urbanSTL

Talking with other developers about this project on the Loft Tour was interesting. Almost uniformly, whenever I mentioned the Roberts Tower and the fact that foundations were going in, all I got in response were chuckles and smirks. I would dismiss it as disinformation by a competitor, except that the Roberts Tower doesn't really have any competitors. It is a different product in a whole different price range.

I had the same experience with another developer. They seem to think the following:



1. That nothing new will get built downtown

2. That a Four Seasons downtown will fail

3. That the Roberts Tower progress is all for show and isn't a sign of them actually moving forward with building the tower



IMO, I think some developers (especially those that don't go into DT) are jealous that others are taking the risk of building DT and if they are successful the DT project will be more symbolic/famous than their projects in other areas of the city.

^I agree except that I would say the developers I have talked to seemed much more positive about SkyHouse. They do seem to think the construction at RT is "all for show", even though they never say that explicitly.



You are right about developer's attitudes, and not just suburban developers. It astounds me how many developers that have done, or are doing, projects in the city have negative opinions about the whole "urban renaissance thing". If these guys started posting their opinions on this forum, they would probably be banned. Ironic, no? I guess these are the guys that just see an opportunity to make an easy buck, but don't see it as sustainable, as opposed to the obvious true believers like Steffen, Heller, McGowan (Kevin anyway), the Gills, et al.



Just an observation, but it seems that the skeptical developers almost invariably are the ones that grew up in the St. Louis suburbs, while the gung ho urban developers are usually from elsewhere.

^I am not trying to convince anyone of anything (in this case anyway ), so whether or not you believe me is irrelevant. For what it is worth, I am not sure I believe them either, but what was said is logical. Since I haven't received any info from the sales center regarding # of contracts, I have no way of gauging the probability of the tower becoming reality. But let me put it this way; just because the Roberts Bros. are spending a million or so placing caissons does not guarantee that the Roberts Tower, as currently envisioned, will be built. Those caissons can be used for other things, and they do just happen to own two adjacent buildings.



In any case, I was simply responding to TB's observation. Believe me, I would love to tell everyone who said what, and exactly what was said, but I work with some of these people, and some of them actually look at this forum - or at least their lackeys do. The only way it would mean anything is if I got into specifics and these things were ostensibly relayed in confidence.

I think that some of you have had a few too many.



It is HARD to believe any company would spend millions of dollars in earth moving, caissons, advertising (everywhere), website, a banner that costs literally thousands and thousands of dollars, construction equipment, hiring of architect: Suttle Mindlin, and Alberici Constructors, Inc., and KPFF Consulting Engineers, in addition hiring a sales manager, building/construction teams, etc. etc. etc...



Give me a break.



Seriously, companies do NOT do this type of extensive operations just "for show". Please, I am the one chuckling at these comments!



The Roberts Brothers and Roberts Companies are extremely well organized. Yes, they are a little under the radar, but that is OK. They are also very influential in the city and I have met them on several occassions at city government meetings, RCGA and Convention and Visitors affairs. They also are very wealthy and work very privately. Their portfolio is long and have many "to do" projects. However, they run many efficient branches of their company such as The Mayfair (Wyndham Hotel), WRBU Channel MYTV46, and Roberts Towers (Cable and Cell Company) just to name a few. I believe that this tower is a symbol not for just the city, but a symbol of their success(es) and corportation. I am in understanding that they will have their offices located in the highrise tower and (me speculating) possibly have a condo or two for themselves here. I doubt the Roberts needed any pre-sales to build this thing either.

matguy70 wrote:I think that some of you have had a few too many.

I have occasionally been overserved, but not this afternoon...so far.

matguy70 wrote:It is HARD to believe any company would spend millions of dollars in earth moving, caissons...

Please read my post.

matguy70 wrote:...advertising (everwhere), website, a banner that costs literally thousands and thousands of dollars, construction equipment, hiring of architect: Suttle Mindlin, and Alberici Constructors, Inc., and KPFF Consulting Engineers, in addition hiring a sales manager, building/construction teams, etc. etc. etc...

You obviously don't have much experience in the industry. It happens all the time, with no tangible results. Edit: Seriously, you could build a several-acre mini-city with all of the unrealized project models out there, models that can, or at least used to, cost $50-100k.

matguy70 wrote:The Roberts Brothers and Roberts Companies are extremely well organized.

Seriously? Maybe in their other endeavours, but not in real estate. Try getting information from their "sales office". And, the Mayfair...ok, nevermind.

matguy70 wrote:I doubt the Roberts needed any pre-sales to build this thing either.

We agree on something, but what kind of businessperson would build a 25-story high-end condominium tower without financing and with no pre-sales? That would be pretty stupid.

matguy70 wrote:I doubt the Roberts needed any pre-sales to build this thing either.

That's exactly what I meant when I said they finance things differently. When you have millions upon millions of dollars of net worth and cash just laying around, you can provide the backing yourself, not off pre-sales. I really think they just don't care how many pre-sales they get because they know they will sell when the building is up. The market downtown also builds more as time goes on, so they may be able to get higher prices. That's just speculation, however. Another reason we may know nothing about pre-sales or layout, etc. is because the price range these are in doesn't need to have that stuff on a website to attract buyers, maybe they are even custom. This is catered to a different class than most of the rest of the developments. The market for $450 Sq. Ft. homes is a little different than the $175 Sq. Ft. loft segment.

I'm not even going to comment.



well... I guess I just did.

^Exactly.

Looks like they have been dropping in the rebar cages for at least one of the caissons. The crane has been moved to the actual site from the street, and they look to have around 4 caisson liners in the ground right now. Didn't get a chance to talk to anyone about the progress.

MattnSTL wrote:

matguy70 wrote:I doubt the Roberts needed any pre-sales to build this thing either.

That's exactly what I meant when I said they finance things differently. When you have millions upon millions of dollars of net worth and cash just laying around, you can provide the backing yourself, not off pre-sales...

Again, what kind of businessperson has millions of dollars of cash just "laying" around? Unless you are planning on acquiring a company, are betting on a sudden exchange rate shift, or are betting on a market crash - and then you should just short everything.



And, if you have "millions upon millions of dollars of net worth", I'm pretty sure you could get fairly decent financing terms - at least good enough that you would not have to forego the return on your other investments. It is called opportunity cost.

Thanks for explaining stuff I already know. I didn't mean laying around like under a mattress. I meant laying around as in looking for a good investment and they see this as one.

I'm fairly sure Robert's company has 500 million + in assets, if I remember the figure correctly. It would be fairly easy to leverage those in an effort to finance a fairly small project such as this (In the world of buildings, at least.) I Have no idea what the cost of this project is going to be (50-75 mil would be my estimate). I'm sure they are fairly financially astute and have people who can move their assets around to meet their current needs. The fact that they are aggressively plunging into the foundation process is a fairly good sign that there isn't much to worry about, otherwise I'm sure they would have continued to sit on the land.

The company is private and this status results in much speculation about what a balance sheet may or may not look like.



Common real estate development financing would be not to use your own money. Your own money is managed in investments and assets that are probably not liquid but offer a high credit rating. A high credit rating is used by the developer to attract other people's money (like a bank). There is a lot of capital out there looking for solid deals offered by developers with good credit.

I wonder if this tower will crack the elusive St. Louis height barrier of 300'....

I think you mean 630 . I saw structural documents in the sales center that listed the top floor at 292', so with mechanicals and any type of extra height on top that comes with mechanicals, I'd say this has a fairly decent shot of breaking the 300' mark.

Well actually, St. Louis seems to have two height barriers 630 and 300 feet. Look at all the buildings above 250 but below 300 in the downtown area...



1010 Market 296

Lumiere Place 289

Mansion House285

Radisson 285

Gentry's Landing 285

500 Broadway 282

Millenium Hotel 281

Equitable Bldg 275

Bank of America Tower 275

Gateway Tower 263

Railway Exchange 255

St. Louis Place 253

AG EDwards 253

AT&T(this is the bldg beside AG Edwards) ~270

Marriott ~265

Gateway Hotel ~260

Lennox Hotel ~265



On one hand it's great that St. Louis has a dense skyline with this mid range towers and all of the 10-12 story buildings, but St. Louis seriously lacks towers over 300'.

^Nobody will debate that fact. The problem with the heights in stl right now is that we have yet to hit the parking/hotel/condo phase of building as of yet, for which Chicago is a great case study right now. My most recent angst regarding this topic is coming out of BPV right now. There is an opportunity to have a hotel lower portion, which Cordish is pushing for, and then 250 condo units, which they are planning on having in a seperate tower. That combo (as far as units and rooms go (I think the number they are shooting for is around 100)) could easily hit 700+ feet. Add in around 15 floors of parking above some retail (like Trump Chicago) to take care of some of their 1750 parking spots, and we are approaching 1000. However, in it's current state, we will be lucky to get a 400 footer and then a 10-15 story filler. Enough ranting, and back on topic.



Too bad the Roberts didn't decide to add an expansion to the Mayfair on the lower floors of the building, putting the condo's higher up (and therefor higher value due to better views). Can't win 'em all I suppose.

I agree that it is a shame the developers really don't build very high around here. It seems as if you really don't feel like you are very high off the ground until you are about 350'. I was on the top of the Bank of America Plaza(30th floor) and I compared it to my view from the 26th floor of the Radisson(Mansion House South) and the perspective was worlds apart. On top of the Radisson I felt that I was fairly tall building, but being on the top of the Bank of America I felt like I was in a skyscraper. I guess that is all subjective though when one feels like they are in a high spot.

After reading through a lot of discussion on here and reading more elsewhere, I have to say that I'm coming down firmly on the infill/build on vacant lots and parking lots before building anything 40+ stories. Unless a business needs 1M+ contiguous sq ft, let's fill in our underused lots. I think the Roberts Tower is a good example of this.

I happen to believe there is a stigma about the 630ft mark, but I believe the 300ft mark is solely based on coincidence. The reason we haven't built taller is simple...



- the market hasn't demanded it.

- we haven't had any visionaries or CEO's willing to do it.



btw - Grover I completely agree with you. Height is superficial and over rated IMHO...

Grover wrote:I have to say that I'm coming down firmly on the infill/build on vacant lots and parking lots before building anything 40+ stories.

That's my philosophy on new development. Give us horizontal density now, and with increased demand, the vertical density will inevitably follow.