be why it has the shape that it does (not the entire block). I think that any new garage must try to be big enough for multiple building tenants, and with one of the big issues for 909 Chestnut being that it doesn't have adequate garage space, then I believe a big ass garage, with some office space on the top and retail all along the bottom, can kill two birds with one stone. Hell, if the developers would actually build a dual-use garage, they could maybe get enough positive cash flow to finally get the damn RX progressing again. And as you pointed out, it's surrounded by other garages, so you might as well have one ugly pit of garages allowing for a densely populated urban environment above and around it.
Regarding Uber self-driving cars, I think the efforts are maybe closer than we think. That's where all the VC is going when it comes to cars, why Google, Uber, and now Amazon are so focused on making their self-driving fleets in NorCal & DC. It's why Uber has so much money while it operates at a loss. My understanding of the business model would be that people would take a self-driving car to work, then that car drives other people around all day before circling back to drive the commuter home. It's a new business model where people don't necessarily own the self-driving cars they use, and those that do get lease monies from whoever rides in it during the day when they're at work. I'm not forecasting when it would roll out as viable, but it's definitely on the radar. It's why places like WashU are building garages that can later be converted into other use, not for a future with everyone using mass transit, but for a future with self-driving cars.
CNBC: Uber’s self-driving cars are a key to its path to profitability
Also, sorry if I put words in your mouth. Not my intention.
Also, that isn't my "personal hell" quote, addxb2. Maybe fix the above quote block? Thanks
Regarding Uber self-driving cars, I think the efforts are maybe closer than we think. That's where all the VC is going when it comes to cars, why Google, Uber, and now Amazon are so focused on making their self-driving fleets in NorCal & DC. It's why Uber has so much money while it operates at a loss. My understanding of the business model would be that people would take a self-driving car to work, then that car drives other people around all day before circling back to drive the commuter home. It's a new business model where people don't necessarily own the self-driving cars they use, and those that do get lease monies from whoever rides in it during the day when they're at work. I'm not forecasting when it would roll out as viable, but it's definitely on the radar. It's why places like WashU are building garages that can later be converted into other use, not for a future with everyone using mass transit, but for a future with self-driving cars.
CNBC: Uber’s self-driving cars are a key to its path to profitability
Also, sorry if I put words in your mouth. Not my intention.
Also, that isn't my "personal hell" quote, addxb2. Maybe fix the above quote block? Thanks
Convert several floors to parking if possible. Demolish the garage. Sell the land to another developer. Anyone would bite at that opportunity to be immediately next door to a major office tenant.
I don't see value in adding yet another garage if it is possible to convert some of RRX to parking. You keep an attractive facade, keep street level retail, get a major office tenant.
AT&T parking is a whole other issue. You're still going to get people complaining they have to walk a couple of blocks. Subsidize free Metro fares for any employees who use the line.
A lofty and utopian outlook of course. But the above post about not waiting and being adamant about public transit usage should be paramount. A light rail line goes right through the CBD, which has been gaining population for years now. Stop making excuses for city leadership. If they wanted to actually make the CBD more walkable and vibrant and less auto-centric, they have all the tools to do so. They just choose to spin their wheels, continually redirecting focus while the last job remains with dirt moved and abandoned.
I don't see value in adding yet another garage if it is possible to convert some of RRX to parking. You keep an attractive facade, keep street level retail, get a major office tenant.
AT&T parking is a whole other issue. You're still going to get people complaining they have to walk a couple of blocks. Subsidize free Metro fares for any employees who use the line.
A lofty and utopian outlook of course. But the above post about not waiting and being adamant about public transit usage should be paramount. A light rail line goes right through the CBD, which has been gaining population for years now. Stop making excuses for city leadership. If they wanted to actually make the CBD more walkable and vibrant and less auto-centric, they have all the tools to do so. They just choose to spin their wheels, continually redirecting focus while the last job remains with dirt moved and abandoned.
- 3,762
not a fan of automated cars either but it's better than human drivers since, presumably, automated cars will actually abide by speed limits and stop when they're supposed to —after a few thousand people are plowed down while the bugs get worked out, of course. but, hey, what're a few thousand lives in today's america? a completely acceptable sacrifice compared to the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask, for example. or compared to the minor inconvenience of driving the speed limit, for that matter.
- 16
Noticed these while out and about this evening. Oddly enough, not all the entrances had these. They had "City of St. Louis Code Enforcement" stamped on them. Potential development? Or trying to keep homeless out.
Trying to keep people out would be my guess.crazywarriorman wrote:Noticed these while out and about this evening. Oddly enough, not all the entrances had these. They had "City of St. Louis Code Enforcement" stamped on them. Potential development? Or trying to keep homeless out.
Bidding websites do indicate that a new redevelopment is in the concept stage and could start late next year. Plans right now call for retail space and over 600 apartments. However, no other details are really provided at this moment in time.
There were a fair amount of police (three or four squad cars) there too when the City was putting the boards up Tuesday morning. I can only assume there was an issue with unauthorized people entering the building. I'm also inclined to think it was more of an issue than just the homeless trying to find shelter, but who knows.
quincunx posted this in the Pittsburgh thread, but it's a good read, and a good fit here. It's the old Kaufmann's department store, which is similar to the Railway Exchange building. Target will occupy part of the ground floor of the department store space, with more retail space above, two floors of hotel, and the rest of the floors will be apartments.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Hitting the mark: Target to open a store in Downtown Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Hitting the mark: Target to open a store in Downtown Pittsburgh
Landing Target is quite a coup for Core, which has struggled to complete the redevelopment of the iconic Downtown landmark, one that hosted generations of shoppers, since buying it for $15 million in 2015.
The retailer has been in its sights from nearly the start of the project, which has been plagued by delays, liens, lawsuits and other issues.
But with the signing of Target and the planned addition of a new investment team headed by Philadelphia-based Lubert Adler Partners L.P., Mr. Samschick believes the development has turned the corner.
“In the next six months, the building will be all but done,” he said.