623
Senior MemberSenior Member
623

PostJun 16, 2011#551

^So you are proposing changing the zoning of the site to make what is currently proposed un-buildable?
The site is and was zoned I-Central Business District which allows you to build pretty much anything commercial or residential. So zoning is not an issue.

Financing is very likely the issue. See Park Pacific, The Laurel, and Citywalk on Euclid as examples. Yes, Park Pacific and The Laurel got financing, but only through HUD and after about 3 years and lots of headaches.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJun 16, 2011#552

^Not what I am talking about.

My whole point was that I don't know how downtown2007 plans to demand a plan other than what the developers have proposed and are trying to build. The only way that would be possible would be to change the zoning to make what is currently proposed un-buildable, thereby eliminating the current project and developer until something that would fit the new hypothetical zoning requirements is proposed.

I for one am not in favor of anyone attempting to kill the current proposal. It'd be nice to have a taller building with a residential component, but not at the expense of the potential (finally!) use of this corner again.

185
Junior MemberJunior Member
185

PostJun 17, 2011#553

I for one am not in favor of anyone attempting to kill the current proposal.
Obviously... sheesh.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostJun 17, 2011#554

I am not demanding one. I said there was demand in the rental market. I am also not going to change the zoning and kill it.

I simply made a comment that more could be done with the site and provided recommendations on what I would like to see on the site. There is no reason we cant build more than 3 stories. Milwaukee has a new residential tower being constructed that's 30 stories while we are settling for 3 on probably a better site. If it's because of the economy which is too often used as an excuse maybe we should wait.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostJun 17, 2011#555

^Ha alright this has gone on a little far. I was being a smart-ass trying to emphasize to you that you have no right to demand anything if it is not your money developing the site.

I am familiar with the Moderne in Milwaukee. Skyhouse was the exact same idea and has already failed in this spot. Refering to the economy as an "often used excuse" is a little bit simplistic, no?

If this is a good proposal with the ability to sign tennants and build the street-life, then I don't see why there is an issue here. It's not like a developer wishing to build a 30 story tower when the time comes (which it will!) would have trouble finding space to put it.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostJun 18, 2011#556

Again I am glad something is being done with the site however I just think MORE can be done. The Skyhouse failed because at the time it was announced it was higher priced condos during a period when the fundamentals in the housing market were deteriorating quickly. It was a casuality of the market. The Moderne however is being introduced as mainly rental units in a period where the market is strong for apartments. If this site incorporated rental units I think it would work.

5
New MemberNew Member
5

PostSep 06, 2011#557

The waves in the design remind me of the waves of the Aqua building in Chicago. Except that building is 82-stories as opposed to 4 or so. I'm not a big fan of the Aqua building. You have to be within a certain distance to notice the 'waves' created by the protruding balconies. I do think this one at Washington Avenue will look good at night.

1,864
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,864

PostSep 06, 2011#558

You don't like the Aqua Building? The first time I saw it in person I absolutely loved it! The fact that Chicago's skyline is now expanding even more with buildings such as Trump Tower, Aqua, Legacy at Millennium Park, Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tower, 300 N LaSalle, Museum Park...it's just fantastic. If St. Louis had Aqua downtown, we would all be ecstatic.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostFeb 02, 2012#559

New owner for Skyhouse site. At least another year until plans for site is a bummer. Also disappointed in lack of interest.

http://m.stltoday.com/STL/db_259714/con ... d=w1kuOPk9

PostNov 20, 2012#560

The sign advertising the lot has been removed. Anyone know why?

2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostNov 22, 2012#561

I think the building should be taller with at last several stories of office or residential space. The architecture is unique, and could be more interesting if it was more Grand. I don't expect a skyscraper, but it would be nice to not waste the opportunity to fill in the Canyon Walls.

1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostNov 22, 2012#562

I dont see this getting built. Especially not on spec.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostMay 10, 2013#563

Anyone know what's going on with this site? Looks like some work is going on.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 10, 2013#564

^ A parking lot - at least until something can be built there.

396
Full MemberFull Member
396

PostMay 13, 2013#565

I spoke with an owner of the property. Will be a gated lot with automated pay for in and out. Also they plan to fence in the lot next to NLEC. New blacktop and lighting as well. Hopefully, something can be built here when the demand is there in the future.

2,938
Life MemberLife Member
2,938

PostMay 14, 2013#566

^Move the NLEC, and you'll have that demand very quickly.

8,922
Life MemberLife Member
8,922

PostJul 21, 2013#567

Looking back, I think it's safe to say this development would have done very well given the HOT downtown residential market right now. It's a shame it couldn't have broken ground before the Great Recession. I really liked the design.



291
Full MemberFull Member
291

PostJul 22, 2013#568

Don't think so.. Even after sitting for years, the Roberts Tower is going to become apartments instead of condos.

8,922
Life MemberLife Member
8,922

PostJul 22, 2013#569

Right but the Roberts ran out of money and never marketed the building. Personally I think they were in over their head so is that building really a good representation of the market?

Maybe Skyhouse would have had to change their model and have some % of rentals given the economy.

613
Senior MemberSenior Member
613

PostJul 22, 2013#570

Knowing the owner of this property I firmly believe that a residential or commercial tower will be built there eventually. He is bullish on downtown. There needs to be a resolution with the NLEC first.

I lived at 15th&Locust for 6 years. Loved it, but the NLEC is a problem property and does present challenges. Especially when you are trying to market high-end residential.

291
Full MemberFull Member
291

PostJul 23, 2013#571

moorlander.... I agree with you, the Roberts Brothers got in over their heads... I have to wonder though, how deep were the pockets of the Skyhouse developers... I think they too would have gotten in over their heads if they had been foolish enough to proceed with Skyhouse given the market conditions we have experienced over the intervening six years between then and now. Six years ago the Roberts Brothers had pretty deep pockets. At this time it still seems to be almost impossible to get financing for condo developments. We're probably going to end up with a glut of apartments before this changes. Then the winds will shift. Money will be available to develop condos. We'll overbuild those. And, we'll start the cycle over again.... The Great Mandela of residential real estate. Got to love it.

5,720
Life MemberLife Member
5,720

PostJul 23, 2013#572

robertn42 wrote:Knowing the owner of this property I firmly believe that a residential or commercial tower will be built there eventually. He is bullish on downtown. There needs to be a resolution with the NLEC first.
I believe Gone Corporate expressed something similar nearby on a different thread and would have to agree with both of you that resolution with NELC will help immensely. However, I do think it is still possible ....
vollum wrote:moorlander.... I agree with you, the Roberts Brothers got in over their heads... I have to wonder though, how deep were the pockets of the Skyhouse developers... I think they too would have gotten in over their heads if they had been foolish enough to proceed with Skyhouse given the market conditions we have experienced over the intervening six years between then and now. Six years ago the Roberts Brothers had pretty deep pockets. At this time it still seems to be almost impossible to get financing for condo developments. We're probably going to end up with a glut of apartments before this changes. Then the winds will shift. Money will be available to develop condos. We'll overbuild those. And, we'll start the cycle over again.... The Great Mandela of residential real estate. Got to love it.
I also believe the Skyhouse developer pre-sold close to 40% before the market went flat line, the magic number for construction financing if not mistaken. A couple more units and believe you would have seen Sky House on Wash Ave. Whether it would have sold out after it was built or the new tenants would have allowed direct rental, a different set of questions.

So I strongly believe the downtown market will support a new residential tower, where and when?

1,054
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,054

PostJul 24, 2013#573

I think another proposal similar in magnitude to this is coming. And soon.

5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostJul 24, 2013#574

The saddest irony of all is that if Skyhouse had been built, it would have been one more corner with buildings built up to all quadrants in a downtown that has far too few corners like that. But hey, we never can have too many parking lots, right? :roll:

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJul 24, 2013#575

Chalupas54 wrote:I think another proposal similar in magnitude to this is coming. And soon.
+1

Read more posts (23 remaining)