A new 17-unit development is proposed for the site of the old Grand Livery stable, which burned down last year.

^ I don't see anything glaringly awful about the plans shown. It looks basically like a series of five or six three-flat walk-ups (a new construction type St. Louis is seriously lacking). Just, you know, connected.

The plan shows the facade five feet closer to the sidewalk than the old lot line and reduces the side alleys to 4 ft from 10 ft. It maintains the street wall and isn't really out of scale with the rest of the street.

As far as the rear parking...yes, its space that could be used for larger construction, but it's on the alley side at least. As long as parking codes continue unamended in the City and as long as public transportation continues to be given lip service here, you'll continue to see these large surface lots happen. But really, a lot of three-flats in Chicago have alley-adjacent parking for three. So it's really not that all dissimilar that this 17-unit building would have as many.

Personally though, I'd recommend a rule that in new multi-tenant buildings, you should allow only one row of parking parallel to the rear facade and the alley, and only as many spaces as you can fit in that width. So if you're lot line is 30ft. wide, you can squeeze in 4-5 cars or thereabouts. Tenants pay more for parking privileges or park on the street. Simple.

The design is a little bland, but not offensive. Maybe the Aventura has caused me to lower my standards considerably.

Looks good to me. And I agree with Presby, a nice three-story street wall is much preferred over an open courtyard.

Presbyterian wrote:Given how broken the street wall is on that block of Juniata, I think I'd rather have a bland but reconstructed street wall than a cool design facing inward onto a grassy courtyard (and causing yet another gap in the street wall). This is the block along the Commerce Bank parking lot and Jay's International parking lot. All that asphalt has really damaged the urban fabric.

Granted... cool design and urban fabric need not be mutually exclusive. But for dense, affordable infill on this block, I'm fine with this design.

This is actually one block east of those unfortunate parking lots, which, as you correctly point out, do devastate the 3500 block of Juniata. This particular block is pretty much intact, though, except for the recently-created hole that this will be filling. I live a few blocks from here and am really pleased with 1)the speed with which this is being redeveloped, and 2)the overall design, which is really of an appropriate density for the neighborhood. It's an extremely walkable area with good transit access and this kind of density should be encouraged. Of course, we'll have to see how well it is constructed and how appropriately it is detailed, but I'll remain cautiously optimistic. It would be great to fill in the aforementioned lots in the 3500 block with this scale of building as well. Any theories on why these lots have sat vacant for so long?

I notice this lot is on the market now...I guess the owner decided not to develop them on his own?

They're offering the plans with the purchase of the lot, so I wouldn't think it had been rejected by the city