^ I had a similar thought. I don't have any familiarity with the inside of the building (outside of the old jewelry shop that used to be in the lobby) so I don't know how feasible something like this would be. Could those "transfer floors" just become sky lobbies? The upper most "sky lobby" could be for residential with all floors above that apartments...commercial space below that with its own lobby, etc. or some combination. Could be a way to partition the building into different uses...
I could also be missing something though.
Sky lobbies are a great solution and can be a great feature for a tall building. I spent time working in a tower with multiple sky lobbies, and I enjoyed it.
Now, I don't know the building, but for the sake of discussion, let's say there are opportunities for two sky lobbies. While the tower is designed for one large tenant across the entire building, perhaps it could be retrofitted to house 3 large tenants, or a combination of a large tenant or two plus smaller tenant offices in the lower third of the building. Hell, get a large data farm to set up shop in the lower floors and fill the top with people.
There is a solution that works to get new tenants into the tower. The problem is finding a solution that the bondholders would accept (and unless a fairy godmother comes down with a magic new mortgage, they're going to be recognizing a major loss here no matter what).
Side note: I'm not a fan of residential here. Downtown needs professional workers in this tower more than it needs another residential conversion. It is very important for the Central Business District to remain focused upon employment than it is residential, plus the City needs the additional tax revenues that come from downtown offices.
^ GC hits on a great point. Downtown St. Louis could use some good employment news if a couple decent tenants can bring some added employee counts downtown. 909 Chestnut with its floor prints/elevator banks and as discussed aboe still offers a way to make it a multi tenant project. Maybe not as neat as Met office building but getting 2-3 tenants would be huge
You still have plenty of residential development opportunities and people to fill future 2CW or the proposed Opus/Cupples mixed use on Spruce, throw in developers who are trying to make a go of it for Laclede Landing and Downtown West. In addition, would love to see some major mid rise/mix use residential to be proposed between Union Station & the new MLS practice field to fill in the whole Clark Ave corridor
I keep hearing you can’t break this building up for multiple tennets. Every time is see a floor plan I can’t figure out why that is.
Build a hallway around the bathrooms/elevators and then have entrances to offices off of that.
Or if business wants any entire floor/floors then even better.
I must be missing something but I haven’t figured it out yet.
I believe elevators. There are transfer floors (so to get to floor 19 you have to transfer to a different set of elevators) which means that either the entire elevator system would need to be re-engineered or there would need to be a perfect plan in place to break out different tenants across multiple floors.
I outlined the reasons it absolutely can be multi-tenant here: viewtopic.php?p=307655#p307655 and viewtopic.php?p=307643#p307643
It's a ridiculous non argument that won't die. The building is no different from Met Square. If it wasn't for the bumpy windows, you could barely tell a Met Square floor plan (attached) wasn't AT&T Center.
^I don't see anyone promoting some architectural limitation argument, only people questioning why there would be one or what the argument is...
The only reason that a single-use, multiple office tenant solution is a non-starter is because the owner would have to fill a majority of 1.4 million sf to justify a renovation, i.e. letters of intent in hand before they can proceed. It's hard enough to find one tenant to fill that much office space anywhere in the region, let alone two or three in a downtown market with a high (and likely growing) vacancy rate.
Side note: I'm not a fan of residential here. Downtown needs professional workers in this tower more than it needs another residential conversion. It is very important for the Central Business District to remain focused upon employment than it is residential, plus the City needs the additional tax revenues that come from downtown offices.
Well...couldn't disagree more. The centralized, single-use plan is outdated. I've been saying since before the loft boom that the future of downtown is residential and entertainment, and for whatever it's worth, I know more than a few urban planners, economists, and developers who believe the same.
The city needs office workers, sure, but why does downtown, really? Does it make any difference to the city if those workers are downtown, or elsewhere in the central corridor?
I think the city has a hard enough time competing with Clayton and west county that providing incentives, steering, and promoting downtown as the district for established companies, is really shooting ourselves in the foot. We'd be so much more competitive if we considered the entire central corridor "downtown", especially considering the increasing density of the CWE/Cortex/Midtown area.
Convert all the vacant office space and empty lots, narrow the streets, demolish garages, clean up the streetscape, and fill downtown with as many residents as possible. Do that and the retail space will fill up as well. Then the area currently known as downtown might be attractive and competitive again for whatever trendy office space concept developers will be building then...
Side note: I'm not a fan of residential here. Downtown needs professional workers in this tower more than it needs another residential conversion. It is very important for the Central Business District to remain focused upon employment than it is residential, plus the City needs the additional tax revenues that come from downtown offices.
Well...couldn't disagree more. The centralized, single-use plan is outdated. I've been saying since before the loft boom that the future of downtown is residential and entertainment, and for whatever it's worth, I know more than a few urban planners, economists, and developers who believe the same.
The city needs office workers, sure, but why does downtown? Does it make any difference to the city if those workers are downtown or elsewhere in the central corridor?
I'd say the city has a hard enough time competing with Clayton and west county that steering companies just to "downtown" would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Much better that we consider the entire central corridor "downtown".
Convert all the vacant office space and empty lots, narrow the streets, demolish garages, clean up the streetscape, and fill downtown with as many residents as possible. Do that and the retail space will fill up as well. Then the area currently known as downtown might be attractive and competitive again for whatever trendy office space concept developers will be building then...
Exactly this. Downtown areas should and can be more more just office. Office is about the dullest use.
I lived in Downtown Clayton for a little over a year just before the pandemic, and truthfully it was a bit of a ghost town after 5. That's something that a real.downtown should avoid.
When I proposed Hancock as a model I was suggesting a multi use solution. I don't know the proportions, but Hancock has a fair mix of residential, office (including Hancock Insurance, who officially took their name off the building, apparently), and retail/commercial. There doesn't look to be a huge amount of retail, but there is some. (Supposedly there is or was even a grocery store about forty floors up.) A use like that, where you have sky lobbies maybe including some commercial aimed at tennants, maybe about a third residential, and a third office could be ideal. It's easy to forget that this is the single largest office building in the state. By quite a bit.
And yes, there are some fairly significant differences between 909 Chestnut and Met Square. When I was going over the floorplan it blew my mind just how many elevators zip past. Only about a third stop on that floor. And that's probably typical. And their sheer number is stunning. Met Square has a about two thirds the elevators of Bell 1. (Looks like 14 shafts compared to 20. Hard to know if they all go the full distance, but they both look to be fairly typical middling floors.) But guess what? That typical middling Met Square floor actually has exactly the same number of elevators stopping there. (6 passenger plus two freight, by all appearances.) Met Square weighs in at a tad under 90K sqft to B1C's 150K. They're probably bigger cars, so they can probably carry more people. But you basically get the same number of trips. It's a transit bus service where Met Square has an airport shuttle. And that is a real issue that might need to be addressed. I'm sure it's not a deal breaker, but it's not fake. Nobody is making it up. And the stacked cabs explain it. Fixing it would probably require moving major elements around, like utilities and bathrooms. (I expect the next floor up essentially mirrors the one beneath it, putting the elevator lobby on the right and the second bank of toilets on the left. Which is pretty ingenious, if you think about it. As long as EVERYONE is coming and going together so your commuter elevator system works efficiently.)
Now if you make it some part of the building residential . . . you don't need so many trips. Fewer people. Fewer trips. Which are more spread out anyway. The short version is I'd love to see anything in here at all. If it's people, then great. If they're there during daylight hours, that's fine. If they're there at night that's fine too. Better yet, mix it up. Just get people in there paying rent somehow. And taxes. Definitely taxes.
^I don't see anyone promoting some architectural limitation argument, only people questioning why there would be one or what the argument is...
The only reason that a single-use, multiple office tenant solution is a non-starter is because the owner would have to fill a majority of 1.4 million sf to justify a renovation, i.e. letters of intent in hand before they can proceed. It's hard enough to find one tenant to fill that much office space anywhere in the region, let alone two or three in a downtown market with a high (and likely growing) vacancy rate.
The whole genesis of the original argument, beginning years ago, was that the layout of the building doesn't support multi-tenants somehow.
Above, it was about elevators ("I believe elevators. There are transfer floors which means that either the entire elevator system would need to be re-engineered").
Given that the elevator systems in AT&T Center need to be 100% replaced for any tenant of this building (per the former building manager), whether single- or multi-tenant, there's no limitation as to what technology could be used to limit access to certain floors if needed. But the configuration is the same as e.g. Met Square.
I don't think the discussion on this thread is why 909 has to be limited to one tenant. I think everyone agrees the ability for mulit tenant, multi use is not an issue.
I think the discussion is what would be the idea use for this space not from the building's perspective but for downtown as a whole.. I still think in my two cent arm chair opinion that being able to fill up 909 chestnut with employees again would give a much needed boost to downtown & the city plus another ready supply of people who might very well look downtown and or near downtown for their housing needs. Of course, I'm biased and made a few trips up and down those elevators when meeting my wife at her cubicle. Maybe a little envious, her office view was far better then my current. Of course, life changes, we moved and she is happily part of AT&T's WFH crowd.
All my thoughts herein are centered on viable, workable solutions.
The first step to getting 909 Chestnut redeveloped is satisfying the buildings' bondholders, who have lost their asses on this deal and have been holding out for something that hasn't yet arrived. They seem content enough to sit back on their tails until something comes along on which they would vote approval. The prospective new buyers for the building, such as the CRG-affiliated group from 2019, have not been able to get the bondholders to sell to them yet. They're likely wanting more money and unfortunately will hold out for an indefinite time line until they get what they consider to be a satisfactory offer.
The second, and far less relevant, consideration is the City's interests in recognizing increased taxable revenues from whatever goes in here. We all can recognize that the City needs increased taxable revenues to fill its coffers and pay for police, schools, resident services, etc. I've found that businesses generate more revenues than individuals.
(rant) Let's face reality here: None of us are going to get this building bought or sold based upon what we ideally want. It doesn't matter what I want personally here, it matters what offer the bondholders are willing to accept. Say some redeveloper steps up and offers to build Residential: if the money's right, they'll take it. New buyer who wants to keep it Office: if the money's right, they'll take it. Making the building a giant Carvana SUV dispenser: if the money's right, they'll take it. Very much, the Central Business District can take in residential. I used to live Downtown in a residential loft. BPV2/OCW demonstrates the viability of new residential construction in the CBD. Personally, I'd like to see the largest office building in the State of MO, sitting vacant in Downtown right now, filling with new office tenants, as I think it would maximize taxable revenue opportunities for the City and increase daily foot traffic in the CBD in the quickest time period, i.e. not having to redevelop the whole thing. It doesn't matter what I want, though, as I'm not a bondholder for 909 Chestnut.
Same thing goes for the Railway Exchange: I want it redeveloped. I'd like it to be office tenants. I wouldn't mind at all if it was residential. What I want as a personal preference remains inconsequential to what happens, though, unless and until I decide to actively participate in the building's redevelopment. And, as I don't have the cash and/or desire to professionally redevelop the thing myself, my personal preference remains just that: my own thoughts and preferences.
Of course I agree that it would be great to fill up the entire Central Corridor with professional businesses, from Memorial west to Kingshighway. That was very much part of my reasons to buy a condo and move to near Cortex five years ago: asset appreciation from proximity to a new, dense professional services business cluster. I agree that we can have Downtown being a place for more than just a place for businesses to operate. I think we all agree to this. That's been happening for decades. Same time, I really want the CBD to have new business tenants. Rather than throwing in the towel and wanting to turn all current vacant office space into converted residential, I'd like to see the City better recruit office tenants. And quite honestly, we still have a bereft of locations in Downtown that can convert to residential in much quicker order, and far less costs, than 909 Chestnut, from Jefferson Arms to Butler Brothers to the damn Millennium Hotel. All are more viable near-term residential conversions than 909 Chestnut is. If none of these are yet off the ground, then I'm not ready to give up on the CBD remaining a CBD.
I just want some progress on this damn building, and it really, really pisses me off that there's none! (/rant)
^^I agree entirely GC. I can't do anything about it. The bondholders are holding the ball. And honestly, I'll be satisfied with anything that happens here much short of implosion. (Which I don't think is particularly a threat.) I just hope someone puts a plan together. (And that someone ain't gonna be me.)
For a good example of the strategy, cost and effort required to redevelop a building like 909 Chestnut, see The National. The project entailed the conversion of a long-vacant 1.5 million sf former bank HQ into a mixed-use luxury hotel and apartment building.
The historic redevelopment just opened a couple of months ago. It contains 43,000 sf of retail and 37,000 sf of office space in the podium, a 219-room Thompson Hotel, and 324 apartments on Floors 22 to 48. The apartment residents have access to all of the hotel services and amenities.
The building is much like 909 Chestnut, particularly in floor plate and size, albeit a bit taller and 20 years older. And it also resides in a shabby, neglected downtown area full of parking garages, surface lots, and depressing, dead streetscape:
It takes more than a pandemic to derail Dallas’ biggest real estate development.The $450 million redo of downtown’s landmark First National Bank tower is set to open at the end of the year as a new mixed-use development.
Efforts to renovate the 52-story, midcentury modern skyscraper have been underway for almost a decade. Along the way, the building had four different owners, went through bankruptcy and faced foreclosure."
...
“That project is our last vacant building of any significance downtown,” said Downtown Dallas Inc. CEO Kourtny Garrett. “In 2002, we had 40 vacant buildings.”"
The First National Bank tower — renamed The National — is the most challenging historic renovation project ever undertaken in North Texas because of the sheer size of the building.Originally the redo was supposed to cost about $250 million, but the scale of the project grew as each year passed and plans changed.The city of Dallas is providing about $50 million in incentives for the project, and historic tax credits will bring in another $100 million to support the deal."
...
"“It will be the tallest high-rise luxury apartments in our city,” he said. “People are going to be blown away with the levels of finishes in these apartments.When you have all this space, you’ve got to create something remarkable.”..."
This will be the sixth time that the bondholders attempt to sell the building. Last time, the starting bid was $7MM.
No doubt: $2.85MM for this building is ridiculously cheap. How cheap is ridiculously cheap? So cheap, that...
Its opening bid is priced at not even 1.5% of what it sold for fifteen years ago ($204.9MM in 2006).
This will be the sixth time that the bondholders attempt to sell the building. Last time, the starting bid was $7MM.
No doubt: $2.85MM for this building is ridiculously cheap. How cheap is ridiculously cheap? So cheap, that...
Its opening bid is priced at not even 1.5% of what it sold for fifteen years ago ($204.9MM in 2006).
How much would the new owner owe to the bond holders?
I wonder if $2.85 million even keeps the building heated, lights on and secure let alone pay any taxes during the year?
At this point you have to believe the bondholders will hand the next guy who comes along the keys as long they have some cash in their wallet so they can pay the title company to transfer the ownership/deed so it is legit.
It is a big perk to live in California where the weather and landscape are beautiful. Demand drives up prices. But then companies like Boeing & others sweeten the deal by paying California employees more and St Louis employees less for the same job based on cost of living. Like paying the guy who wants to live in Ladue more money because his house is more expensive than a similar house in Troy.
gary kreie wrote:It is a big perk to live in California where the weather and landscape are beautiful. Demand drives up prices. But then companies like Boeing & others sweeten the deal by paying California employees more and St Louis employees less for the same job based on cost of living. Like paying the guy who wants to live in Ladue more money because his house is more expensive than a similar house in Troy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remote work may be changing that. A good number of companies are telling their workers salaries are not dependent on location (as it should be). Could help to drive up local salaries for in office workers as recruitment competition stiffens.
It is a big perk to live in California where the weather and landscape are beautiful. Demand drives up prices. But then companies like Boeing & others sweeten the deal by paying California employees more and St Louis employees less for the same job based on cost of living. Like paying the guy who wants to live in Ladue more money because his house is more expensive than a similar house in Troy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not exactly the same. The cost of housing might be significantly more in Ladue, but everything else - utilities, gas, food, etc. - are going to be comparably priced to other less affluent areas around St. Louis. It's not like the gas stations in Ladue tack on an extra $2/gal because they know most of their customers are wealthier. It isn't just that housing is more expensive in California, it's that literally everything is more expensive.
