The St. Louis Business Journal reported today that the Roberts Brothers have bought two buildings on Locust and may tear them down to build a new hotel/condo tower. The buildings are a two-story building at 923 Locust Street and a four-story building at 921 Locust Street. The new hotel/condo tower would be in addition to the 25-story, residential "<A HREF="http://www.urbanstlouis.com/urbanstl/vi ... 0">Roberts Mayfair Tower on the Plaza</A>" proposed for the parking lot adjacent to the Mayfair Hotel (slated to break ground this year).
New Hotel Indigo - Convention District (10th @ Locust)
New Hotel Indigo - Convention District (10th @ Locust)
- 1,649
Wow, so the building would at the corner of 10th and Locust, taking down the mothers fish place. Hopefuly the plan for the first tower goes along, because if sucessful, the second tower maybe possible. It could be such a great addtion to the area. Does the article give anymore info on the 25 story residential tower that the Roberts want to start this year (like when it might break ground, if plans are set, or financing in place)?
- 1,649
JMedwick wrote:Does the article give anymore info on the 25 story residential tower that the Roberts want to start this year (like when it might break ground, if plans are set, or financing in place)?
No, just that the ground floor will be connected to the Mayfair Hotel and that the tower will be for-sale condos. According to the article, a dollar amount for the Roberts Mayfair Tower on the Plaza has not been determined yet... however the 1.2 million they spent on the two smaller buildings along Locust were paid for with private funds and not financed.... so I am not sure getting the financing in place is such a big problem.
- 1,282
Look at the picture. Those are the buildings that will razed.
- 2,005
I see nothing wrong with tearing those two buildings down so long as something nice and functional goes in its place. Tearing down buildings for a parking garage/lot or suburban style bank is what I have problems with.
- 10K
I'd prefer to see new construction built on vacant lots before we start tearing buildings down.
Why not build on the lots at 11th and Washington, 11th and Locust, 6th and Locust, etc. first?
Why not build on the lots at 11th and Washington, 11th and Locust, 6th and Locust, etc. first?
- 35
So, let me get this straight: hotels have experienced less-than-acceptable occupancy downtown (most notably the Renaissance, which is in a difficult financial situation and is located nearby) and the Roberts Bros have sat on a vacant lot for a number of years--swearing that the Mayfair tower will happen even as as the present surface parking lot indicates otherwise--but with no results (though the Century Building caddy-corner comes down for a parking garage). Even as the ground floor of the Board of Education building is tenantless and the Orpheum still needs drastic repairs. Insane thinking.
Ridiculous to even consider tearing down the buildings at Locust & 10th, at a corner that includes the one renovated and one soon-to-be renovated building.
A better idea would be to reuse the buildings for office or niche retail. Rehabbed appropriately, these are of a size that would be well-suited for such uses. The northside of Locust in this block is a solid row (look Ma, no ground level parking lots!) of older, sturdy building stock. It is intact urban fabric that deserves better than being demolished for yet another gravel-filled corner that will undoubtedly sit vacant for years.
I hope the demolition idea is quickly reconsidered. One need only look at what has been successful downtown (and elsewhere in the city) to see that rehab and reuse is what is working.
Ridiculous to even consider tearing down the buildings at Locust & 10th, at a corner that includes the one renovated and one soon-to-be renovated building.
A better idea would be to reuse the buildings for office or niche retail. Rehabbed appropriately, these are of a size that would be well-suited for such uses. The northside of Locust in this block is a solid row (look Ma, no ground level parking lots!) of older, sturdy building stock. It is intact urban fabric that deserves better than being demolished for yet another gravel-filled corner that will undoubtedly sit vacant for years.
I hope the demolition idea is quickly reconsidered. One need only look at what has been successful downtown (and elsewhere in the city) to see that rehab and reuse is what is working.
I would love to see developers build on vacant lots first, but I gotta say, those buildings are no great loss.
Anyone can slap a tudor facade on a building and the other all brick wonder is no great loss. Just because something is old does not make it special. THat building is bland and run of the mill. No great loss.
I will take a condo tower over that anyday.
Anyone can slap a tudor facade on a building and the other all brick wonder is no great loss. Just because something is old does not make it special. THat building is bland and run of the mill. No great loss.
I will take a condo tower over that anyday.
- 35
JMedwick wrote:I will take a condo tower over that anyday.
But are you gonna get that condo tower? I'm still waiting for the one north of the Old Post Office. Have been for years now.
And these buildings are a great loss, because there are a dwindling number of them left in our downtown. And they are still very adaptable! Just because something is slapped with a ye-old facade or is rather plain does not mean it is inherently worthless. Especially when we've used the "it's no great loss" excuse so often that we are now left with few of the smaller scale buildings that once lined our streets.
I always thought the building on the corner would make a great pub. Kind of a neighborhood bar.
- 10K
I just don't see the point of doing a tear-down at this point. If downtown were to ever get to the point where there was no developable land left to build on, I would then think that tearing buildings down would be an option, but certainly not now.
A tear down seems unecessary at this time. I am tired of empty lots being overlooked. If they offer a good plan, excellent renderings, some guarantees, then it might be OK. But, I wish they would stop tearing down buildings with some vague promise of something better. They have been getting away with that since WWII. When I say "they", I don't mean Roberts, but a general "they" 
.
Besides, the small narrow buildings can offer a type of retail that gives the street life. A street of nothing but big buildings can get rather dull. But, I will wait and see what they are really offering before I make a final judgement.
.Besides, the small narrow buildings can offer a type of retail that gives the street life. A street of nothing but big buildings can get rather dull. But, I will wait and see what they are really offering before I make a final judgement.
- 2,005
There is certainly plenty of land left to build on left downtown and to tear down these buildings would be a shame. My point is that given the option of building something nice to improve the area is in general far better than some of the crap we've gotten in the past(i.e. Garage Mahal, Urban Plaza north of the OPO, hell even the Famous Garage). Right now is the Roberts own the land(or will in the future). Perhaps some speculators are sitting on those empty lots at 11th and Washington, 11th and Locust, etc. and are demanding an exorbant price. Building at 10th and Locust may be the most economically viable option for the Roberts if they are going to build new.
That said, can downtown support anymore hotels? In my haste, I hadn't noticed that part when I posted earlier. If the Roberts want to build a tower they need to make it all condos and to make certain that the occupancy is high enough before they move forward with any demolitions period.
That said, can downtown support anymore hotels? In my haste, I hadn't noticed that part when I posted earlier. If the Roberts want to build a tower they need to make it all condos and to make certain that the occupancy is high enough before they move forward with any demolitions period.
OK Dallenjohn, lets get a few things straight.
The Roberts Mayfair on the Plaza or whatever it is called on the corner of 8th and Locust has evolved from the point of being a full tower hotel addtion to the Mayfair to its present form of a condo tower on top of more metting rooms and other ammentites to make the mayfair attractive in a very competitive market.
How does the current existance of a parking lot indicate that this project will not move forward? The building that once stood on that corner has been gone since the 70's. Since that time it has been a parking lot. The parking lot is no new creation. Moreover, since when has a paved lot been a signifigant barier to future development?
The cornder of 10th and Locust contains two buildings, neither of which have been rehabed. The mothers fish building was attempted and stoped when the money ran out, getting a bunch of stuff torn out and the HVAC system replaced. Gus has sat on the other building without renovating it. Neither of these buildings appear to be in danger of becoming more than vacant anytime soon.
Now on to your final point. No, the demolishion should not procede unless it is clear the development will move forward (ie. financing in place, tax abatements, tif, whathave you finalized). I agre with you there. But if it is clear that the project can happen, then I say let them demolish the buildings.
Why are the a great loss? What is so unique, so special, that they should be preserved from the normal develoment pressures? Its one thing if we are talking about great buildings or unique areas, but those two buildings are neither. You sound like those folks on the preservation agency, making every dime a dozen house in the city sound like the 8th wonder of the world. There is a place for historic preservation. One can agrue that the Century should have been saved, or the Amabasador, or that the barn like building on Locust out near 19th should be saved, or the rare examples of housing from the 1850's that still dot parts of downtown. BUt that argument falls apart with these two buildings, buildings which are truely dime a dozen.
Yes those lots at 11th and LOcust are great, but one wonders if the change to make something out of them has passed, as some of the smaller strcutures on the site have been rehabed. It was such a cunk of land, it always seemed like a logical spot if downtown added another office tower.
All in all, this project is likely years away (5?) and with the rise in intrest rates, I wonder if the condo craze is about to stop. All we can do is wait to see if the first project goes forward sucessfully. HOpfuly it does and downtown can add both a pair of towers to its skyline and a few hundred more residents.
The Roberts Mayfair on the Plaza or whatever it is called on the corner of 8th and Locust has evolved from the point of being a full tower hotel addtion to the Mayfair to its present form of a condo tower on top of more metting rooms and other ammentites to make the mayfair attractive in a very competitive market.
How does the current existance of a parking lot indicate that this project will not move forward? The building that once stood on that corner has been gone since the 70's. Since that time it has been a parking lot. The parking lot is no new creation. Moreover, since when has a paved lot been a signifigant barier to future development?
The cornder of 10th and Locust contains two buildings, neither of which have been rehabed. The mothers fish building was attempted and stoped when the money ran out, getting a bunch of stuff torn out and the HVAC system replaced. Gus has sat on the other building without renovating it. Neither of these buildings appear to be in danger of becoming more than vacant anytime soon.
Now on to your final point. No, the demolishion should not procede unless it is clear the development will move forward (ie. financing in place, tax abatements, tif, whathave you finalized). I agre with you there. But if it is clear that the project can happen, then I say let them demolish the buildings.
Why are the a great loss? What is so unique, so special, that they should be preserved from the normal develoment pressures? Its one thing if we are talking about great buildings or unique areas, but those two buildings are neither. You sound like those folks on the preservation agency, making every dime a dozen house in the city sound like the 8th wonder of the world. There is a place for historic preservation. One can agrue that the Century should have been saved, or the Amabasador, or that the barn like building on Locust out near 19th should be saved, or the rare examples of housing from the 1850's that still dot parts of downtown. BUt that argument falls apart with these two buildings, buildings which are truely dime a dozen.
Yes those lots at 11th and LOcust are great, but one wonders if the change to make something out of them has passed, as some of the smaller strcutures on the site have been rehabed. It was such a cunk of land, it always seemed like a logical spot if downtown added another office tower.
All in all, this project is likely years away (5?) and with the rise in intrest rates, I wonder if the condo craze is about to stop. All we can do is wait to see if the first project goes forward sucessfully. HOpfuly it does and downtown can add both a pair of towers to its skyline and a few hundred more residents.
mbow76 wrote:I always thought the building on the corner would make a great pub. Kind of a neighborhood bar.
Me too. Good place to toss a few pints and sing some good olde sea chanties (if only I knew some).
I very happy to say goodbye to the ground level parking lot north of the Old Post Office and welcome a new tower. But, regarding the half block west, I'm very apprehensive about tearing down more buildings in the shadow of the former Century Building, but withholding judgment until there are more details.
- 479
Great points, dallenjohn!
Underneath the stucco on the building at the northeast corner of 10th and Locust is one of the last remaining downtown buildings built before 1870. While the exact date of construction is unknown, the materials and structural methods employed suggest a construction date for one part of the building to be around 1855-1860. The rest of the building and the cast iron storefront date to the 1870s.
Few buildings of this age are left downtown. Restoration would likely reveal a fine Greek Revival brick building unlike anything else that exists in the downtown core.
Underneath the stucco on the building at the northeast corner of 10th and Locust is one of the last remaining downtown buildings built before 1870. While the exact date of construction is unknown, the materials and structural methods employed suggest a construction date for one part of the building to be around 1855-1860. The rest of the building and the cast iron storefront date to the 1870s.
Few buildings of this age are left downtown. Restoration would likely reveal a fine Greek Revival brick building unlike anything else that exists in the downtown core.
- 35
JMedwick wrote:OK Dallenjohn, lets get a few things straight.
The Roberts Mayfair on the Plaza or whatever it is called on the corner of 8th and Locust has evolved from the point of being a full tower hotel addtion to the Mayfair to its present form of a condo tower on top of more metting rooms and other ammentites to make the mayfair attractive in a very competitive market.
How does the current existance of a parking lot indicate that this project will not move forward? The building that once stood on that corner has been gone since the 70's. Since that time it has been a parking lot. The parking lot is no new creation. Moreover, since when has a paved lot been a signifigant barier to future development?
The existence of that parking lot indicates the the Mayfair tower project has not moved forward to the point where we are seeing visible results. So, the fact that the area has been parking for years prior makes it okay for its current owners to string along plans without any noticeable progress in the most recent years? I agree: the paved lot is not a significant barrier for future development, so let's build the damn thing already! Something vital and appropriate for this dynamic urban context.
My point is that the developers have not delivered on a proposal for a paved half-block, so I don't necessarily trust them to deliver on a corner one block away, especially with something similar and as grandoise as another new hotlel/condo tower (something that I have serious doubts about from a business/financial feasbility standpoint anyway). Get the myriad of other projects done (i.e. tenants in BofE, Orpheum spruced, plaza thing done) and successful before tearing yet another chunk of the city to start on something the is this ambitious.
JMedwick wrote:The corner of 10th and Locust contains two buildings, neither of which have been rehabed. The mothers fish building was attempted and stoped when the money ran out, getting a bunch of stuff torn out and the HVAC system replaced. Gus has sat on the other building without renovating it. Neither of these buildings appear to be in danger of becoming more than vacant anytime soon.
So? Other owners have failed, that absolves the new owners (who have attempted rehabs)? I think not. The new owners do have the ability the tackle this as a smaller-scale rehab project, but are taking a very short-sighted way out if they go forward with demolition plans.
JMedwick wrote:Why are the a great loss? What is so unique, so special, that they should be preserved from the normal develoment pressures? Its one thing if we are talking about great buildings or unique areas, but those two buildings are neither. You sound like those folks on the preservation agency, making every dime a dozen house in the city sound like the 8th wonder of the world. There is a place for historic preservation. One can agrue that the Century should have been saved, or the Amabasador, or that the barn like building on Locust out near 19th should be saved, or the rare examples of housing from the 1850's that still dot parts of downtown. BUt that argument falls apart with these two buildings, buildings which are truely dime a dozen.
So, our history should only be composed of the great, the extraordinary? The only things worth saving are the Monticellos or the Union Stations? What about our shared history of the ordinary, the everyday life on St. Louis? The individuals who inhabited the not-so-glorious spaces are as part of our heritage (if not moreso!) than those who lived in Portland Place or worked at a prestigious firm in the Wainwright. These buildings aren't 8th wonders of the world, I am not suggesting them as such. But they are not dime a dozen anymore, at least not downtown. We do not have as strong a stock of smaller scale buildings from the late-Nineteenth century as we could have. Yeah, we have a few dotting graveyards of parking lots, particularly on Olive or Locust between 10th & Tucker. But the northside of Locust is intact, with a lovely sampling of medium to smaller scale stock, all suited for resuse. So the buildings themselves are important within this context.
The dime a dozen excuse has been used so often that these buildings are no longer dime a dozen!
JMedwick wrote:Yes those lots at 11th and LOcust are great, but one wonders if the change to make something out of them has passed, as some of the smaller strcutures on the site have been rehabed. It was such a cunk of land, it always seemed like a logical spot if downtown added another office tower.
Certainly the time has not passed! We should not blame the two rehabbed buildings nearby for mucking up plans for another tower! I love skylines, adore them... but St. Louis only needs so many gleaming towers. There are other types of appropiate buildings that can be built; there is still plenty of space for back along St. Charles in that block. Incidently, there is much more space for new development in that block than what the two buildings at Locust & 10th would birth upon demolition (I realize that we are talking about different owners, of course... just pointing out.)
JMedwick wrote:All in all, this project is likely years away (5?) and with the rise in intrest rates, I wonder if the condo craze is about to stop. All we can do is wait to see if the first project goes forward sucessfully. HOpfuly it does and downtown can add both a pair of towers to its skyline and a few hundred more residents.
Towers, towers, towers! Towers do not automatically equal success. Again, a skyline is inspiring and I love looking at the downtown of St. Louis! But the towers proposed with Bottleworks and Ballpark Village will provide new beacons... maybe moreso than the city can support, realistically. It does not mean that everything built must be a tower!
Just think about the downtown projects that have been success in the past five-six years. I need extra hands to count the rehab projects that have worked and have contributed so greatly to downtown and the city. There is room for both old and new development, but I think the success of the rehab projects should show us all that conserving the built environment should not be so dismissed.
JMedwick wrote: Why are the a great loss? What is so unique, so special, that they should be preserved from the normal develoment pressures? Its one thing if we are talking about great buildings or unique areas, but those two buildings are neither. You sound like those folks on the preservation agency, making every dime a dozen house in the city sound like the 8th wonder of the world. There is a place for historic preservation. One can agrue that the Century should have been saved, or the Amabasador, or that the barn like building on Locust out near 19th should be saved, or the rare examples of housing from the 1850's that still dot parts of downtown. BUt that argument falls apart with these two buildings, buildings which are truely dime a dozen.
JM, couldn't have said it better myself. I'm all for saving what should be saved, but let's get real. We only have so many silver bullets. Its too easy to say "why not build on a vacant lot" instead, but that's a complicated equation of availability, price, location, and other variables.
- 35
loftlover wrote:JM, couldn't have said it better myself. I'm all for saving what should be saved, but let's get real. We only have so many silver bullets. Its too easy to say "why not build on a vacant lot" instead, but that's a complicated equation of availability, price, location, and other variables.
Obviously the Roberts Bros. can not go build on a vacant lot they don't own at Locust & 11th. Duh. But they can build something on the vacant lot they already own, prove a condo-hotel-whatever tower can work and can be done by their firm successfully... This would apply to any devleper. That's not so complicated.
Dallenjohn wrote: ""The dime a dozen excuse has been used so often that these buildings are no longer dime a dozen!""
Well said.
JMedwick wrote: ""One can agrue that the Century should have been saved, or the Amabasador, or that the barn like building on Locust out near 19th should be saved, or the rare examples of housing from the 1850's that still dot parts of downtown. BUt that argument falls apart with these two buildings, buildings which are truely dime a dozen.""
There were a lot of or, or, or's in that response when talking about buildings now gone, and that is exactly the point. That has always been St. Louis's attitude......."these buildings don't mean anything".....so much so that most of our history is gone downtown. With all of the vacant lots downtown, it is just plain stupid to buy an existing building and tear it down, unless they just want to proclaim how idiotic they really are.
There are a lot of buildings still standing vacant, but the excuse that since they haven't been rehabbed yet they should be torn down is rediculous.
Build a new building on vacant land and fully add to the density of downtown, don't tear down existing structures. Our neighborhoods are fabulous because the dime a dozen homes have mostly been preserved as a neighborhood. By your argument, we could tear all of them down but a few, and then they will become unique and worth saving, while destroying the neighborhood at the same time. A development like this will help to destroy downtown as much as the new building may enhance it.
And by the way, thank god for the preservation agency, otherwise I can only imagine what our city would look like and it probably would not be a place I would want to live.
Well said.
JMedwick wrote: ""One can agrue that the Century should have been saved, or the Amabasador, or that the barn like building on Locust out near 19th should be saved, or the rare examples of housing from the 1850's that still dot parts of downtown. BUt that argument falls apart with these two buildings, buildings which are truely dime a dozen.""
There were a lot of or, or, or's in that response when talking about buildings now gone, and that is exactly the point. That has always been St. Louis's attitude......."these buildings don't mean anything".....so much so that most of our history is gone downtown. With all of the vacant lots downtown, it is just plain stupid to buy an existing building and tear it down, unless they just want to proclaim how idiotic they really are.
There are a lot of buildings still standing vacant, but the excuse that since they haven't been rehabbed yet they should be torn down is rediculous.
Build a new building on vacant land and fully add to the density of downtown, don't tear down existing structures. Our neighborhoods are fabulous because the dime a dozen homes have mostly been preserved as a neighborhood. By your argument, we could tear all of them down but a few, and then they will become unique and worth saving, while destroying the neighborhood at the same time. A development like this will help to destroy downtown as much as the new building may enhance it.
And by the way, thank god for the preservation agency, otherwise I can only imagine what our city would look like and it probably would not be a place I would want to live.
Dallenjohn wrote:loftlover wrote:JM, couldn't have said it better myself. I'm all for saving what should be saved, but let's get real. We only have so many silver bullets. Its too easy to say "why not build on a vacant lot" instead, but that's a complicated equation of availability, price, location, and other variables.
Obviously the Roberts Bros. can not go build on a vacant lot they don't own at Locust & 11th. Duh. But they can build something on the vacant lot they already own, prove a condo-hotel-whatever tower can work and can be done by their firm successfully... This would apply to any devleper. That's not so complicated.
Dued, it's easy to criticize when you're not paying the bills and not taking the risks . . .
- 35
loftlover wrote:Dued, it's easy to criticize when you're not paying the bills and not taking the risks . . .
Um, it's just as easy to embrace a project when you're not paying the bills and not taking the risks, too.
We should never criticize a project because we are not financial backers?
- 687
Dallenjohn wrote:
We should never criticize a project because we are not financial backers?
No, but too many people underestimate how hard it is to "just build on an empty lot" instead and have no idea what it would actually takes to implement many of their suggestions/criticisms.