urbanSTL

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Feb 27, 2018

From Richard Callow’s Twitter. I wonder how we can get a clearer image of the rendering with the existing structure?

That was a proposal from the developer to try to make it look like the current building, it would have been a brand new base to make it appear as much as possible as the existing structure. Nobody really wanted the faux facade, so the original was approved

I am a little newer to this message board and development news in general but this seems to be moving really fast, especially for a development of this type in STL. It just seems crazy that this could be to the point of starting to build at some point this year. It is hard for me to comprehend 2 towers going up next to each other downtown (when only 1 has in the last 10-15? years). I really though this would hit some speed bumps and fall apart by now. I hope it all works out and I am excited at the prospect of it. It would be really cool to see on tv during Cardinals games and coming over the bridge from IL.

^ Oh. It looks cool though. I see what they did there. They must’ve did this design to cut back on cost but also to Force the cheaper alternative (first design). At least we still get a new tower!

The developers hope to have their financing in place and building permits applied for by September:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 82cf9.html

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Feb 27, 2018

From Richard Callow’s Twitter. I wonder how we can get a clearer image of the rendering with the existing structure?

I'm confused -- so they're saving the facade or creating a new version that looks like the old one? Or none of the above?

^ None of the above. The original tower design was approved.

Basically, the developer explained how saving the north and west facade would be too costly and a non-starter for the project. To show good faith, they redesigned the base to mimic a more historic facade. It would be more expensive, although it wasn't known yesterday exactly how much more.

The general census of the room was that the original modern design was better.

I'm still split on this, however I will say the testimony from the developers and others who spoke in favor of the project pretty much swayed me. The current building was significantly changed in the mid 80's and actually had a major addition that matched the historic building almost perfectly. Even though done well, it seems this building wouldn't get historic status and would be ineligible for those tax credits for any office/loft redevelopment. STLCC is selling no matter what, and the worry is that if this project doesn't move forward it would sit vacant for quite some time because of the lack of historic credits and the fact that no matter what it would be class b office space in an overabundant office market.

Here's the best I could do on the "compromise" design that will mercifully not proceed. Hard to take a picture from a distance of a picture being projected on a screen.







And Just for fun, we have forum members DB testifying in support on behalf of the DNA Board, Imran testifying in opposition to demolition, and Randy Vines deliberating on the Pres Board.

*i was there to behalf of DNA to present the same letter that the DNABoard send in December when this project first appeared in front of Pres Board

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Feb 27, 2018

*i was there to behalf of DNA to present the same letter that the DNABoard send in December when this project first appeared in front of Pres Board

Edited to make that clear in case anyone is just skimming.

How long will it be before we can get a rendering of what this project is going to look like from inside Busch Stadium?

To answer my own question, I'm expecting that it will be a while.

Here's a mock-up from page 5 of this thread (sorry, not sure who created this image). I think it'll actually look much taller and slimmer, but you get the idea:

MattnSTL wrote:Here's the best I could do on the "compromise" design that will mercifully not proceed. Hard to take a picture from a distance of a picture being projected on a screen.

Is it me, or does the thrown out design have more glass on the North side of it?

framer wrote: ↑

Feb 27, 2018

[There's] a mock-up from page 5 of this thread (sorry, not sure who created this image). I think it'll actually look much taller and slimmer, but you get the idea:

I'd quite forgotten that it was going to obscure part of the south leg arch from behind home plate, but looking at things a little it looks like the Shortstop will be the first person to get a complete view of the arch . . . at least as he's watching fly balls soar past him. So hopefully the opposing shortstop. I don't see it looking much taller than BPV, as it's a similar height at a similar distance and a similar elevation. You could do the math to figure it out. I might be misrecalling on that. But it's been a long day so I'll leave that up to someone else this time. Still, surprising stuff. Should make for an impressive bit of activity as it's going up, anyway. As others have observed.

Glad to see this is going forward. I would say that it would be a safe assessment to say that STL is seeing a boom in high rises at the moment. Centene, The Shaw Park Tower, 300 S Broadway, 100, BPV, and more likely on the way. More towers are going up in STL right now than in many of our neighboring cities (barring Nashville/Chicago). Also, pretty sure these towers are all a bit taller than anything that has gone up in KC recently. Good for us. As stated by many others, these towers will change perception. These will be skyline shifting (not altering). If anyone has any render skills to give us a glimpse of S. Broadway in 3 years, that'd be awesome. I think the biggest skyline change will be the view from the PSB.

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Feb 28, 2018

Glad to see this is going forward. I would say that it would be a safe assessment to say that STL is seeing a boom in high rises at the moment. Centene, The Shaw Park Tower, 300 S Broadway, 100, BPV, and more likely on the way. More towers are going up in STL right now than in many of our neighboring cities (barring Nashville/Chicago). Also, pretty sure these towers are all a bit taller than anything that has gone up in KC recently. Good for us. As stated by many others, these towers will change perception. These will be skyline shifting (not altering). If anyone has any render skills to give us a glimpse of S. Broadway in 3 years, that'd be awesome. I think the biggest skyline change will be the view from the PSB.

Yea it'll definitely be a huge perception change coming down I-64 having these substantially taller buildings on the southern portion of downtown. In other news my dad is convinced the city is still dying because we don't have a football team

I'm not trying to be a debbie downer here, but are other competing cities throwing down millions in subsidies for privately owned residential towers? I honestly don't know, and that's what I am asking. Because if they're not, it just feels like the slippery slope is remaining -- what stops developers from avoiding investing in Downtown when (well, if) we ever stop the tax breaks and TIF?

Again, not trying to be a downer here. I'm excited for these projects too, but should they even be built if the developers aren't able, or willing, to take their own financial risk? Even on this one, where it is just property tax abatement. And how does our level of subsidizing these developments compare to other neighboring cities? It just feels like an illusion of prosperity.

bwcrow1s wrote:I'm not trying to be a debbie downer here, but are other competing cities throwing down millions in subsidies for privately owned residential towers? I honestly don't know, and that's what I am asking.

Kansas City has an agreement with Cordish for their Parking Garages and infrastructure for the Light Towers. But I am not sure if that answers your question

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Feb 28, 2018

I'm not trying to be a debbie downer here, but are other competing cities throwing down millions in subsidies for privately owned residential towers? I honestly don't know, and that's what I am asking. Because if they're not, it just feels like the slippery slope is remaining -- what stops developers from avoiding investing in Downtown when (well, if) we ever stop the tax breaks and TIF?

Again, not trying to be a downer here. I'm excited for these projects too, but should they even be built if the developers aren't able, or willing, to take their own financial risk? Even on this one, where it is just property tax abatement. And how does our level of subsidizing these developments compare to other neighboring cities? It just feels like an illusion of prosperity.

2 things to always remember in these discussions:

All cities give subsidies (even ones that are booming)

Most major cities have an earnings tax:

https://taxfoundation.org/local-income- ... inue-wane/

Lets compare Chicago to St.Louis if you're an investor

Labor costs are the same (both have strong construction trades unions)
material prices are the same

a $100M building in St.Louis costs $100M in Chicago, maybe a slight difference but not a lot

lets say the building has 250 units at 1000 sq for math purposes

in St.Louis you can change about 1.25-1.75 sq foot downtown
in Chicago its 2.50

250 x 1250 = $312,500 a month
vs
250 x 2500 = $625,500 a month

This building has a return rate of 7.4% w/o incentives and you may say isn't that enough, yeah im sure it is but why invest here when you can get 10%+ else where. While its nice that we have a low cost of living it absolutely kills us when it comes to getting investment in housing. You can call investors greedy but their job is to make money.

^I know what you are trying to say and your point regarding rental rates is definitely accurate, but that leaves out land acquisition costs in prime locations, which I am positive are multiples higher in Chicago vs. here. I don't have any concrete numbers, so we may be just comparing our own opinions, but I have an extremely hard time believing a 100mil construction budget in Chicago buys you the same end product in Chicago vs. StL.

But yes, your main point is accurate in this context/discussion, money is going to flow to where the best rates of return are.

There are other contributing factors, however, such as market diversification, regional diversification, risk profile, etc. While rental rates may not have the upside elasticity in the StL market, they also may have less downside risk in this market which provides a portfolio buffer that many investors seek out as well.

Downtown is also in a bit of a rut when it comes to rent prices. All it takes is for downtown to get hot and these rents will skyrocket. These towers alone may do enough by themselves about downtown perception to heat up the market.

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Feb 28, 2018

Downtown is also in a bit of a rut when it comes to rent prices. All it takes is for downtown to get hot and these rents will skyrocket. These towers alone may do enough by themselves about downtown perception to heat up the market.

I'm hoping I'm just out of range when Downtown rent prices start going up (Currently live at 15th and Washington).

^^Hopefully the market Downtown takes off, but I hope it focuses on Broadway and 4th Street. Some infill needs to be done there to truly have a great bridge between Downtown and Chouteau and other places.

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Feb 28, 2018

Downtown is also in a bit of a rut when it comes to rent prices. All it takes is for downtown to get hot and these rents will skyrocket. These towers alone may do enough by themselves about downtown perception to heat up the market.

Downtown rents won't skyrocket until jobs also start coming back like the housing is IMO.

BellaVilla wrote: ↑

Mar 01, 2018

Safe to say we won't get any more then 3 stories on the NE corner of the BPV? I think they want to maintain views of the courthouse.

I have a feeling they will do what makes them the most money. In some of their older documents they had another tower there.