Next Midwest City To Build A Tower Over 700' Tall

[craigs]

Hey, Clayton has light rail. It's connected. I'm not a hater, I'm just saying that if there were no Clayton it doesn't mean downtown St. Louis would be taller or bigger.

My Dad grew up in St. Louis, and I've still got family there. There is something holding that place back. It's not a declining Chicagoland with a white-hot core full of new skyscrapers, it's just flailing.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Clayton is a midpoint between suburban sprawl and a real downtown, sort of like Bellevue in my area.

Does it grow instead of Downtown or instead of sprawl? Or instead of Nashville? Maybe a mix of all of these.

Downtown Seattle hasn't gone over 3 decades without the construction of a single major new office tower.

Downtown Seattle does not have a modern 44 story, 1.4M SF trophy tower sitting vacant in the middle of it for a handful of years now.

It'd be pretty hard to argue that Bellevue is negatively affecting downtown Seattle to any significant degree.

But in the case of Clayton and downtown St. Louis? Yeah, I think an argument can be made.

[The North One]

Says here USDA is putting 1,000 workers in the building so it wont be totally vacant for long, thankfully. https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...ouis-home.html

We have absolutely no proof that Clayton has to exist or otherwise all that office space would go to Nashville, that's pretty absurd and makes no sense.

Suburban office centers definitely take away from the downtown of their proper cities nearby, we know this because we've seen tenants and companies move directly from central cities to these suburban nodes for the last half century. It's just pointlessly shuffling chairs in a metro area.

They're pretty much worthless parasites that shouldn't exist wherever they are in this country. Today most suburban office centers in Midwest cities seem to be dying out in favor of central downtown space, but Clayton seems to only be getting stronger and more prominent.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

Well, the counter-argument would be that those towers in Clayton might have ended up being built in Nashville instead. With a half a percent growth rate since 2010, the entire St. Louis region is clearly hemorrhaging people and businesses. Not that it should--it has a lot to offer for a metro its size.

Companies use this logic to bully around local governments, but I think if those companies actually had the option to go to Nashville, they would've gone to Nashville. Local government leaders bending over for the whims of a large company has sucked the vitality out of a lot of too many cities.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

commercial real estate is fucked.

Right now but I think the death of commercial real estate is greatly exaggerated. The desire/ demand of F2F work environments isn't going anywhere soon.

Originally Posted by craigs

With a half a percent growth rate since 2010, the entire St. Louis region is clearly hemorrhaging people and businesses. Not that it should--it has a lot to offer for a metro its size.

What? How is the region "hemorrhaging" if it grew by half a percent? That's stagnation, not hemorrhaging. That stagnation is completely due to rampant parochialism, fragmentation, and lack of cooperation among the region's hundred different municipalities. Our regional civic leaders like to dig in their heels against progress, and refuse to look outside the region at examples of success.

Regarding Clayton, I'm fine with it. Until downtown finds it footing as either a residential or commercial hub again, it's better than spreading everything out across the region. And it's well connected via light rail.

[edale]

I've always thought the most analogous situation to Downtown STL/Clayton is Downtown LA and Century City. I think most acknowledge the rise of the Westside/Century City hurt DTLA for decades. But now that Downtown LA has made a triumphant comeback (still in progress), and Century City is getting a subway stop and major new investment, too, it's kind of exciting to watch both of these 'downtowns' thrive. Hopefully downtown STL will start to reclaim its position as the dominant urban center of the region, and a similar situation will play out there.

[Twin Citian]

Minneapolis probably had the best chance pre-Covid, but I don't think any of these cities will see a 700ft+ tower anytime soon.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yeah, that had me do a double take as well, but it's apparently true.

A giant 44 story, 1.4M SF modern office tower built in 1986 sitting totally vacant in the heart of a major american downtown for several years..... It's a little hard to believe.

I mean, if it was some decrepit old dinosaur from the early 20th that needed hundreds of millions in updates, I could see it, but a 1986 tower can't be in that bad of shape, can it?

Apparently a big problem for various entities that have looked at the building is the lack of parking. The building has roughly 100 subterranean spots and that's it. The sky bridges connecting it to the neighboring AT&T properties (and the parking) were torn down, and apparently AT&T isn't interested in sharing.

Yeah, according to the CTBUH, downtown St. Louis hasn't seen the construction of significant commercial office tower over 200' tall since the late 80s.

But two such towers have been built out in Clayton over the past two decades. It seems like it'd be pretty hard to argue that Clayton doesn't hurt downtown St. Louis at this point.

The PwC Pennant Building, which was a part of Phase II of Ballpark Village and completed last year, was the first newly constructed class A office space in 30 years. The last class A tower was Metropolitan Square in 1989. The trouble is that Met Square is 593 ft to the PwC Building's 141 ft. Everything else in the interim has been about bringing back to life downtown St. Louis' existing buildings, especially the historic ones.

Originally Posted by craigs

Hey, Clayton has light rail. It's connected. I'm not a hater, I'm just saying that if there were no Clayton it doesn't mean downtown St. Louis would be taller or bigger.

My Dad grew up in St. Louis, and I've still got family there. There is something holding that place back. It's not a declining Chicagoland with a white-hot core full of new skyscrapers, it's just flailing.

The issue with Clayton is the separation of the city and the county. Clayton benefits from being St. Louis County's seat and the power of the county's incentives that come with it.

If St. Louis was still in the county and the actual county seat then you'd likely see more of a dynamic of a downtown vs Central West End sort of thing rather than a new downtown less than 10 miles away from city hall to city hall.

Originally Posted by The North One

Says here USDA is putting 1,000 workers in the building so it wont be totally vacant for long, thankfully. https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...ouis-home.html

We have absolutely no proof that Clayton has to exist or otherwise all that office space would go to Nashville, that's pretty absurd and makes no sense.

Suburban office centers definitely take away from the downtown of their proper cities nearby, we know this because we've seen tenants and companies move directly from central cities to these suburban nodes for the last half century. It's just pointlessly shuffling chairs in a metro area.

They're pretty much worthless parasites that shouldn't exist wherever they are in this country. Today most suburban office centers in Midwest cities seem to be dying out in favor of central downtown space, but Clayton seems to only be getting stronger and more prominent.

The 1,000 USDA employees are moving into Met Square and sadly not the old AT&T Center according to the city:
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/governmen...s-downtown.cfm

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by edale

I've always thought the most analogous situation to Downtown STL/Clayton is Downtown LA and Century City. I think most acknowledge the rise of the Westside/Century City hurt DTLA for decades. But now that Downtown LA has made a triumphant comeback (still in progress), and Century City is getting a subway stop and major new investment, too, it's kind of exciting to watch both of these 'downtowns' thrive. Hopefully downtown STL will start to reclaim its position as the dominant urban center of the region, and a similar situation will play out there.

I'm not a Clayton hater, but the fact that an inner ring suburb with a population of approximately 16,700 has a downtown that looks like this is definitely unusual to say the least.

Downtown keeps improving, of course, but I just wish it was getting more of the love that a lot of the central corridor (including downtown Clayton) seems to be getting.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by The North One

We have absolutely no proof that Clayton has to exist or otherwise all that office space would go to Nashville, that's pretty absurd and makes no sense.

I said the counter-argument would be that those towers in Clayton might have ended up being built in Nashville instead. I can see how playing devil's advocate can make it seem like I'm insisting that is certain to be true, but you need to read more closely. Nobody has "proof" of any of the conjecture as to what would have happened if Clayton didn't assume the role it has in the wider metro.

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

What? How is the region "hemorrhaging" if it grew by half a percent? That's stagnation, not hemorrhaging.

The nation overall has grown by an estimated 6.9% since 2010. Are we to assume the entire St. Louis CSA added only 0.5% to its population in the last ten years combined yet outbound movers played no role in that large discrepancy? I assumed St. Louis would have grown at roughly the national average rate but people moved out of the area. If that's not the case, perhaps the region is so aged that annual deaths almost entirely wipe out all population gained via annual births, inbound immigration, etc.?

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by craigs

The nation overall has grown by an estimated 6.9% since 2010. Are we to assume the entire St. Louis CSA added only 0.5% to its population in the last ten years combined yet outbound movers played no role in that large discrepancy? I assumed St. Louis would have grown at roughly the national average rate but people moved out of the area. If that's not the case, perhaps the region is so aged that annual deaths almost entirely wipe out all population gained via annual births, inbound immigration, etc.?

The fact that the metro kept its head above water is impressive, IMO. The city is still losing people, St. Louis County is stagnate, and all the Illinois counties (except for tiny Monroe) in the Metro East are losing population like the rest of Illinois. It's basically St. Charles County that's driving the region's growth.

It's almost like the city and the county would be, wait for it, better together

But seriously, jokes aside, they would be.

Originally Posted by craigs

The nation overall has grown by an estimated 6.9% since 2010. Are we to assume the entire St. Louis CSA added only 0.5% to its population in the last ten years combined yet outbound movers played no role in that large discrepancy? I assumed St. Louis would have grown at roughly the national average rate but people moved out of the area. If that's not the case, perhaps the region is so aged that annual deaths almost entirely wipe out all population gained via annual births, inbound immigration, etc.?

but growth implies a net gain, regardless of how small and regardless of what the rest of the country is doing. sure, there are lots of movers outbound from certain parts of the metro. but there must be slightly more movement into other parts of the metro, otherwise there wouldn't be a net gain. i just think it's inaccurate to say "hemorrhaging" without acknowledging that slightly more are moving in than moving out.

[craigs]

If, contrary to my assumption, people are not in fact moving out of the St. Louis CSA in numbers that have left the region with a one-half a percent total increase in population since 2010, then why is the region growing 14 times slower than the national average? Outbound domestic emigration isn't far-fetched--we know that's why Chicagoland's overall population has stagnated (even while central Chicago is still booming).

Originally Posted by craigs

If, contrary to my assumption, people are not in fact moving out of the St. Louis CSA in numbers that have left the region with a one-half a percent total increase in population since 2010, then why is the region growing 14 times slower than the national average? Outbound domestic emigration isn't far-fetched...

i think we're just having a semantics debate. "hemorrhage" to me says floodgates open, massive NET loss. the reality is that the metro population has increased steadily, albeit slowly. that does not say "hemorrhage" to me. it says "stagnant". the result is the same as if nobody left, and nobody came.

Originally Posted by craigs

...we know that's why Chicagoland's overall population has stagnated (even while central Chicago is still booming).

that's fine. but in your initial post you said

the entire St. Louis region is clearly hemorrhaging people and businesses

so we haven't been talking about the city exclusively.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

I'm not a Clayton hater, but the fact that an inner ring suburb with a population of approximately 16,700 has a downtown that looks like this is definitely unusual to say the least.

Why would Clayton's downtown be related to the size of the city of Clayton?

It's the #2 downtown for the whole region.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

The PwC Pennant Building, which was a part of Phase II of Ballpark Village and completed last year, was the first newly constructed class A office space in 30 years. The last class A tower was Metropolitan Square in 1989. The trouble is that Met Square is 593 ft to the PwC Building's 141 ft.

I just checked out that new PwC building and it isn't even a full class A office building. It looks to be 4 floors of office space sitting on top of a 7 level parking garage.

It just astounds me that downtown St. Louis has gone over 3 freaking decades without any proper class A office tower getting built. Has that happened to any other major US city downtown?

Meanwhile, Clayton just built a brand new sparkly 400' tall proper class A office tower.

I simply have to believe that Clayton's success is somehow related to downtown St. Louis' office development doldrums.

[craigs]

Chicago has managed to swing a downtown boom while the larger region stagnates, and that seems like magic to me. It would appear St. Louis has not been able to replicate that trick, with the exception of a tower or two in Clayton which are probably closer to more workers (by car) than downtown St. Louis.

St. Louis has a lot more to offer than its growth rate would indicate--Forest Park is top notch, for example, and something you cannot find almost anywhere in the sunbelt.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by mhays

Why would Clayton's downtown be related to the size of the city of Clayton?

It's the #2 downtown for the whole region.

I just think it's interesting. Especially since Clayton's role as the second CBD (or more in reality St. Louis County's CBD) really solidified in the last 30 years. Nine out of Clayton's 20 tallest structures have been built since 1990, for example.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I just checked out that new PwC building and it isn't even a full class A office building. It looks to be 4 floors of office space sitting stop 7 levels of parking garage.

It just astounds me that downtown St. Louis has gone over 3 freaking decades without any proper class A office tower getting built. Has that happened to any other major US city downtown?

It's also not even the premiere building of Phase II of BPV. That honor goes to One Cardinal Way, but that's housing.

As for any other major city, I'm not certain. There have been historic conversions for office space, but at the same time a lot of historic office buildings we're also turned into condos and apartments, especially lofts. The historic Railway Exchange Building, which is the second largest in downtown by square footage, was supposed to be next up but the developer is currently caught up in a myriad of legal disputes.

I also recall reading a few years ago that metro St. Louis has the second most decentralized jobs market from its respective downtown. Only Detroit was more decentralized. I'm not certain if that's changed recently.

Meanwhile, Clayton just built a brand new sparkly 400' tall proper class A office tower.

I simply have to believe that Clayton's success is somehow related to downtown St. Louis' office development doldrums.

It's certainly part of it, but it's also worth noting that St. Louis proper has gotten new office buildings. Many of them just went and are going in outside of downtown. Developers have been especially interested in The Central West End, The Cortex Innovation District, Midtown, etc.

Originally Posted by craigs

Chicago has managed to swing a downtown boom while the larger region stagnates, and that seems like magic to me. It would appear St. Louis has not been able to replicate that trick, with the exception of a tower or two in Clayton which are probably closer to more workers (by car) than downtown St. Louis.

St. Louis has a lot more to offer than its growth rate would indicate--Forest Park is top notch, for example, and something you cannot find almost anywhere in the sunbelt.

Again, St. Louis' jobs market is highly decentralized from its downtown proper. Many of those jobs are apread across the central corridor that stretches from downtown Clayton through the city to downtown St. Louis. It's a rather weird dynamic that the Post actually covered back in 2016.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stl...8c4e2.amp.html

^^ the region has sprawled so far west that Clayton is now much closer to the population center. and all of our business "elite" are suburb-minded dinosaurs that live in the wealthy western burbs.