urbanSTL

The other argument that might be in favor for the city right or maybe take the edge off on spaces now is bankers, financers and underwriters will understand that rehab of existing building stock takes a good portion of the material risk as well as reduce some of the  supply chain & schedule uncertainity   Thinking of a interview with Suffolk Construction CEO, bigtime builder based out of Boston, I listened to this morning and the three big headwinds was labor, materials and supply chain.   Not having to put in a foundation and builds walls replaces a big chunk of variable cost as an upfront fixed real estate cost.   Yes, I understand you will still have some cost to do the rehab 

The other thought is that  AHM's development proposal is right out of the Steelcote developers playbook by locking a group of properties (buildings and empty lots) and therefore be able to leverage existing building stock to kick start the development with revenues sooner than later at a cost which will most likely be stable. relative to new build.  In the meantime, the empty lots give them room to stage, add parking on minimal cost and if all goes good an opportunity to build out as their proposal highlights.    The tower seems ambitious but everything else seems like a rock solid doable plan.

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

There is no relevance to older buildings that got put up when the city had trolley system literally connecting the entire city and todays new construction and banks risk management

I mean I can't pretend to know about how bank risk management in development works but I don't think you know much about this either. Like have you personally asked a bank for a loan to develop an apartment building with fewer parking spaces than units? On the subject, there's plenty of recent apartment projects where the number of spaces constructed was equal to the number of units built, and this development has way more than that. 
I mean maybe I'm underestimating you, you also claimed that bank underwriters know that you personally choose to drive to work each day because Metrolink is slower.

I was implying that banks know the state of transit in STL.   I have never asked a bank or anyone for money to construct an apartment building but I have been asked by developers to help them on various stages of permitting process based on my previous experience as the STL city condition use hearing officer, board of adjustment member and zoning specialist.   This development has more than 1 to 1 parking for residential because it has a 30,000 sq office component ( now I only know US Air Force space requirement because I helped develop some of them) but I'd assume private sector uses 150 SF net per person, so that's another 200 people/spots and there is also a retail/ commercial portion of the project

dbInSouthCity wrote:

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

There is no relevance to older buildings that got put up when the city had trolley system literally connecting the entire city and todays new construction and banks risk management

I mean I can't pretend to know about how bank risk management in development works but I don't think you know much about this either. Like have you personally asked a bank for a loan to develop an apartment building with fewer parking spaces than units? On the subject, there's plenty of recent apartment projects where the number of spaces constructed was equal to the number of units built, and this development has way more than that. 
I mean maybe I'm underestimating you, you also claimed that bank underwriters know that you personally choose to drive to work each day because Metrolink is slower.

I was implying that banks know the state of transit in STL.   I have never asked a bank or anyone for money to construct an apartment building but I have been asked by developers to help them on various stages of permitting process based on my previous experience as the STL city condition use hearing officer, board of adjustment member and zoning specialist.   This development has more than 1 to 1 parking for residential because it has a 30,000 sq office component ( now I only know US Air Force space requirement because I helped develop some of them) but I'd assume private sector uses 150 SF net per person, so that's another 200 people/spots and there is also a retail/ commercial portion of the project

You’re not to far off from private sector. The typical I’ve seen is 1 to 200 sqft and I’ve planned projects in a large variety of places. Some places with lower car demands (Cali) it can be as low as 1 to 500.

LArchitecture wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote:

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

I mean I can't pretend to know about how bank risk management in development works but I don't think you know much about this either. Like have you personally asked a bank for a loan to develop an apartment building with fewer parking spaces than units? On the subject, there's plenty of recent apartment projects where the number of spaces constructed was equal to the number of units built, and this development has way more than that. 
I mean maybe I'm underestimating you, you also claimed that bank underwriters know that you personally choose to drive to work each day because Metrolink is slower.

I was implying that banks know the state of transit in STL.   I have never asked a bank or anyone for money to construct an apartment building but I have been asked by developers to help them on various stages of permitting process based on my previous experience as the STL city condition use hearing officer, board of adjustment member and zoning specialist.   This development has more than 1 to 1 parking for residential because it has a 30,000 sq office component ( now I only know US Air Force space requirement because I helped develop some of them) but I'd assume private sector uses 150 SF net per person, so that's another 200 people/spots and there is also a retail/ commercial portion of the project

You’re not to far off from private sector. The typical I’ve seen is 1 to 200 sqft and I’ve planned projects in a large variety of places. Some places with lower car demands (Cali) it can be as low as 1 to 500.

^ USAF now uses 48SF net per desk job. Those who qualify for private office get 100-120 (Majors to Lt.Col) and even someone as high as a 4 star only gets 400 SF.

dbInSouthCity wrote:

LArchitecture wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote: I was implying that banks know the state of transit in STL.   I have never asked a bank or anyone for money to construct an apartment building but I have been asked by developers to help them on various stages of permitting process based on my previous experience as the STL city condition use hearing officer, board of adjustment member and zoning specialist.   This development has more than 1 to 1 parking for residential because it has a 30,000 sq office component ( now I only know US Air Force space requirement because I helped develop some of them) but I'd assume private sector uses 150 SF net per person, so that's another 200 people/spots and there is also a retail/ commercial portion of the project

You’re not to far off from private sector. The typical I’ve seen is 1 to 200 sqft and I’ve planned projects in a large variety of places. Some places with lower car demands (Cali) it can be as low as 1 to 500.

^ USAF now uses 48SF net per desk job. Those who qualify for private office get 100-120 (Majors to Lt.Col) and even someone as high as a 4 star only gets 400 SF.

That’s for desk space correct? I was talking about office sqft to parking count ratio.

LArchitecture wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote:

LArchitecture wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

You’re not to far off from private sector. The typical I’ve seen is 1 to 200 sqft and I’ve planned projects in a large variety of places. Some places with lower car demands (Cali) it can be as low as 1 to 500.

^ USAF now uses 48SF net per desk job.  Those who qualify for private office get 100-120 (Majors to Lt.Col) and even someone as high as a 4 star only gets 400 SF.

That’s for desk space correct? I was talking about office sqft to parking count ratio.

Correct.  

For parking the city normally does 1 for every 1250 SQ feet of office space  (first 7500 is exempt) but I doubt a lender would let 22500 have just 18 parking spots

Retail 1/700sq (first 3000 exempt)

So the city requirement for parking for biz aren't all to bad, like even At&t tower would only need 1,120 spots (if the city applied its parking regs to CBD)

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

LArchitecture wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote:
^ USAF now uses 48SF net per desk job.  Those who qualify for private office get 100-120 (Majors to Lt.Col) and even someone as high as a 4 star only gets 400 SF.

That’s for desk space correct? I was talking about office sqft to parking count ratio.

Correct.  

For parking the city normally does 1 for every 1250 SQ feet of office space  (first 7500 is exempt) but I doubt a lender would let 22500 have just 18 parking spots

Retail 1/700sq (first 3000 exempt)

So the city requirement for parking for biz aren't all to bad, like even At&t tower would only need 1,120 spots (if the city applied its parking regs to CBD)

I just wanted to point out that the fact that lenders and the market can guide the number of parking spaces is yet another reason why government-set parking minimums are bad archaic policy, but that's not news to anyone here

These come from Korb and Associates LinkedIn page. These are all 1200x1500 sized renderings, so a little clearer than what was in the LCRA packet.




And these are the three we've seen, just 1200x1500 sized.

^ thanks Chris,

So any bets on what project breaks ground first and if any do by end of year on what might be considered three legit residential high rise proposals in the city between 2CW (assuming the renderings will come out in near future), Koplar"s CWE tower and now AHM timber tower.    My gut feeling says Koplar's CWE tower even though DeWitt/Cordish could probably turns on the dime with 2CW.   AHM tower seems like a phase II or phase III plan once a few of their rehabs are complete and MLS team up and playing at their new stadium

I don’t see why this tower can’t get completed it’s an area of the city that’s becoming more desirable and could really use something nice & tall. I’m rooting for this group to pull it off. Koplar is far ahead of both but it wouldn’t surprise me if this breaks ground first before the next phase of BPV they seem to have a ton of support & desire to get this development going. Either way all 3 are good for the city & a win for the entire region if all are completed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@dredger Albion will break ground first of the group. A Two Cardinal Way would likely take time to get going after an unveiling. It took about a year to break ground on phase 2 of Ballpark Village after unveiling and so I expect a similar timeline on a Two Cardinal Way. AHM's is, according to Kyle Howerton, likely to be the 4th or 5th component of this downtown west development simply because of its size. Additionally, each component will have to go through the incentive process again and they can either scale up, or shrink, each new-build component based on demand and access to capital. 

What this means for a build-out timeline, I don't know. But I imagine all the old buildings will be renovated at once and that apartment/parking component on Washington is built first (to create parking for the old buildings, retail tenants, residents of the 2100 Washington building, and visitors). These would be followed up by 2125 Locust and then the tower. Or maybe 2125 Locust goes up at the same time as 2100 Washington and the renovations of the old buildings. It's all unclear at this point. 

BB108 blighting, tax abatement

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... BBId=14129

Sources tell me that people associated with this project have asked the City to keep 2 of (4 or 5) gravel lots used for mls stadium construction parking for their construction parking

Stltoday - The humble wooden beam is revolutionizing construction in St. Louis. Here’s how.

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... a1c5c.html

^ thanks for posting, would be interesting to know where the 29-story tower falls into the 3 year plan.   I assume with MLS/New Stadium full speed in St. Louis it will help move  things along for this development.  Maybe even put a little pressure on BVP moving 2CW ahead.  

AHM Group's project at 2011 Locust Street calls for a 29-story tower: Mass timber will be used for the 22 stories of apartments that will be built on top of a seven-story parking garage with ground-floor retail. A restaurant on the eighth floor will be open to the public. AHM Group expects to shave off at least 90 days in the construction timeline using mass timber, said Pratt. 

The mass timber project is one phase of a larger $240 million redevelopment of this part of Locust that AHM Group has planned over the next three years. The developer also is building The Y/O apartments at 3201 Morgan Ford Road in St. Louis and redeveloping the Bavarian Inn on Arsenal Street into apartments and office.  

Evening rendering...

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Mar 23, 2023

Evening rendering...
kp188-StLouis_Evening.jpeg

It's beautiful. Hopefully, this leads to more high rise development downtown.

^ My two cent opinion is that it has a better chance of happening then not happening.   Opinion based on what is behind AHM group and if not mistaken includes investment in part from the very family that landed MLS to St. Louis in the first place.   Someone please correct me if my understanding of the AHM group and its investors is incorrect.   To me this is the signature tower next to the signature stadium type deal.   

In other words, you have a development supported by local investors who own the nearby pro team.   Where as BPV is being slowly built out by a outside developer and a pro team owner/family not from  St. Louis.  I can see this $240 million development moving along pretty quickly whereas 2CW gets held up on financing, interest rate, banks being more cautious.  

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 24, 2023

^ My two cent opinion is that it has a better chance of happening then not happening.   Opinion based on what is behind AHM group and if not mistaken includes investment in part from the very family that landed MLS to St. Louis in the first place.   Someone please correct me if my understanding of the AHM group and its investors is incorrect.   To me this is the signature tower next to the signature stadium type deal.   

In other words, you have a development supported by local investors who own the nearby pro team.   Where as BPV is being slowly built out by a outside developer and a pro team owner/family not from  St. Louis.  I can see this $240 million development moving along pretty quickly whereas 2CW gets held up on financing, interest rate, banks being more cautious.  

Albion and Two Cardinal Way are much more likely to happen.  Successful projects next door that help establish the high per square foot rents and occupancy needed for the equity to be comfortable with the risk profile these types of developments come with.  The neighborhoods are next door to two of regions largest employment centers in more established neighborhoods.  The development teams have infinitely more experience (it is not even close).  The Taylors are fantastic and I might be underestimating their willingness to invest in a for profit private development that would be very speculative at best.  I believe in the area and love the vision.  In my opinion it is the least likely to happen especially in the short term.  Im definitely rooting for all three.  

Anybody able to do a mock-up of what this tower would look like from inside the soccer stadium?  

STLAPTS wrote: ↑

Mar 24, 2023

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 24, 2023

^ My two cent opinion is that it has a better chance of happening then not happening.   Opinion based on what is behind AHM group and if not mistaken includes investment in part from the very family that landed MLS to St. Louis in the first place.   Someone please correct me if my understanding of the AHM group and its investors is incorrect.   To me this is the signature tower next to the signature stadium type deal.   

In other words, you have a development supported by local investors who own the nearby pro team.   Where as BPV is being slowly built out by a outside developer and a pro team owner/family not from  St. Louis.  I can see this $240 million development moving along pretty quickly whereas 2CW gets held up on financing, interest rate, banks being more cautious.  

Albion and Two Cardinal Way are much more likely to happen.  Successful projects next door that help establish the high per square foot rents and occupancy needed for the equity to be comfortable with the risk profile these types of developments come with.  The neighborhoods are next door to two of regions largest employment centers in more established neighborhoods.  The development teams have infinitely more experience (it is not even close).  The Taylors are fantastic and I might be underestimating their willingness to invest in a for profit private development that would be very speculative at best.  I believe in the area and love the vision.  In my opinion it is the least likely to happen especially in the short term.  Im definitely rooting for all three.  

It might be the least likely to happen but I think the other 2 are pretty much sure things so being the least likeliest of the 3 still gives pretty good odds.

Definitely see everyone's point but can't help to think that out of the three towers the one that can depend more on direct investment and less on financing, banks might have the better chance of breaking ground these days.   Just thinking of banks pulling back capital and on loans while Feds keep up the interest rate hikes.    Getting inflation under control helps a lot but financing is really huge consider how much you pay for money over time, interest.

Can be way off base but all three are strong proposals with great locations.   Would be pretty good if at least two can break ground in the coming year.