urbanSTL

I think any two-part development that comes to the city for incentives should have them entirely revoked if part two does not come to fruition. 

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Feb 02, 2021

I think any two-part development that comes to the city for incentives should have them entirely revoked if part two does not come to fruition. 

Agreed. And I am extremely dubious about all these calls that "the garage should be able to accommodate future construction on top of it." If we're left with some crappy soulless garage (surrounded by other garages) that further detracts from one of the City's most intact urban stretches, there's not going to be a whole lot of comfort in "but someone could technically build on top of it some day!" 

Is there any evidence of Midtown being able to support new construction pricing, outside of SLU's own dorms and the Pulitzer passion project? I suppose The Verve along Lindell will be the first to test that market. 

wabash wrote: ↑

Feb 02, 2021

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Feb 02, 2021

I think any two-part development that comes to the city for incentives should have them entirely revoked if part two does not come to fruition. 

Agreed. And I am extremely dubious about all these calls that "the garage should be able to accommodate future construction on top of it." If we're left with some crappy soulless garage (surrounded by other garages) that further detracts from one of the City's most intact urban stretches, there's not going to be a whole lot of comfort in "but someone could technically build on top of it some day!" 

Is there any evidence of Midtown being able to support new construction pricing, outside of SLU's own dorms and the Pulitzer passion project? I suppose The Verve along Lindell will be the first to test that market. 

I foresee Midtown being a hot residential destination.  If there's one 'hood that can become 24/7/365 active, it's Midtown.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Feb 02, 2021

I do wonder if they have engaged the existing garage owner in leasing a chunk of the spots.  Seems like a blunder to just build another garage here that condemns that parcel for another 30 years.

That parking garage, which takes up half the block along Olive, is owned by the Scottish Rite lodge. It's for sale, along with the "Cathedral" building itself. 

So, as hard as it is to imagine in this city, the new owners could conceivably find a better use for that parcel than a single-use parking garage, someday, maybe...

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Feb 03, 2021

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Feb 02, 2021

I do wonder if they have engaged the existing garage owner in leasing a chunk of the spots.  Seems like a blunder to just build another garage here that condemns that parcel for another 30 years.

That parking garage, which takes up half the block along Olive, is owned by the Scottish Rite lodge. It's for sale, along with the "Cathedral" building itself. 

So, as hard as it is to imagine in this city, the new owners could conceivably find a better use for that parcel than a single-use parking garage, someday, maybe...

Interesting.  Thanks.  Do you have a link to any relevant sales materials? I'd love to pass along to my alder, for them to take a month to respond to it.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Feb 03, 2021

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Feb 03, 2021

That parking garage, which takes up half the block along Olive, is owned by the Scottish Rite lodge. It's for sale, along with the "Cathedral" building itself. 

So, as hard as it is to imagine in this city, the new owners could conceivably find a better use for that parcel than a single-use parking garage, someday, maybe...

Interesting.  Thanks.  Do you have a link to any relevant sales materials? I'd love to pass along to my alder, for them to take a month to respond to it.

There's a brochure here:
Scottish Rite Cathedral & Parking Garage (pdf)

There's also the Scottish Rite thread here.

^T'would be nice. I'm still skeptical about this one, though. 

Where's the garage at?

Within the building, I'd wager.

Just asking because I thought the garage was set to have a chunk fronting Lindell, then spidering its way to the Olive frontage.

I mean, if we get no garage that's definitely a win.  None of that render looks like a garage.  Maybe they somehow bought that Scottish Rite garage.

Reached out to the developer here for my own story and got some updated information about this project as well as a clearer rendering and elevations.

1. Apartment count is tentatively set at 364 units (169 in the Jesuit Hall and 195 in the new building).
2. A total 20,000SF of first floor retail space between both buildings.
3. As we've been told before, $80 Million for the project (or close to $220,000 per unit, which seems reasonable according to two developer friends of mine).
4. Parking, which is perhaps the most debated thing on here, is not included in the renderings or elevations, mostly because the parking situation is still being looked at. Fernando Cepeda did not confirm or deny that they're looking at the Scottish Rite garage for parking but he also didn't explicitly say they were going to build some here. It's still up for consideration and a parking plan should be finalized prior to the start of construction on Phase 1.

The design of the new building reminds me a bit of the Element Hotel and original plans for "The McKenzie" at Delmar and 170, which makes sense since it's the same architect. Part of me feels like the new building we see here is simple like this because a firm plan hasn't been established yet. More or less, I view it as more of a massing with the idea to change prior to construction. If it is the design they're going with, I'll take it. It's a simple design that gets the job done. I could see some accent lighting being included here (along the rooflines of both the old building and the new one).

Finally, I like the fact that the name of the development is "The Melbourne". Great to see the original name of the building come back for something new.

Here are the elevations and rendering...

Uninspired floor plans; numerous plans have the entry to the units directly  into the kitchen

chris fuller wrote:Uninspired floor plans; numerous plans have the entry to the units directly  into the kitchen

That’s pretty standard in the buildings I’ve toured. If it works, don’t fix it

chriss752 wrote:Tishaura vetoed the tax abatement request. There should've been an exception made here since the developer is still small and the neighborhood is still changing.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... a5aa2.html

Can the veto be overridden by 2/3 majority or no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

95% abatement for 10 years for apartments across the street from a major university is a lot to ask

I'm not too concerned with the veto on this project (they already don't pay taxes, right?), but I hope it's not a sign of things to come. This could kill all of our momentum.  

Edit - Oh, wait, I was thinking this was the new Jesuit apartments on West Pine. My mistake. Now yes, I am concerned that she's gonna just veto every abatement bill.  

I don't get the veto other than it's politics over common sense. With the city getting such a large portion of its budget from earnings tax, having more earnings tax paying residents/ employees should be the focus. Especially on a building like this that has essentially been none revenue producing for years.

I think this is Mayor Jones setting her standards. All developers will take note and come back with better projects. She maintained a pro-business and pro-school messaging.

95% for 10 years is way too much in central corridor. Especially when a massive amount of the project budget is to build parking garages that back into existing parking garages.

We new she was going to something like this soon to show that she’s following through on campaign promises. This seems like a good one to use to set a message. The developers are inexperienced so there was already a good chance this one wouldn’t work out anyway.