That building will get snapped up in an instant if it falls through.St.Louis1764 wrote: ↑May 21, 2018What happens if this falls through? As excited i am about this still having a chance of happening I'm content with it not happening & hopefully this little building gets a good rehab
- 64
I heard the Cardinals were interested in this building before the current plan moved forward. If financing does fall through I wouldn't be surprised if it was snatched up by them.St.Louis1764 wrote: ↑May 21, 2018What happens if this falls through? As excited i am about this still having a chance of happening I'm content with it not happening & hopefully this little building gets a good rehab
- 1,864
Why would the Cardinals want this building, other than to control more land directly around the ballpark?
I'm guessing that's the reason. Kind of like the Cubs buying all the buildings/land around Wrigley they can get their hands on. Better (in their minds) they are the ones to build on it and make money off of it than someone else.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑May 22, 2018Why would the Cardinals want this building, other than to control more land directly around the ballpark?
- 3,766
DB, not questioning your sources. Just asking. . .Financing for this project is still not secure..
I would say this is 40% chance of happening now.
Are you implying that financing should already be in place at this stage? Is that the concern... The fact that this deal is not close to or finalized yet? What are the reasons you feel this project now only has a 40% chance of going forward? I'm just curious, again not questioning your opinion. Seems like the City and Coatar really want this to happen. Do you know how solid the developers are for 300 SB? What do you perceive could be this issues with this group getting this project financed?
This is on the Board of Adjustment Agenda for June 20th.
APPEAL #11122 -– Appeal filed by HDA Architects from the determination of the Building Commissioner in the denial of a building permit authorizing the Appellant to construct 32 story apartment building, (zoning only) per plans, zoning only at 300 S. Broadway.
WARD 7 #AB-541865-18 ZONE: “L” – Jefferson Memorial District
- 3,762
^^ are they trying to demo without having financing lined up? i thought the deal was that they had to have financing lined up before a demo permit would be issued.
^^RBB, It has been listed at 32 Floors on the HDA website. I guess it always has been 32 Floors.
As for the Board of Adjustment, I think it is for the rezoning of the Property. Either way, rezoning as residential would allow for the building to become residential regardless if demolition takes place or not. Personally, I think HDA and the developer are further ahead than we think in securing funding for the tower.
As for the Board of Adjustment, I think it is for the rezoning of the Property. Either way, rezoning as residential would allow for the building to become residential regardless if demolition takes place or not. Personally, I think HDA and the developer are further ahead than we think in securing funding for the tower.
- 9,559
MattnSTL wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2018This is on the Board of Adjustment Agenda for June 20th.
APPEAL #11122 -– Appeal filed by HDA Architects from the determination of the Building Commissioner in the denial of a building permit authorizing the Appellant to construct 32 story apartment building, (zoning only) per plans, zoning only at 300 S. Broadway.
WARD 7 #AB-541865-18 ZONE: “L” – Jefferson Memorial District
Chris- this is not a zoning change, thats done at the Planning Commission...This is at the Board of Adjustment so that they can go to lenders and say the building has approval and can be built. They most likely require density variance, area variance and some other relatively standard variances from the current zoning code for this district (which allows residential) maybe even a height variance.
Zoning Only means they can proceed with other steps (financing ect) without the building permit being issued yet but the City has blessed it.
Signed,
member of the Board of Adjustment
Sorry for misunderstanding, now I understand some more.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2018MattnSTL wrote: ↑Jun 06, 2018This is on the Board of Adjustment Agenda for June 20th.
APPEAL #11122 -– Appeal filed by HDA Architects from the determination of the Building Commissioner in the denial of a building permit authorizing the Appellant to construct 32 story apartment building, (zoning only) per plans, zoning only at 300 S. Broadway.
WARD 7 #AB-541865-18 ZONE: “L” – Jefferson Memorial District
Chris- this is not a zoning change, thats done at the Planning Commission...This is at the Board of Adjustment so that they can go to lenders and say the building has approval and can be built. They most likely require density variance, area variance and some other relatively standard variances from the current zoning code for this district (which allows residential) maybe even a height variance.
Zoning Only means they can proceed with other steps (financing ect) without the building permit being issued yet but the City has blessed it.
Signed,
member of the Board of Adjustment
But why was the permit denied in the first place? How does this affect the development?
It was denied because the plans don't comply with the letter of the zoning law in some way. It's not uncommon. The Board of Adjustment exists so that anyone that feels like they have been unnecessarily prevented from doing something by zoning can present their case of why they should be given a variance. The BOA can either uphold the denial, allow the use, or often allow the use with certain conditions. It's a pretty simple process that does strongly consider public testimony both for or against. I usually send in a letter or testify on something several times a year, and I have gotten variances for both work and myself. Variances can be revoked if conditions are violated and a hearing determines that is the correct course of action.
Are they applying to surpass the Memorial District height limit? The Mansion House towers are 29 stories. Granted this is somewhat downhill so maybe they'll fit 32 stories in (the hight limit is a certain elevation above sea level FYI).
From the guy I talked to at 300 South Broadway, he said Mid August is the deadline to get stuff moved out and vacated. Now, I hope that is the case as CA Ventures said that they are chugging along in financing and hope to start by September (but didn't say how far along they really are in financing). Pretty interesting considering the lack of words we have heard on this since March when it was approved. While it is a shame to lose a old building, it is nice to see new constructionDogtownBnR wrote:
I don't think they've got ALL approvals needed. Just a few posts earlier, it was mentioned that they were appealing the denial of some kind of a permit.
If a new tower construction can't financially bear to push one of those garages off the land, even with subsidies, what project ever will? Are we doomed to have these prisons up forever?
Yes, of course, the owner has to be selling it as well. What can the city even do about privately owned garages and lots that could be so clearly utilized?
Yes, of course, the owner has to be selling it as well. What can the city even do about privately owned garages and lots that could be so clearly utilized?
- 196
I was trying to read up on this but I can't tell...is this thing good to go? Approved? Is this going to happen? I'm really hoping so!
Whats wrong with the garages other than their aesthetics? The garages, as is, serve a purpose. Several daytime employees park in both garages.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Jul 17, 2018If a new tower construction can't financially bear to push one of those garages off the land, even with subsidies, what project ever will? Are we doomed to have these prisons up forever?
Yes, of course, the owner has to be selling it as well. What can the city even do about privately owned garages and lots that could be so clearly utilized?
Yet, none of those ideas create demand for square footage which is the biggest driver at the end of the day.BellaVilla wrote: ↑Jul 17, 2018They can tax the heck out of them and harass them.
Send the building code inspectors all the time. send fore code inspectors there all the time. Tell them to niitpick every little thing. Cite them for anything and everything.
You can also hurt their business by performing road, sidewalk and utility work that will deter people from parking in the garages.
Just some ideas
Downtown is struggling with three large empty buildings in ATT One Center, Jeff Arms and Railway Exchange which all would require significant parking options to land major anchor tenants and fill up with residents. So the idea that you would purposely and systematically go after business group in an area that needs as much business & options as possible sounds like you decided that shooting yourself in the foot wasn't good enough so you might as well shoot the other foot while at it.
Because we're tearing down a legitimately historic structure when there are eyesores directly next to it. We're not adding any street wall building density, we're making a lateral move. We're not solving the commute and drive back to the county lifestyle, or even attempting to.stlien wrote: ↑Jul 17, 2018Whats wrong with the garages other than their aesthetics? The garages, as is, serve a purpose. Several daytime employees park in both garages.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Jul 17, 2018If a new tower construction can't financially bear to push one of those garages off the land, even with subsidies, what project ever will? Are we doomed to have these prisons up forever?
Yes, of course, the owner has to be selling it as well. What can the city even do about privately owned garages and lots that could be so clearly utilized?
I'm all for this tower, it's just frustrating to continue to look at the way our prime real estate is being utilized though. Sure, no way around it, but my main concern is for the future, and wonder if we are going to be damned with garages and surface parking, indefinitely, if somehow there weren't strings to be pulled or people to be pushed on by the city to make this tower work on any of the other numerous sites in the immediate area.
Idealist? Probably. Am I being unrealistic? Likely. Just expressing my frustration. I know real estate Downtown isn't where it needs to be. I'm not advocating for predatory regulation over parking structures as mentioned above either. Downtown needs a master plan, though, if there isn't one. And because of the nature of the current real estate climate Downtown, leadership is willing to rob peter to pay paul for a new shiny building. Allowing demolition, throwing in more subsidies. I know they feel like they have no other choice, but do we think this will be a turning point for Downtown as a whole? Maybe I'm just being cynical.
Also, when you say "several daytime employees" are you being serious with that estimation? Or are they actually typically filled?
- 3,762
there clearly is demand as DT is having no problem filling residential units as they come online. any efforts to make DT less of a concrete wasteland and add more residential can only enhance that demand. if there's not much demand for commercial yet it's because the population isn't there yet, again, due in large part to an abundance of concrete and a lack of units.
pretending that every "business option" is equivalently beneficial/non-detrimental to DT's health is nonsense. zoning exists for precisely this reason: to prevent poor/inappropriate land uses from eroding the city around them.dredger wrote: ↑Jul 17, 2018
So the idea that you would purposely and systematically go after business group in an area that needs as much business & options as possible sounds like you decided that shooting yourself in the foot wasn't good enough so you might as well shoot the other foot while at it.
I believe Spire employees park at the west garage and the east garage is utilized by nearby firms such as Polsinelli. Could be hundreds of employees, I'm really not sure. Also, I'm not sure of the capacity of each garage.
- 6,120
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. The price per square foot for those housing units was, as I recall from my house hunt a few years back, startlingly comparable to houses on much of the south side and I believe at or below the regional median. (Clearly quite a lot lower than the trendier neighborhoods to the west and south.) A lot of those housing units benefited from substantial historic tax credits not available to a new-build project even then. Which is to say that the "market rate" rent isn't necessarily a sustainable market rate for new high density housing. I really really want to see new build replace our surface parking. I really really want to see more demand around downtown. But I absolutely cannot knock a company that wants to build market rate new construction for dealing with the financial hand dealt to them. Sure, we need to tax lot size and land value a lot higher than developed square footage.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jul 17, 2018there clearly is demand as DT is having no problem filling residential units as they come online. any efforts to make DT less of a concrete wasteland and add more residential can only enhance that demand. if there's not much demand for commercial yet it's because the population isn't there yet, again, due in large part to an abundance of concrete and a lack of units.
But this does add density. Be quite sure of it. Just because it's taking out an existing building doesn't mean there is no gain. It's replacing it with a much larger building that will generate a lot more rent; that will have more people in it and potentially around it every day. (Albeit at different hours than the current nine to five of the offices.) It's not as large a gain in density as it would be were the previous density zero rather than a positive number. But it's still a real gain. That will make a real difference. And add real taxes into real city coffers. Linear feet of street wall is not the only or best measure of density.
Though I surely do wish there were a way to do it without burning the irreplaceable fossil fuel that is historic buildings. And if property taxes weren't so screwed up it there might be a way to do it. I do feel your pain. Don't get me wrong. I just think it might be worth biting the bullet on this one.