30% of U.S. office buildings, valued at $1.1T, are obsolete

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

You're correct that Downtown Detroit is absolutely killing it, and Downtown Cleveland, while not the most vibrant city core, is still making huge strides and seeing a lot of new development.

I spent four days in Cleveland before Easter (for work) and downtown, while hardly booming, seemed in decent-ish shape. Certainly 100x better than STL. No abandoned stuff, everything along Euclid converted to apartments (not sure if this is an unabashedly good thing), and obviously that big new tower going up on Public Square. And the Flats seem sorta back.

The streets were pretty empty, most of the time and there were a fair amount of homeless. But it wasn't a scary environment, for those used to cities.

I'd say downtown Detroit has passed Cleveland, but Cleveland overall is still a better urban environment. STL seems to have a particularly grim set of challenges.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

From the WSJ article:



A building losing 98% of its value in less than 20 years is about more than just the pandemic. That is absolutely bonkers.

There has got to be more to the story here.

Wikipedia says the 38 year old office tower in question has 1.4M SF, which means a sale price of $4M pegs the cost PSF at only $2.85.

That is full-blown absurdity land for a modern office tower in the heart of a major US city.

Something has got to be seriously fucked up and wrong with this building for it to essentially have a value of zero.

Was it built out of pure asbestos or something?

[3rd&Brown]

I've never been to St Louis but it's my impression as an outsider that locals abandoned St Louis in favor of Clayton years ago. It doesn't help that Missouri continues to drift further and further to the right, and I assume locally, it might be the case that St Louis is met with a collective Go F Yourself attitude when it needs funding or advocacy at the state level.

In any case, of the cities I've been to since the start of the pandemic, the downtown that was the deadest (by far) that I've stayed in was Indy. At one point I walked to 4 different Starbucks that had popped up on Google maps in walking distance to my hotel and every single one of them was closed. As in, lights out fixtures removed closed.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

There has got to be more to the story here.

Wikipedia says the 38 year old office tower in question has 1.4M SF, which means a sale price of $4M pegs the cost PSF at only $2.85.

That is full-blown absurdity land for a modern office tower in the heart of a major US city.

It's actually worse than that. It sold for $3.5 million.

The $4 million sale was a previous sale, a few years ago. $3.5 million is around the same price someone paid for a 1,700 sq. ft. condo conversion on the other end of our block.

For all practical purposes, that tower is worthless. It was relatively recently vacated, so it can't be in horrible shape. It looks like it was a very nice office tower. Something is seriously wrong here, going far beyond pandemic.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by LAsam

The Real Estate Nightmare Unfolding in Downtown St. Louis

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/comm...9aes2uj17plg1j

My issue with this article is that its focusing buildings in a specific section of downtown St. Louis that were vacant even prior to Covid. The author then, at the tail end of his article no less, gives a quick shoutout to the parts of downtown that have actually seen new development and conversion without much more information.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

There has got to be more to the story here.

Wikipedia says the 38 year old office tower in question has 1.4M SF, which means a sale price of $4M pegs the cost PSF at only $2.85.

That is full-blown absurdity land for a modern office tower in the heart of a major US city.

Something has got to be seriously fucked up and wrong with this building for it to essentially have a value of zero.

Was it built out of pure asbestos or something?

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's actually worse than that. It sold for $3.5 million.

The $4 million sale was a previous sale, a few years ago. $3.5 million is around the same price someone paid for a 1,700 sq. ft. condo conversion on the other end of our block.

For all practical purposes, that tower is worthless. It was relatively recently vacated, so it can't be in horrible shape. It looks like it was a very nice office tower. Something is seriously wrong here, going far beyond pandemic.

AT&T retained control of the detached parking garage that was formerly connected to 909 Chestnut via skybridges. The skybridges have since been demolished.

Getting people to commute to downtown St. Louis to an office building that now has almost zero onsite parking is a problem. The building also sold again earlier this year after the previous developer's plans and financing fell through.

[Wigs]

In Buffalo,
the 38 storey, 529 foot tall HSBC tower (née Marine Midland Bank tower) was purchased for $85 million.

Wikipedia

Then when HSBC and other tenants vacated it the value dropped tremendously. It was purchased by DC based developer Doug Jemal for $12 million, who has since put $100M plus into it. Apparently the building cost $50 million in 1969 dollars (finished in 1972) which is the equivalent of $425 million today.

The ~1.2M sq ft tower has been transformed into the mixed use Seneca One tower (with ~115 apartments on the lower annex floors), and with M&T Bank spending $58M on their "tech hub" in the building. Highmark (formerly Blue Cross Blue Shield) of Western NY is moving into the building as well.

Wikipedia

Many people didn't like the terra cotta and gun metal paint job at first, but most have been won over. A visible symbol of Buffalo's resurgence.
• Video Link

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I spent four days in Cleveland before Easter (for work) and downtown, while hardly booming, seemed in decent-ish shape. Certainly 100x better than STL. No abandoned stuff, everything along Euclid converted to apartments (not sure if this is an unabashedly good thing), and obviously that big new tower going up on Public Square. And the Flats seem sorta back.

The streets were pretty empty, most of the time and there were a fair amount of homeless. But it wasn't a scary environment, for those used to cities.

I'd say downtown Detroit has passed Cleveland, but Cleveland overall is still a better urban environment. STL seems to have a particularly grim set of challenges.

St. Louis redevelopment hasn't followed the same trajectory as Detroit and Cleveland. Downtown St. Louis almost always feels like an afterthought, whereas it's the primary star in both Detroit and Cleveland.

St. Louis has put much of its focus in its neighborhoods. To a certain extent that's paid off in a different, less obvious way. Let's look at home values, for example. According to the Census Bureau, the median value of owner occupied housing in Detroit is $66.7k, it's $87.4k in Cleveland, and $174.1k in St. Louis.

We traded stabilizing neighborhoods instead of stabilizing downtown as a whole. It becomes even more obvious as downtown Clayton and the Central West End continue to expand their number of highrises whereas downtown St. Louis has nothing concrete on the table.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You obviously don't have kids, or interests outside of the office.

WFH and hybrid work are the best thing for families since forever. It doesn't work for all industries, but it's generally huge for efficiency and workforce retention. We have a superstar colleague who we retained soley due to family-friendly policies that allow some degree of remote work (she has young twins).

Go ahead and start your own company, with no worker-friendly options, and see how your recruitment fares. You'll have practically no women, for starters.

Okay, and? Is this something anyone should actually care about?

[pip]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

People "working from home" are mostly laying on the couch watching youtube podcasts about depressing subjects and occasionally checking their laptops to see if they need to respond to something.

A walk around most CBD's is depressing. There are hundreds of people living in buildings where people used to work, but they don't seem to ever go outside other than to maybe walk their dog. Many of the buildings have parking garages, meaning they're able to slither in and out of the CBD without showing their faces on the sidewalks.

Can you source that claim?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by pip

Can you source that claim?

Oh please. You need a STUDY to show you the absolutely obvious and staring you in the face facts of the matter? Most of the upper class with these “decent” work from home jobs have become lazy, incompetent, and usurious.

[pip]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Oh please. You need a STUDY to show you the absolutely obvious and staring you in the face facts of the matter? Most of the upper class with these “decent” work from home jobs have become lazy, incompetent, and usurious.

So no source then still.

You say there are facts that support that claim. What are the facts that support that claim?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by pip

So no source then still.

You say there are facts that support that claim. What are the facts that support that claim?

Sounds like you’re one of the lazy people. Go find the source material yourself.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Oh please. You need a STUDY to show you the absolutely obvious and staring you in the face facts of the matter? Most of the upper class with these “decent” work from home jobs have become lazy, incompetent, and usurious.

Except that is not obviously true or factual. Quite the contrary--it seems to be based entirely on feelings. If you and jmecklenborg want us to accept as true your controversial claims about the world that we all share, then you must back them up with something substantial. Disdain isn't substantial.

[pip]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Sounds like you’re one of the lazy people. Go find the source material yourself.

Make a claim, don't provide a backup and when asked, you say go find it. Ok.....

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Okay, and? Is this something anyone should actually care about?

Uh, putting aside the Civil Rights Act, if I'm hiring for a firm, I wouldn't want to automatically exclude 52% of the population and gift all that talent to my competition. That doesn't sound very smart.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Uh, putting aside the Civil Rights Act.

How would a company stipulating that a position requires 100% in-office presence violate the civil rights act?

Literally millions of jobs require 100% on-site presence.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

How would a company stipulating that a position requires 100% in-office presence violate the civil rights act?

I thought he was asking why it was a problem to exclude women from job hiring.

If an industry generally has flexible work practices, and one of the genders has overwhelming preference for such flexibility, it would be really freaking idiotic to exclude one of the genders.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by craigs

Except that is not obviously true or factual. Quite the contrary--it seems to be based entirely on feelings. If you and jmecklenborg want us to accept as true your controversial claims about the world that we all share, then you must back them up with something substantial. Disdain isn't substantial.

jmecklenborg among other forumers often just says what he feels instead of having facts to back up claims. That's a real problem in 2024 America.

As one forumer often used to say: anecdotes are not data

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If an industry generally has flexible work practices, and one of the genders has overwhelming preference for such flexibility, it would be really freaking idiotic to exclude one of the genders.

I wouldn't know if it's smart or not.

Just saying that there is nothing illegal about requiring 100% on-site presence for a job, ANY job.

And "talent" is ridiculously overstated for the vast majority of jobs. My job doesn't require "talent", just hard work.

My boss doesn't give two shits about the gender of his employees, he just wants butts in seats drafting their asses off every workday.

If there are zero women architects in Chicagoland who will commit to a 100% in-office schedule like that, I can assure you that my boss does. not. care. though he does have the luxury of hiring in a very male-dominated profession to begin with, so......