urbanSTL

Matt Drops The H wrote:


Anyway, back to the Bottle District, (all kidding aside), it would be nice if area universities could create urban campuses on these pedestrian-oriented projects. If SLU moved any one of its "Colleges" to the Bottle District, it could be a small contribution towards a 24-hour atmosphere.

Hah...I'm a trendsetter.



No, but seriously, my attempt to link the SLU discussion with the Bottle District failed miserably.

I don't know if anyone could tell, I was mocking the SLU discussion just a bit.

In seeing how this project has changed since the first post - I think it has taken monumental steps in the wrong direction. The thought of a residential tower being the same height as the Gateway Arch is just wrong. Is there really a residential market for all these lofts downtown and this poorly planned residential portion of the bottle district - if so, which genius provided the market/demographic study? I would enjoy seeing a well designed mixed-use development in downtown (and I think the ballpark village is closer to hitting the mark than the bottle district). I was wondering if anyone has looked to the ghetto just west of the bottle district - will this be addressed before the bottle district really breaks ground? A whole lot of questions for such a large development on the north side of town - I think these questions should have been answered before the city committed so much money in TIF financing...oooops.

First off, welcome to the forum.



But I do have to disagree with you post. First, there is no ghetto to the west of this project. Sure, the area is struggling, but Columbus Square was just renovated, Neighborhood Gardens is being renovated, and Cochran Gardens is going to be rebuilt. So there is no ghetto there. In fact, by my definition of ghetto, nowhere in St. Louis is a ghetto. A ghetto in my book is much worse than any decay in St. Louis. That is one of the most overused terms. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong with matching the height of the Arch, or building bigger. We, as a region, need to get over that. And if there is no market for all these condos, why would developers be clamoring over buildings on Wash Ave. and other areas of downtown. New construction is an especially untapped area downtown. While I haven't seen any particular studies myself, Matt Bernson, the marketing director for the Bottle District has said in an interview that there have been many inquiries so far for condos, with no formal advertising yet. Third, a TIF is not garunteed by the city (Except St. Louis Marketplace, the real ooops), it is based on future tax revenue. The developer gets a cut of the future taxes generated on the site for infrastructure type work. There is a max of 23 years for the TIF, and as soon as the bonds are paid off, all taxes go to the city. Some Tifs have been finished as quickly as 3 years. In other words, no current revenue goes towards TIFs, only a portion of future revenue. The Bottle District, other than a few minor issues is going to be successful. The Bottle District will anchor the far northern reaches of downtown, and Ballpark Village and Chouteau's Lake will anchor the southern part of downtown, creating action in all areas.

I wholeheartedly disagree Jambalyaya. What is wrong with building taller than the St. Louis Arch? There is no law against it. Obviously there must be some sort of demand for residential property downtown or the financing for this project would not have been approved in the first place. I doubt you know where this project is since it's downtown not the 'north side' as you say.

How come there is no new evidence of construction on the site several weeks after groundbreaking? Contrast this with the casino across the highway where work is well under way. Hope I am not being too much of a pessimist because I truly want the Bottle District to succeed.

The casino was a true groundbreaking, where the Bottle District was basically ceremonial until the full scale construction besides demo is ready to start. Lacled gas has been there relocation utilities though.

Jambalaya, I can already tell you are a St. Louis native from the suburbs, and that's ok, after all so am I. But you need to get those stereotypes that have been drilled into your head since birth about downtown out of your mind. There is no "ghetto" in the location of the bottle district and in fact there is great demand for new high rise construction downtown. Diverse econonomic groups does not mean the the bottle district will be ghetto. All other major cites with thriving downtowns have different areas with people of different incomes, ie Chicago. For downtown to be succussful in the long term, the WHOLE area must be developed, not just Wash Ave, and it must have places for all to live and relax. If you want to live next to lots of poeple like yourself, and look down your nose at these "ghettos" then feel free to move ever further west like so many other do. Expand your mind, look at the big picture and do some research before you run you mouth.

brickandmortar wrote:I wholeheartedly disagree Jambalyaya. What is wrong with building taller than the St. Louis Arch? There is no law against it. Obviously there must be some sort of demand for residential property downtown or the financing for this project would not have been approved in the first place. I doubt you know where this project is since it's downtown not the 'north side' as you say.

brickandmortar,

you should invest some time and drive over to East St. Louis and look at our current skyline - then imagine it with this proposed design for a 600+ foot tall residential tower. Whether you agree or not, it is visually damaging to the St. Louis skyline (similar to the damage done to our skyline when the federal court building was built). Your next point to address is the financing for this project. The only financing committed to this project (as reported in the paper) is for land acquisition - something the bank sees value in even if this project is never constructed. There is no mentioned financing for any portion of the actual construction of this project. And the third point to be addressed - this is the northside of downtown St. Louis - if you don't realize that obvious point then maybe you do not know where this project is.



You are missing the point of my post - I hope something does get developed at the northern end of downtown. However, it needs to be the correct development with the correct design to insure it's long-lasting success. The last thing we need is some albatross sitting on the north side of downtown that is used with the frequency of Laclede's Landing (weekends only).

I wouldn't consider the Eagleton Courthouse to be detrimental to our skyline by any means. If anything, it enhances it.

MistaC01 wrote:Jambalaya, I can already tell you are a St. Louis native from the suburbs, and that's ok, after all so am I. But you need to get those stereotypes that have been drilled into your head since birth about downtown out of your mind. There is no "ghetto" in the location of the bottle district and in fact there is great demand for new high rise construction downtown. Diverse econonomic groups does not mean the the bottle district will be ghetto. All other major cites with thriving downtowns have different areas with people of different incomes, ie Chicago. For downtown to be succussful in the long term, the WHOLE area must be developed, not just Wash Ave, and it must have places for all to live and relax. If you want to live next to lots of poeple like yourself, and look down your nose at these "ghettos" then feel free to move ever further west like so many other do. Expand your mind, look at the big picture and do some research before you run you mouth.

Dear MistaC01,

I'm sorry, but I do not have a stereotype about this part of town - I know it quite well. My point was questioning the market for all this proposed residential development. I think the renovation of our historic buildings into residential lofts is the perfect way to recycle these great buildings. My question was with all these lofts coming on-line, is there really a market for 600-700 new condos - I personally think there is a greater market for the renovated lofts than for this inappropriately scaled tower next to an interstate highway. Unlike you, I think I am looking at the "big picture" and not just agreeing with the "if you build it they will come" mindset. Without an appropriate design with a real market to support it our city is improperly investing a large sum of money in the form of a TIF for this project. I am all for downtown development but it is to be guided by good planning and good design and I don't think the bottle district is guided by either. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to your opinion and time will tell if this development ever gets built, and even if it does get built, if it is successful. Thank you for the discussion

I'm sorry, but I do not have a stereotype about this part of town - I know it quite well. My point was questioning the market for all this proposed residential development. I think the renovation of our historic buildings into residential lofts is the perfect way to recycle these great buildings. My question was with all these lofts coming on-line, is there really a market for 600-700 new condos - I personally think there is a greater market for the renovated lofts than for this inappropriately scaled tower next to an interstate highway. Unlike you, I think I am looking at the "big picture" and not just agreeing with the "if you build it they will come" mindset. Without an appropriate design with a real market to support it our city is improperly investing a large sum of money in the form of a TIF for this project. I am all for downtown development but it is to be guided by good planning and good design and I don't think the bottle district is guided by either. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to your opinion and time will tell if this development ever gets built, and even if it does get built, if it is successful. Thank you for the discussion

I think you have a valid point, and for all we know, the Bottle District buildings may never come to fruition as they look in the renderings.



By all accounts, supply can't currently keep up with demand when it comes to downtown housing, but who knows when the market will become overbuilt? I personally think it still has a ways to go before that happens, but I think that the combination of the Bottle District, Ballpark Village and the Pinnacle tower will really test the market.

DeBaliviere wrote:I think you have a valid point, and for all we know, the Bottle District buildings may never come to fruition as they look in the renderings.



By all accounts, supply can't currently keep up with demand when it comes to downtown housing, but who knows when the market will become overbuilt? I personally think it still has a ways to go before that happens, but I think that the combination of the Bottle District, Ballpark Village and the Pinnacle tower will really test the market.

I agree, and I think this is a very exciting time to be in St. Louis - as long as things are done correctly, this could really bolster downtown St. Louis for generations.

Sorry that downtown progress blocks your view of the Arch coming in on 64 Eastbound.



Also, are you aware that even the most populated highrises in major cities rarely have 100% occupancy. Residential highrises in Chicago usually operate in the 50-70% occupancy rate. If you build 800 units, you usually hope to fill in about 500.



This is a positive development for downtown. It helps to bridge a gap between ONSL and downtown, along with the city and the Landing. Just north and West of this development site are areas that are being rehabbed/redone. Bringing this area together will be a truly innovative design by one of the worlds most renown architects. I fail to see the negative. If we are lucky to make it to the third phase of the design, that's when we'll see the first building in STL to match the height of the Arch. And I say it's about time.



The only thing negative I have to say about the height of these buildings? When are we getting another building that tall, if not taller?

trent wrote:Sorry that downtown progress blocks your view of the Arch coming in on 64 Eastbound.



Also, are you aware that even the most populated highrises in major cities rarely have 100% occupancy. Residential highrises in Chicago usually operate in the 50-70% occupancy rate. If you build 800 units, you usually hope to fill in about 500.



This is a positive development for downtown. It helps to bridge a gap between ONSL and downtown, along with the city and the Landing. Just north and West of this development site are areas that are being rehabbed/redone. Bringing this area together will be a truly innovative design by one of the worlds most renown architects. I fail to see the negative. If we are lucky to make it to the third phase of the design, that's when we'll see the first building in STL to match the height of the Arch. And I say it's about time.



The only thing negative I have to say about the height of these buildings? When are we getting another building that tall, if not taller?

trent,

I guess I was not clear with the intent of my post - I encourage development in downtown St. Louis - it should just be planned and designed correctly. If you think any developer in their right mind (residential or commercial) can operate any facility with 50%-70% occupancy then you exposed the fact that you do not know of which you speak (there is another little item called NOI - net operating income and there is not a building pro-forma that works with occupancy rates that low).



I especially enjoyed your comment about "a truly innovative design by one of the worlds most renown architects." Libeskind provided a re-tread design for the bottle district (so much for innovation) and he could possibly be merely a flavor of the month - let's see if he has any staying power...time will tell. He never had a building built until he was 50, and he lost the World Trade Center design because all he did was broker the true design services to other architects (Calatrava being one of them). Why do most Libeskind designs look alike if he is so innovative - have you seen his projects in Denver and Toronto?



I do agree with you that this project could be very critical to the long term success of the near north side of downtown St. Louis - it could provide a critical link to the landing if it has the correct tenant mix. Again, time will tell if this project will ever get built - and then if it will be successful and appropriate for the city.

Why not reach for the density of Chicago or NYC? I see no problem at all with that. St. Louis was once among those cities as peers. I think we should strive to match their density as well as commercial power. Downtowns should be the focus of any region, not some myopic greenfield development in the BFE Golden Triangle.



Xing, I know you live in Chicago, but the John (Hancock) doesn't stand steps away from Cabrini Green(or the West Side development that took its place). It is a considerable distance from there, though it might be considered 'downtown' to some on this forum.

Welcome to the forum, jambalaya. I see you have jumped in with both feet! The trick is keeping them out of your mouth.



I disagree with a lot of what you have said (acceptable building heights, Northside Factor, etc), but I also agree with many of your points. You seem to have a good grasp of reality.



Personally, I have real doubts about the Bottle District ever getting built as currently advertised, for lots of reasons. And no, in fact they do NOT have construction financing in place. A "groundbreaking" is a media event, not the start of construction.

following on from that last post: does anyone know exactly where financing stands at the moment? are they reasonably close to some kind of a deal?

Xing wrote:the hanckcock is within a non-lazy man's walk. to me, it's not far from cabrini green. i work in that area, and i know it's not far. i'm there daily. so, yes, to me it's steps, to others it's a journey.

Yeah, I should have said for me its more than a few steps. I've lived here too long now, after all we need parking garages on every block here.