Share
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostApr 23, 2019#76

I think it's probably both. 

And I don't have a problem with that. 

The conventions that are already booked were booked years ago. You're not wrong. But, with massive upgrades to ballroom space and overall capacity, the conventions that St. Louis could be netting in three years could be of a much larger scope, and the city is going to need rooms for that. 

I'm of the the belief that the incentives are a necessary evil. Development wasn't going to happen organically in downtown St. Louis. Now that we're seeing an influx of hotels, and maybe, just maybe, a coming surge in residential, I think we may see that the next wave of development isn't nearly as subsidized. 

The Central West End doesn't need any more help. Downtown does. In time, I believe downtown will reach that point, but that point is not right now by a long shot. 
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostApr 23, 2019#77

Personally I think its all a response to the trend towards "boutique" hotels. People like staying in smaller, more interesting hotels, and the market is responding. 

BTW, anyone have any pics of the views from inside the Shell? 
5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostApr 23, 2019#78

framer wrote:Personally I think its all a response to the trend towards "boutique" hotels. People like staying in smaller, more interesting hotels, and the market is responding. 

BTW, anyone have any pics of the views from inside the Shell? 
You can sort of see views West from these photos taken by the Riverfront Times. They were visiting their old office






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostApr 23, 2019#79

soulardx wrote: Hey, here is SoulardX talking misuse of tax subsidy again.....:)

The fact so many hotels are coming online recently strongly implies there's some sort of tax subsidy incentive to convert old buildings into hotels. Thus, the market is distorted. I just can't believe there is true demand for so many hotel rooms.  I say this as someone who has played/worked downtown daily for 20 years. Other than the April to Sept. months, there just aren't many tourists downtown.  What will these hotels do the other 6 months?

With that said, how easy is it to convert hotel rooms to residential? I do not know but most hotel rooms are really small compared to condos/apartments. 
As other's have mentioned the Millennium took a 700 room hit out of the Downtown market, the Crowne Plaza downsized, etc. but I would agree with you over all.  I think we're reaching the saturation point for hotels.

I also agree with you that these likely aren't being driven by the new CVC expansion.  Having said that, if the CVC expansion does succeed in drawing in a couple more large conventions (two of the largest ones we lost were because we didn't have enough space) and MLS officially happens that would provide a nice boost.

Regarding your last point, I've heard this is one of the larger impediments to redeveloping the Millennium.  The room sizes are too small for apartments and the shape of the building isn't doing them any favors.  The mold probably isn't helping much either.  One off hand idea I had for that hotel would be super affordable "micro" apartments.  Renovate the building, spruce up the facade and market it to those that want to live downtown but can't afford it.

Now to get back on topic, I have always considered the Shell Building as one of my favorites downtown and would loved to see it redeveloped.  Hopefully a hotel could be successful here.
334
AdministratorAdministrator
334

PostApr 23, 2019#80

One off hand idea I had for that hotel would be super affordable "micro" apartments.  Renovate the building, spruce up the facade and market it to those that want to live downtown but can't afford it.
👏👏👏
5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostApr 23, 2019#81

The Mayor wrote: Regarding your last point, I've heard this is one of the larger impediments to redeveloping the Millennium.  The room sizes are too small for apartments and the shape of the building isn't doing them any favors.  The mold probably isn't helping much either.  One off hand idea I had for that hotel would be super affordable "micro" apartments.  Renovate the building, spruce up the facade and market it to those that want to live downtown but can't afford it.

Now to get back on topic, I have always considered the Shell Building as one of my favorites downtown and would loved to see it redeveloped.  Hopefully a hotel could be successful here.
The Millennium was also built sh*tty so redevelopment there would require about the same amount of money it would take to build something new. The fact that there is mold requires a significant amount of drywall to be taken out, but that would happen anyway. In addition to all of this, micro-apartments would be a pain in the ass here because of the circle design and they couldn't be affordable because the redevelopment cost would be astronomical to make the project sustainable in terms of cash flow. I just don't see a bright future ahead for the Millennium at this point. It will either be one of two things in my mind...
1. Demolition for a new mixed-use complex or...
2. Stays abandoned until someone comes along with a vision to redevelop it.

As for the hotel here, I see it happening. Rock Capital Group of Little Rock wanted to buy and redevelop the building last time around but walked away. Now they are back so I think that they are going to move on this project.
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostApr 23, 2019#82

People have speculated for quite some time that Millenium would never be redeveloped. I guess we're approaching that point where we're going to have to accept it. 

I would like to think that, when downtown is at a place where it can accept new construction, this would be a wonderful spot for a developer to take on. It's a prime location, near the arch and river and ballpark and other attractions. If the Millenium has to go, it'd be incredible to see a skyline-altering tower go in.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostApr 23, 2019#83

chriss752 wrote:
The Mayor wrote: Regarding your last point, I've heard this is one of the larger impediments to redeveloping the Millennium.  The room sizes are too small for apartments and the shape of the building isn't doing them any favors.  The mold probably isn't helping much either.  One off hand idea I had for that hotel would be super affordable "micro" apartments.  Renovate the building, spruce up the facade and market it to those that want to live downtown but can't afford it.

Now to get back on topic, I have always considered the Shell Building as one of my favorites downtown and would loved to see it redeveloped.  Hopefully a hotel could be successful here.
The Millennium was also built sh*tty so redevelopment there would require about the same amount of money it would take to build something new. The fact that there is mold requires a significant amount of drywall to be taken out, but that would happen anyway. In addition to all of this, micro-apartments would be a pain in the ass here because of the circle design and they couldn't be affordable because the redevelopment cost would be astronomical to make the project sustainable in terms of cash flow. I just don't see a bright future ahead for the Millennium at this point. It will either be one of two things in my mind...
1. Demolition for a new mixed-use complex or...
2. Stays abandoned until someone comes along with a vision to redevelop it.

As for the hotel here, I see it happening. Rock Capital Group of Little Rock wanted to buy and redevelop the building last time around but walked away. Now they are back so I think that they are going to move on this project.
My idea for micro apartments was predicated on using the current hotel rooms considering the circle design and the documented issues with making them larger.  I also wouldn't have a problem with significant incentives to make this work considering it would be for lower-income folks and not luxury apartments for the yuppy types.  God forbid we try and do something for the less fortunate who might like to be a bit closer to the regions largest concentration of jobs.  Either way it was just an idea, an unlikely one at best.

As for your assertion that redevelopment would cost as much as knocking it down and building new, I'll wait for a developer's opinion on that.  Imploding that building (really more of a complex) would not be cheap.  Anyway, we can always take this over the the Millennium thread if need be, I don't want to take this too far off topic.

I do agree with your last statement though.
32
New MemberNew Member
32

PostApr 23, 2019#84

From a BJ article a year ago...

“I think if someone just came up and offered pennies for it, the owners would probably take it,” said hospitality consultant Gary Andreas, with H&H Consulting in Chesterfield. “Nobody can make the numbers work to take on that property.”

Andreas said over the years, asbestos and mold has crept into the building, leaving any future developer a hefty undertaking to revive the facility.

“I’ve heard comments that just to cure the deficiencies and bring it back to a hotel would cost $100,000 per room, so that’s $80 million just to have the shell to put a hotel in,” he said.
1,689
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,689

PostApr 23, 2019#85

That's surprising, cost wise.

Also, what is so difficult about the circular layout to adapt it to new apartments? Personally, I think if you quartered (or halved a few) floors, it would make some awesome panoramic views.  Put bathrooms in the interior, install reflective glass.  I never made it in there before it closed, though, so perhaps I am just ill-informed or naive.
1,308
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,308

PostApr 24, 2019#86

If the Millennium's going to be that expensive to remodel, why not just let a developer tear the original, shoddily-built and maintained structure down on the condition that it be replaced with a similar structure of approximately equal (or somewhat greater) height? It probably would be a better trade-off to have a new, actually usable building rather than a building that is historic and iconic but is unusable and downright dangerous. I would really hate to lose our only revolving restaurant (granted it hasn't had a service in years); I know they're cliche as hell, but they're just so much fun and the views of downtown must be spectacular from there, especially at night. A new signature tower at that spot with a hip revolving bar/grill at the top would be fantastic. Something like the O Bar and Dining restaurant atop Australia Square in Sydney would be a perfect replacement - the night view of Sydney was spectacular, as was the atmosphere. I'd love for something like that to be in St. Louis.

That whole site is really ripe for a development plan with a few towers and just... new buildings of significant mass. My apologies for derailing the thread even further. 
474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostApr 24, 2019#87

^If there is asbestos, that's the problem. With that it's too expensive to tear the building down for anyone to want to get involved.
597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostApr 24, 2019#88

As for the shell building the biz journal says it’ll be a dual brand home2 suites and tru hotel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2,658
Life MemberLife Member
2,658

PostApr 24, 2019#89

We could always wait 50 years for BPV Phase 7 to come around. Looking forward to seeing the cranes on the future 9 Cardinal Way in its place!
5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostApr 24, 2019#90

Wolfpaw wrote:As for the shell building the biz journal says it’ll be a dual brand home2 suites and tru hotel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Came here to say the same thing.

Interesting tidbit, the developers say that they are pursuing this project due to the Convention Center Expansion and to balance the new luxury boutique hotels popping up around Downtown. This will be a budget-extended stay Hotel. The cost is also $43.2 Million. Construction should begin next Spring.
597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostApr 24, 2019#91

Other tidbits it’ll be about 190+ rooms duel as stated and cost about 44 mil and being fueled by the possible convention center renovations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PostApr 24, 2019#92

chriss752 wrote:
Wolfpaw wrote:As for the shell building the biz journal says it’ll be a dual brand home2 suites and tru hotel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Came here to say the same thing.

Interesting tidbit, the developers say that they are pursuing this project due to the Convention Center Expansion and to balance the new luxury boutique hotels popping up around Downtown. This will be a budget-extended stay Hotel. The cost is also $43.2 Million. Construction should begin next Spring.
Bingo I think that’s good which means that entire area is becoming ripe for development it’ll be in no time before the former skyhouse lot will be redeveloped hopefully not into a parking garage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostApr 24, 2019#93

The convention center expansion looks enormous.

I think it makes sense that downtown would want to add a ton of rooms to accommodate that.

I still think this hotel boom will kick off a flurry of residential and office.
2,075
Life MemberLife Member
2,075

PostApr 24, 2019#94

We've talked about this before on Twitter, but the vacancy rates have a decent amount to do with these hotels popping up. These developers are taking the vacancy rate opportunity and then taking into account in the units coming online and then output an opportunity cost. They pitch that with incentives for available properties associated with historic tax incentives. Then they get a payback based on cost per room based on projected return - if they can pay off their investment in x years, they build. They do the same thing for new hotels, but I'm sure that hasn't panned out yet for the area when the historic options is available. 

And then add in the MLS news, Expansion of the convention center, Arch reopening - all these things lessen their risk of investment. 

We should probably see a decent year for the Arch tourism considering these updates are getting some good press: This is a good idea of what the opportunity is... https://nextstl.com/2013/03/the-missing ... ttendance/

These developers aren't just making decisions based on assumptions, they pay for this data. 

I had my wedding in St. Louis 2-ish years ago now, and I had to send a decent amount of my family to Clayton because the weekend was booked in most of the hotels.
6,155
Life MemberLife Member
6,155

PostApr 25, 2019#95

I was going to say something along those lines. It was a long dang time ago now, but I want to say most of the currently operating hotel rooms downtown were already in place by the late 90s when I was briefly a night auditor, plus the Millennium was a going concern. Many were the weekend nights when folks came to our front desk looking for a room and we had none at all. And calling around for them it was sometimes very difficult to find anything. There will be a more rooms after this ball gets rolling, but there will also be more and larger conventions. And the Cards will continue to draw. (Always did.) I don't see this being overbuilt. And particularly at the budget and extended stay ends of the spectrum. Happy to see this go forward. That's a great building.
680
Senior MemberSenior Member
680

PostApr 25, 2019#96

The dual-brand/extended-stay options seem like a good blend.
5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostApr 25, 2019#97

I think it is interesting to note that this will be Tru's second hotel in a redeveloped building. The other is in San Antonio where a 2-floor addition was added on. So this is actually a special project for the brand since it will require no modern addition becoming the first to do so. Home2 has been in a few older buildings.

Here is the Tru in San Antonio. It looks sh*tty since they added a cheap addition.
147680765.jpg (81.07KiB)
474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostApr 25, 2019#98

^That's so bad. It looks more like a rendering than a photo. How could they not at least replicate the design of the roof line from the original building?
2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostApr 27, 2019#99

Black02AltimaSE wrote: ^That's so bad. It looks more like a rendering than a photo. How could they not at least replicate the design of the roof line from the original building?
That's funny.  I looked at that for a long time trying to figure out if it was a composite or a photo.  I'm still not positive.  The street, cars and the sky just don't look real...

If this project got federal historic tax credits, then the National Park Service does not look favorably on replication or mimicry, unless part of the historic structure itself is being reconstructed.  But, I agree, that is awful.  Maybe it looks better in person. 
474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostApr 29, 2019#100

^It ain't great on StreetView. Tru San Antonio
Read more posts (84 remaining)
Share