urbanSTL

goat314 wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

My thoughts on what could happen with this.

1) They come back with a new design that preserves the facade, but ask for millions more in tax incentives.
2) The proposal falls through and new BPV phase 3 renderings come out looking very similar to Power and Light District residential.
3) The proposal falls through and the Nashville developer comes in with an even larger residential tower on the parking lot immediately south.
4) Everything falls through and we just get BPV2 tower.

5) Nashville group sells lot at price less than saving the façade but enough for a tidy little profit on their purchase/flip. Problem solved as building kept intact, HDA/developer builds tower next door and who knows, maybe Nashville developer intended to flip the lot all along

One thing that seems subjective or maybe someone can enlighten me. How much of the façade has to be saved? Does the first two stories cover it, or is this subjective to design as per Goat314 1)

None of it really matters. Demolition is included in the redevelopment bill that is getting its first hearing tomorrow with LCRA and will eventually be an ordinance. Preservation Board tonight was nothing more than a formality and not even necessary. Once the ordinance passes they will be able to bypass preservation review. CRO knows it. I talked with the staff about it tonight. Coatar will take care of them. That's why the Preservation Board voted for the motion that was beyond their power. They knew it can come down without their approval, so several members wanted to make a statement of what they would like to see. Whether you agree or disagree, our preservation review ordinances are written so that a redevelopment agreement takes precedence. That's the different between just preservation review and a local historic district with design standards.

Came here to say what Matt said, this vote is irrelevant to the project.

Besides this building is not on the national registered of historic landmarks preservation. If it were then yes i would think the vote would matter.

goat314 wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

....why are places like Nashville and Indianapolis having better downtowns than us?

They don't have a Clayton 8 miles from their Downtown.

Yeah, it's a lovely building. Incredible details, and it'll be a bummer to see it go. I feel like I'm just lucky to have lived in an era of St. Louis where I didn't see buildings coming down every year and preservation has seemed to turn a corner. A vast majority of the city is still filled with century's old housing stock, we have huge commercial/entertainment districts with beautiful historic buildings. I don't know, I think I'm OK with letting go on this one if it means we add some serious density to this area south of Market, and at not too much of a cost to constituents.

For what it's worth, the Nashville group that owned 500 S Broadway already flipped it to a parking REIT... So you can scratch that pipe dream from the list of possible options.

joelo wrote: ↑

Dec 08, 2017

gopherlou wrote: ↑

Dec 08, 2017

St. Louis Community College officials said earlier this year that proceeds from the sale would be used to help fund future development. The downtown building, according to city records, has an appraised value of $26.9 million.

I mean it's obvious they would go with a surface lot that had good views as this to the stadium but clearly they are paying a premium for this building

Business Journal article recap on the meetings last night quoted a sale price of $5.8million for the SLCC building.

link
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... toric.html

kinger wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

For what it's worth, the Nashville group that owned 500 S Broadway already flipped it to a parking REIT... So you can scratch that pipe dream from the list of possible options.

We have got to do something to make surface parking an unattractive investment in this city.

kinger wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

For what it's worth, the Nashville group that owned 500 S Broadway already flipped it to a parking REIT... So you can scratch that pipe dream from the list of possible options.

Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty sure this was a major developer that had purchased the parcel.

Current owner info:

Owner Name: MVP ST LOUIS CARDINAL LOT
Owner Name (Secondary): SIGNATORY TRS LLC
Owner Address: 8880 W SUNSET RD STE #240
LAS VEGAS, NV 89174

Daily date of 06-01-2017, which means the sale was recorded that day.

MattnSTL wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

Current owner info:

Owner Name: MVP ST LOUIS CARDINAL LOT
Owner Name (Secondary): SIGNATORY TRS LLC
Owner Address: 8880 W SUNSET RD STE #240
LAS VEGAS, NV 89174

Daily date of 06-01-2017, which means the sale was recorded that day.

blegh. What does a city issuing an RFP entail?

newstl2020 wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

kinger wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

For what it's worth, the Nashville group that owned 500 S Broadway already flipped it to a parking REIT... So you can scratch that pipe dream from the list of possible options.

We have got to do something to make surface parking an unattractive investment in this city.

Hmmmm... Yeah, not seeing how this gets done anytime soon.

MattnSTL wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

Current owner info:

Owner Name: MVP ST LOUIS CARDINAL LOT
Owner Name (Secondary): SIGNATORY TRS LLC
Owner Address: 8880 W SUNSET RD STE #240
LAS VEGAS, NV 89174

Daily date of 06-01-2017, which means the sale was recorded that day.

I'm sorry, I just can't believe that the lot was sold for more than 6 million and that SIGNATORY or whoever the hell they are wouldn't sell for 6 million. I mean demo is gonna cost about a mil right?

Anyone concerned about a Roberts Tower 2.0 scenario? I hope the good times last forever, but man, the pragmatic side of me is totally braced for a recession any day now. ...Not trying to be a Debbie Downer, just looking at the situation realistically, and would hate to see another historic structure needlessly lost.

^They were built as condos and converted to apartments after marketing failure. Nobody could afford buying luxury units in 2008-2009. The rental market is a little more flexible than condo market.

I think it's silly to sit still in fear of an economic spiral. Build off the momentum. Be confident. There is a lot of demand to live downtown. Need to stop looking at St. Louis as if it were a balloon ready to pop.

Cardinals should reclad Busch III's right (Arch) side along 40 and Broadway in a modern glass facade and keep the retro look on the other (BPV I, Cupples) side. The two faces of St. Louis. Its about 1/2 way through a typical 30 year lifespan anyway. It needs a refresh.

ImprovSTL wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

MattnSTL wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

Current owner info:

Owner Name: MVP ST LOUIS CARDINAL LOT
Owner Name (Secondary): SIGNATORY TRS LLC
Owner Address: 8880 W SUNSET RD STE #240
LAS VEGAS, NV 89174

Daily date of 06-01-2017, which means the sale was recorded that day.

I'm sorry, I just can't believe that the lot was sold for more than 6 million and that SIGNATORY or whoever the hell they are wouldn't sell for 6 million. I mean demo is gonna cost about a mil right?

It sold for approximately DOUBLE $6 million.

KerrytheKonstructor wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2017

Cardinals should reclad Busch III's right Arch) side along 40 and Broadway in a modern glass facade and keep the retro look on the other (BPV I, Cupples) side. The two faces of St. Louis. Its about 1/2 way through a typical 30 year lifespan anyway. It needs a refresh.

You cannot be serious.

It just reinforces the shortsightedness of tearing down Busch II, which was a truly unique design, aesthetically beautiful, by an internationally famous architect, and which reflected multiple eras of STL history.

Philistines!

Curious on who owns the lot where the old cupples warehouse was located at the corner of 11th st and spruce?