The St. Louis Business Journal reported today that Opus Northwest Corp has the American Heart Assoc. building at 4643 Lindell Boulevard under contract. The deal is expected to close by mid-2005.



--



Here is the article:



EXCLUSIVE REPORTS

From the January 7, 2005 print edition of the St. Louis Business Journal



<A HREF="http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... html">Opus has CWE site under contract for possible high-rise</A>

Heather Cole



Opus Northwest Corp. has the American Heart Association building in the Central West End under contract and plans to build a high-rise residential project on the site, according to people in the real estate community.



<A HREF="http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... l">>>>read more</A>

Wow, lots of good news today.



I am excited about the Central West End. We were talking about how developers would not take risks downtown with condiminium towers, but I don't think they are afraid to in the Central West End. And Opus does quality work. I can't wait to see some renderings.

That's awesome! That building never really fit in with its surroundings, so I won't be sad to see it go.

Great!!



I spoke to Steven Anrod with Baker Development Corporation of Chicago when they were handling Park East Tower, and he told me that the CWE is an untapped market, and that it needed to be "reclaimed". Perhaps Opus feels the same way.



Anrod likened the CWE to Chicago Lincoln Park neighborhood.

We were talking about how developers would not take risks downtown with condiminium towers, but I don't think they are afraid to in the Central West End. And Opus does quality work.

Opus definitely builds quality designs. Come on downtown Opus!



I believe as the old buildings downtown are built out, there's no doubt developers will build new residential towers. There are some already proposed. And if they sell well if built, you better believe more will come. I believe one of the main factors in Opus' consideration is that Park East Tower is over 60% sold. That reflects good demand.



Maryland Walk, now under construction in Clayton, sold about 40% in one day, I believe.

Can we get Opus to check out the Lindell & Grand site? They seem to be a little more bold than the rest, and that site just cries out for something truly dynamic and innovative.

Quick question-- doesn't it make sense to build on the ENORMOUS vacant lot on the southwest corner of Lindell & Euclid and also the THREE HUGE vacant lots at Lindell & Kingshighway instead of tearing down occupied buildings? I think the American Heart Assn. building is butt-ugly too and I won't miss it, but come on-- there are some eyesores that are far bigger within 1 block of that building. Let's fill in the gaps and then replace what already exists.

That is what is happening with the Park East Tower. I'm sure those will get developed soon. They can only sit vacant so long. These lots being undeveloped probably have to do with ownership, I know that is the case at Kingshighway and Lindell.

Yeah, I don't know what is up with that specific site or why the other sites are not attracting attention. Maybe they are holding out for something more, I don't know? The American Heart Association said they had never put the property on the market, yet received many offers to sell. The expected sale price is around $3.4 million. The building then needs to be demolished. Quite a lot of money to be spent before construction could even begin. That is why it is suspected a high-rise is to be built on that site... nothing else would give you the return on investment.

JivecitySTL wrote:Quick question-- doesn't it make sense to build on the ENORMOUS vacant lot on the southwest corner of Lindell & Euclid and also the THREE HUGE vacant lots at Lindell & Kingshighway instead of tearing down occupied buildings? I think the American Heart Assn. building is butt-ugly too and I won't miss it, but come on-- there are some eyesores that are far bigger within 1 block of that building. Let's fill in the gaps and then replace what already exists.

It does make sense to build on vacant lots, I agree 100%, however, somebody might not want to sell. The asking price could have been too high, the lot size might not appropriate for development they are considering, etc. etc. There's many scenarios to consider.



No offense, but you have to get out of the mindset that developments should be plopped down on other people's land just because it makes better sense.

No offense, but you have to get out of the mindset that developments should be plopped down on other people's land just because it makes better sense.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this. In most cases, developers DO plop down on other people's property, at least after they purchase it. Who owns every piece of land that he/she would want to develop?

I'm just thinking from a progressive urban planning perspective. In vibrant cities, the vacant lots are the first to go. It just makes the best sense. I know all about ownership and speculators and high price tags, I'm not talking about that. I'm just thinking SENSIBILITY in development. I wish all the separate factions could come together to realize what is best for the city.

JivecitySTL wrote:I'm just thinking from a progressive urban planning perspective. In vibrant cities, the vacant lots are the first to go. It just makes the best sense. I know all about ownership and speculators and high price tags, I'm not talking about that. I'm just thinking SENSIBILITY in development. I wish all the separate factions could come together to realize what is best for the city.

Jive that's certainly not always true. In Chicago, the Sun Times building, which is a stone's throw from bustling Michigan Avenue, is coming down for the towering Trump Tower Chicago. There are some lots in the vicinity and all around the Loop. Let's keep it real.



I've seen in Houston too where the same scenario applies. They have torn down old or undesirable buildings in vibrant areas - Rice Village, Medical Center, Downtown, and Uptown Galleria - and built new structures in their place for one reason or another when lots existed.



I'm sure the same has happened in vibrant cities all across America.



Conrad Properties tore down dated buildings on Forest Park Pkwy. to build Metro Lofts. Where else could he have built such a large project in the CWE? Certainly not on those existing lots you speak? There were no gaps large enough for that complex.



Then you have Conrad proposing a new tower on a vacant lot on Lindell ? apparently filling a gap. Mills Properties is still planning a residential complex on Euclid on the site of the Doctor's Building and its parking lot ? apparently filling another gap. Park East Tower is about to go up on a parking lot? apparently filling yet another gap.



The gaps are being or will be filled.



Sometimes the sensibility of a development has to do with location, location, location and other factors developers must consider. There's a reason potential buyers are circling around the American Heart Association building like vultures.



It would be nice if development could occur with universal consensus, but it doesn't always. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with desiring consensus, but lets be a little objective in the process.

steve wrote: Not sure exactly what you mean by this. In most cases, developers DO plop down on other people's property, at least after they purchase it.

You kind of reiterated my point, steve. If a developer buys land or property from another entity, they can basically do what they want within city code.



Overall, I think criticizing developers without knowing all of the circumstances of their development is premature.

I agree with Arch. I'd really love to see the lot at Lindell and Kingshighway be developed, but as long as who ever owns it now, owns it, there's not much that can be done. I think we should be excited that Opus is looking to build a second tower before the first has even broken ground, and that they're willing to invest so much into acquiring the land. That much in itself is a good sign. As the price of the land around these empty lots go up, it will make more sense financially for the owners to sell them than to keep them for parking revenue (which is what the Kingshighway/Lindell lot is, I believe)

I wonder if perhaps that lot is owned by Barnes Jewish, or the Children's Hospital. They seem to always be expanding, they might be holding onto that lot as a possible expansion site in the future....

I think Koplar owns that lot.

Arch City-- I'm wondering if you can visualize the surface lots that I'm talking about here: a TRIPLE lot at Lindell & Kingshighway across from the Chase, and the DOUBLE lot at Lindell & Euclid, just east of Kindred Hospital. Both are SUBSTANTIALLY larger than the lot that the MetroLofts are now situated upon. Any lay person can see that. The MetroLofts take up only the space once occupied by the Boulevard Apartments-- not a huge space (btw, I like that project and have no prob with it).



I know that Sam Koplar has been sitting on the Lindell/Kingshwy lot forever, ever since the Ambassador Hotel burned down in the early '60s. A twin-tower mixed-use development was planned on the site in the mid-'80s, but the development firm went bankrupt before plans were finalized. I have a rendering of what was to be constructed at home. I know there has been interest in that site for some time now, and it's a shame that Koplar is waiting for an unreasonable offer.



The Lindell/Euclid site is a terrible eyesore that breaks up the neighborhood's cohesion. I think it is owned by Kindred Hospital and they don't want to give up their ridiculously large parking lot that is NEVER full (I live less than one block away). Housing and commercial development must go on that lot! As of now it feels like the CWE is divided-- CWE North and CWE South. Filling in that lot could really reunite the neighborhood.



It just seems like the parking needs of these parcels' owners could be met with new developments.

This is great news about another possible tower. I am now an employee of Opus. I got the job and will be working out of their mpls office. The cwe is so untapped. There hasn't been a decent development project in the cwe in like 20 years yet it is consistently regarded as the coolest neighborhood in the metro. The future is bright.

Congrats Arch! Opus seems like a good firm. They should do more stuff in St. Louis.



And Jive, I don't think the lot on Kingshighway & Lindell or Lindell & Euclid are substantially larger than where the Metro Lofts sit. The Metro Lofts buildings are huge and built on a big linear parcel. I've parked on the Lindell & Euclid lot numerous times too.



I really don't want to get into a protracted debate with you, because ideally you make good points, but you are still missing the point. If Koplar or any other owner buys a property or lot, as long as he's paying taxes on it he or she can sit on it until cows turn into crows.



We may not like it, but that's the reality. It's his perogative to sell when or use it how he wants within city code.



I think the CWE is developing pretty nicely.

Arch City wrote:I really don't want to get into a protracted debate with you, because ideally you make good points, but you are still missing the point. If Koplar or any other owner buys a property or lot, as long as he's paying taxes on it he or she can sit on it until cows turn into crows.



We may not like it, but that's the reality. It's his perogative to sell when or use it how he wants within city code.

^Actually that is my point, Arch City. In progressive cities, developers and land owners find a way to work together for the better of the neighborhood, and surface lots are the prime targets for development. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, the evidence is clear if you go to vibrant, desirable cities. But those surface lots in the CWE are a demonstration of the St. Louis (and a few other cities) mentality-- retroactive, not proactive. Owners sit on their properities for 30 years waiting for a deal that rarely comes, while opportunities to make the neighborhood more complete pass by.



As a licensed real estate agent (not practicing), I am aware of all the ownership and property rights. I guess my frustration is with the mentality of land owners in this town. It is very frustrating to see wasted potential. Leaders and property owners in thriving cities think outside the box, and while St. Louis is slowly catching on, it will not reach its full potential as long as surface parking lots remain the prominent feature of some of the most valuable real estate parcels in the city. That is not a sign of an urban community that "gets it."

I think the city and developers are getting it, Jive. If not, why would new developments be proposed for four vacant lots in the CWE? Doctor's Building property (Mills Properties), City parking lot (Opus), Euclid and Delmar (Roberts Brothers Properties), and 4545 Lindell (Conrad). You do seem to be pulling things out of your ass.



If you are such a proponent of organic development, why don't you just allow it to be? I honestly feel that your overtones are digs at developers because you are still angry over the Century's demolition.



And how or when was potential "wasted" when there hasn't been a desire to build a new major residential community or tower by any developer in 20-25 years in the CWE? Other cities build on lots when interest necessitates. Although I am not a realtor or developer, I've seen this with my own eyes in Houston. Potential would be wasted if Koplar had a reasonable prospective buyer and he still didn't sell.



Even David Jump sold his properties downtown; which indicates if there was never more an example, property owners will sell for the good of the city and their bottom line too.



A couple of things, can you explain Chicago's proactive approach to not building the Trump International Hotel and Tower?Chicago on parking lots in The Loop a stone's throw from the vibrant Magnificent Mile? Was that progressive? And can you name the city and development where a consortium of developers got together to build on vacant lots for the good of the city?

Arch City wrote:And can you name the city and development where a consortium of developers got together to build on vacant lots for the good of the city?

I'm guessing you are referring to Gaslight Square?



Good points Arch.

Yeah, I was going to get to that eventually, but I wanted to see what specific development and city he was talking about outside of St. Louis.