urbanSTL

in 2023, there was 140,000 city adults with a job and in 2013, 134,200

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

3:38 PM - 4 days ago

Really feels like every winter is a roll of the dice whether is survives or not

Unlike Crugen-Martin Railway exchange is mainly steel stone brick and concrete, Their are no large timber beams that can burn down, so fires should be small and very limited but still we need this building secured and redeveloped ASAP.

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editor ... 498e9.html

Despite a clickbait headline, they do a good job of going through common perceptions vs what’s actually happening in downtown

Entire part one is worth the read, because when you read it and see comments you’ll know who didn’t read it. The piece highlights all the issues a lot of us are working on daily (and making a lot of progress) and despite those issues, its actually far better than what you’d expect from those who commented without reading

Good article. I think there are stakeholders that are really trying to take action in downtown and that’s positive.

It ultimately comes down to money. There needs to be a lot of money put into downtown

We are making infrastructure strides. It’s probably going to take a couple more large infrastructure projects to get us where we need to be on that side of things (and maybe even something pretty creative and against the status quo to really change downtown)

And obviously we have to get these large vacancies moving, ie Railway, chemical, At&t. These smaller projects that we are seeing from people like Alex Oliver will only accelerate if we can resolve those big holes

The discourse is good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View from PGAV

At least we can assume PGAV isn't gonna join all the other companies that have chosen to leave 200 Broadway. That building is in serious need of a win.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

That’s not really clickbait at all. Downtown is in bad shape. It’s a pretty solid article that points out downtown’s challenges, as well as what’s being done and the positives.

“If downtown St. Louis were a house, it might be said to have great bones. But it might also be said to be largely vacant and in desperate need of rescue.”

Very excited to read the next parts in this series throughout the week. It’s a great thing that St. Louis isn’t afraid to have hard conversations about its downtown.

Ultimately, we need somebody to step up like Dan Gilbert did for Detroit. St. Louis’ political leadership is incapable at leading the turnaround so it will have to be someone like the Taylor family. And we basically need that to happen simultaneously with a potential city/county merger or other reimagining of the region’s government structure. It’ll be hard, but it can be done.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

8:38 PM - 2 days ago

View from PGAV

This is the type of corporate leader Downtown STL needs.

STLcommenter wrote: ↑

11:05 PM - 2 days ago

That’s not really clickbait at all. Downtown is in bad shape. It’s a pretty solid article that points out downtown’s challenges, as well as what’s being done and the positives.

“If downtown St. Louis were a house, it might be said to have great bones. But it might also be said to be largely vacant and in desperate need of rescue.”

Very excited to read the next parts in this series throughout the week. It’s a great thing that St. Louis isn’t afraid to have hard conversations about its downtown.

Ultimately, we need somebody to step up like Dan Gilbert did for Detroit. St. Louis’ political leadership is incapable at leading the turnaround so it will have to be someone like the Taylor family. And we basically need that to happen simultaneously with a potential city/county merger or other reimagining of the region’s government structure. It’ll be hard, but it can be done.

Bad shape is no investment, no res growth, nothing going on. That isn’t what’s going on here. When spending and residential is growing and the main challenge is office, a national issue, it’s not in bad shape.

Also It doesn't need a Dan Gilbert. That's one of the biggest misconceptions. Detroit needed Dan Gilbert because nobody else was spending any money in downtown. Nobody was investing in it. We don't have that problem. Look at the money LHM has invested at Union Station. AHM that's doing a downtown west, New and Found at the Mansion House, Oliver, Cordish with Millennium and Ballpark Village. Detroit didn't have any of that. A Dan Gilbert is a nice to have downtown here, not a must have.

Enterprise building their HQ downtown and, in the process, executing the largest real estate transaction in Clayton history would change the trajectory of downtown.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

12:02 AM - 2 days ago

STLcommenter wrote: ↑

11:05 PM - 2 days ago

That’s not really clickbait at all. Downtown is in bad shape. It’s a pretty solid article that points out downtown’s challenges, as well as what’s being done and the positives.

“If downtown St. Louis were a house, it might be said to have great bones. But it might also be said to be largely vacant and in desperate need of rescue.”

Very excited to read the next parts in this series throughout the week. It’s a great thing that St. Louis isn’t afraid to have hard conversations about its downtown.

Ultimately, we need somebody to step up like Dan Gilbert did for Detroit. St. Louis’ political leadership is incapable at leading the turnaround so it will have to be someone like the Taylor family. And we basically need that to happen simultaneously with a potential city/county merger or other reimagining of the region’s government structure. It’ll be hard, but it can be done.

Bad shape is no investment, no res growth, nothing going on.  That isn’t what’s going on here.  When spending and residential is growing and the main challenge is office, a national issue, it’s not in bad shape.

Also It doesn't need a Dan Gilbert. That's one of the biggest misconceptions. Detroit needed Dan Gilbert because nobody else was spending any money in downtown. Nobody was investing in it. We don't have that problem. Look at the money LHM has invested at Union Station. AHM that's doing a downtown west, New and Found at the Mansion House, Oliver, Cordish with Millennium and Ballpark Village. Detroit didn't have any of that. A Dan Gilbert is a nice to have downtown here, not a must have.

DB, that is simply not true.  Before Dan Gilbert began his "massive investment campaign in 2010-2011 downtown Detroit development was characterized by sporadic, public-sector-led projects, high office vacancy rates, and a "fortress" mentality where activity was concentrated in small, isolated pockets." Sound familiar ? Dan Gilbert did not start from zero.  

There was a lot of investment in the 1990s and 2000s that laid the ground work and prepared for later private investment.  Also, it is also not just Dan Gilbert, although he is the leading force.  The Ilitch, Ford, and Firestone families have also heavily invested in Downtown Detroit.  It would be like the Taylors, David Steward, Bob Clark, and Jim McKelvey all banding together in a somewhat cohesive and coordinated way to invest downtown.  There are alot of parallels between the two downtowns and the Taylor family could definitely take a page out of Dan Gilberts play book and move Enterprise downtown while subsequently developing the historic building stock to utilize the state and federal tax credits as a tax strategy to write off all their business income.  

dbInSouthCity wrote:

STLcommenter wrote: ↑

11:05 PM - 2 days ago

That’s not really clickbait at all. Downtown is in bad shape. It’s a pretty solid article that points out downtown’s challenges, as well as what’s being done and the positives.

“If downtown St. Louis were a house, it might be said to have great bones. But it might also be said to be largely vacant and in desperate need of rescue.”

Very excited to read the next parts in this series throughout the week. It’s a great thing that St. Louis isn’t afraid to have hard conversations about its downtown.

Ultimately, we need somebody to step up like Dan Gilbert did for Detroit. St. Louis’ political leadership is incapable at leading the turnaround so it will have to be someone like the Taylor family. And we basically need that to happen simultaneously with a potential city/county merger or other reimagining of the region’s government structure. It’ll be hard, but it can be done.

Bad shape is no investment, no res growth, nothing going on. That isn’t what’s going on here. When spending and residential is growing and the main challenge is office, a national issue, it’s not in bad shape.

Also It doesn't need a Dan Gilbert. That's one of the biggest misconceptions. Detroit needed Dan Gilbert because nobody else was spending any money in downtown. Nobody was investing in it. We don't have that problem. Look at the money LHM has invested at Union Station. AHM that's doing a downtown west, New and Found at the Mansion House, Oliver, Cordish with Millennium and Ballpark Village. Detroit didn't have any of that. A Dan Gilbert is a nice to have downtown here, not a must have.

So East St Louis isn’t in bad shape since they have had some recent investment?

The investment is a solid start, but it’s not really much to boast about. Oliver Properties is essentially just renovating the Wash Ave lofts to bring it back to what it was in the 2000s. Most of the developments that would actually drive growth in downtown have stalled or have yet to go anywhere (Gateway South, Railway Exchange, AT&T, AHM, etc). The investments we have seen so far are mostly things you would expect any downtown to invest in as a matter of course. Union Station and BPV are solid examples of additions to Downtown, but neither have really created momentum around them, and BPV has moved far slower than we were led to believe.

Also Detroit saw the Tigers and Lions both moved their stadiums to downtown Detroit in the early 2000s. The MGM opened in 2007. There were plenty of investments before Dan Gilbert, but it took him coming in (along with other billionaires) to create a thriving cohesive core. There is no way downtown Detroit would have Gucci, Alo, Nike, Bonobos, Apple stores and be what it is today without him. And I find it very hard to believe Downtown St. Louis can get there without a similar group of wealthy individuals who love their city.

A few that were vacant when Covid started

Butler brothers
Jefferson Arms
Shell building
22nd street interchange
Spruce & 11th
Locust YMCA

If you look at building permit data 2016-2025 downtown leads, 2011-2025, 2006-2025 and 2001-2025.

whitherSTL wrote: ↑

1:10 AM - 2 days ago

Enterprise building their HQ downtown and, in the process, executing the largest real estate transaction in Clayton history would change the trajectory of downtown.

It really would. It's crazy to me that Andy Taylor will never get this across the finish line. Enterprise would be a great tenant to finish the three remaining blocks of BPV.

addxb2 wrote:

whitherSTL wrote: ↑

1:10 AM - 2 days ago

Enterprise building their HQ downtown and, in the process, executing the largest real estate transaction in Clayton history would change the trajectory of downtown.

It really would. It's crazy to me that Andy Taylor will never get this across the finish line. Enterprise would be a great tenant to finish the three remaining blocks of BPV.

This may be the first time me, addxb2, and wither are in agreement.

I would prefer, however, Enterprise build on the RWX garage land and help redevelop the RWX. Not exactly sure how to articulate this, but if I were a billionaire controlling a big company, I'd build a skyscraper office tower perched on top of a large (visually attractive) parking garage while also heavily investing in a redevelopment of the RWX with the idea of creating a "company town" of sorts to make attracting talent very easy (in theory). I imagine hundreds of apartments and tons of retail, including department stores. If it's possible in Indianapolis and Detroit, it's possible here. We just need someone to put their money out there for it. It would be a massive boon to the core of downtown while I feel like BPV wouldn't be maximizing the possible impact. Ofc if BPV was the best case, then that's fine. Would also be cool to get BMO and whoever else is inside the south building too.

An Enterprise move downtown just makes too much sense. Their campus is heavily underutilized, the north building has been up for lease since covid I think, their parking garage is never even close to filled, and the land use is just so bad. Would be a huge win-win to get them downtown and have the campus redeveloped into dense housing.

The Taylors are the exact thing downtown needs. This is my favorite downtown fantasy.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

addxb2 wrote: ↑

2:16 AM - 1 day ago

whitherSTL wrote: ↑

1:10 AM - 2 days ago

Enterprise building their HQ downtown and, in the process, executing the largest real estate transaction in Clayton history would change the trajectory of downtown.

It really would. It's crazy to me that Andy Taylor will never get this across the finish line. Enterprise would be a great tenant to finish the three remaining blocks of BPV.

The enterprise moving downtown dream has been going on as long as I remember. I applaud people for keeping it alive but I’m not sure what makes people think there is any more chance it happens now than 1, 5, 10, 20 years ago. They haven’t shown that they have any interest in doing that.

jshank83 wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

2:16 AM - 1 day ago

whitherSTL wrote: ↑

1:10 AM - 2 days ago

Enterprise building their HQ downtown and, in the process, executing the largest real estate transaction in Clayton history would change the trajectory of downtown.

It really would. It's crazy to me that Andy Taylor will never get this across the finish line. Enterprise would be a great tenant to finish the three remaining blocks of BPV.

The enterprise moving downtown dream has been going on as long as I remember. I applaud people for keeping it alive but I’m not sure what makes people think there is any more chance it happens now than 1, 5, 10, 20 years ago. They haven’t shown that they have any interest in doing that.

I think this era in particular because we have seen a decline in corporate campuses in favor of downtown office towers and a general decline in office space, something that Enterprise has in abundance at their current location.

Just in St. Louis, we have seen Larson, Emerson, Energizer, Calares, and Build a Bear all leave their suburban campus style offices in favor of towers or central locations. Even AT&T consolidated downtown, even if by technicality.

The only major company I can think of doing the opposite is Peabody, but even that is in part because Edward Jones is scaling back how much space they occupy at their own corporate campus. We have to remember that most companies leaving downtown are landing in Clayton, not an Enterprise-style campus.

Enterprise's campus has 3 buildings, in which they only occupy one these days. The southern one is leased to BMO and another financial company, and the northern one vacant and been up for lease for years. Their parking lots are never full anymore. It would have to be in their financial interest to offload that property and stop paying to maintain it and instead build new or lease.

Simply put, in an era where we have seen the demise of campuses that look exactly like Enterprise's and several big companies moving back "downtown" (even if it's Clayton), I feel that it has never been more likely that Enterprise may follow suite. They've gotta be one of the saddest HQs for such a big company in STL right now, up there with Post.

TLDR: A HQ change has never been more likely than right now, the city would surely be on the table.

Edit: While a lot of the fantasies are about them building new downtown, I can't see why leasing at 600 Washington or US Bank Plaza, BoA Plaza, 200 Washington, or buying and doing a total renovation of 1010 Market wouldn't also be options, probably more likely options. All of these buildings have 200,000+ sf of availability. There's lots of options for Enterprise to make a massive impact on downtown (or Clayton) if they wise up and move, like others have.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Part 2

Editorial: Downtown St. Louis is safer than you think. No, really.

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editor ... 4e12e.html

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

6:17 PM - 1 day ago

Part 2

Editorial: Downtown St. Louis is safer than you think. No, really.

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editor ... 4e12e.html

Another good part of the series.  

The story speaks to it, but to reiterate my own thoughts.   

1) Even if crime is down in downtown (or in the city as a whole), it's still too high.
2) I think it's the broader sense of actual and perceived *disorder* downtown that negatively affects people visiting.  (Same with public transit.  A mentally ill homeless person being loud and weird on Metrolink? Not illegal nor a crime but that'll keep people away.  People just opt out basically.)

addxb2 wrote: ↑

2:16 AM - 1 day ago

whitherSTL wrote: ↑

1:10 AM - 2 days ago

Enterprise building their HQ downtown and, in the process, executing the largest real estate transaction in Clayton history would change the trajectory of downtown.

It really would. It's crazy to me that Andy Taylor will never get this across the finish line. Enterprise would be a great tenant to finish the three remaining blocks of BPV.

I'm going big, would love Cordish landing Enterprise HQ for Millennium Development, Cordish takes over and demolish garage between Millennium & BPV as future phase/adds some grid back in the process, and BPV/DeWitt finally gets real about market value and land a law firm for next class a office development as 2CW rises.  

soulardx wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

6:17 PM - 1 day ago

Part 2

Editorial: Downtown St. Louis is safer than you think. No, really.

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editor ... 4e12e.html

Another good part of the series.  

The story speaks to it, but to reiterate my own thoughts.   

1) Even if crime is down in downtown (or in the city as a whole), it's still too high.
2) I think it's the broader sense of actual and perceived *disorder* downtown that negatively affects people visiting.  (Same with public transit.  A mentally ill homeless person being loud and weird on Metrolink? Not illegal nor a crime but that'll keep people away.  People just opt out basically.)

Agreed. Overall it’s good to put out articles like these to help show people that things are moving in the right direction. But at the end of the day, st louisans form their opinions about downtown by physically experiencing it and seeing how it has changed. The only way to change negative opinions to positive is for people to have several positive experiences downtown where it feels safe and vibrant.

We also have to do better than “Crime is down X %” or “Crime is it at its lowest numbers since 2013”. It’s a flawed inference to imply downtown is safe without comparing it to peer US and international cities as well.

There is really not good way to do downtown to downtown comps that make sense. For example: here is downtown KC overlaid(orange) with downtown STL. More people visit the downtown STL boundary then they visit the kc one despite it being 6sq miles vs 2 here

Through March, downtown neighborhood had less than 1 crime against a person per day (most between parties having a dispute) and 3 crimes per day against property; car, building, etc.

Downtown west had 1 against a person almost every other day and 3 a day against property.

So with that in mind, consider that daily there is 11,000 residents, 40-60,000 workers and on a week like this 20,000-25,000 visitors for robotics, conferences, tourists. So average day this week had 75,000 people in downtown and downtown west and 1.5 crimes against a person (again between people that know each other) and 6 crimes against property.

And the people who say “I don’t feel safe” would say there is 4 murders, 18 shootings and 25 car jackings a day (btw, downtown has had 1 car jacking through March). There is nothing that can be done to fix that kind of stupid