4490-4494 Lindell (Optimist Int. Bldg)

PeterXCV · PostSep 30, 2021#3262021-09-30T17:06+00:00

^There's actually a provision in the form based code allowing buildings up to 250 feet on the south side of Lindell.

Personally I feel pretty apathetic about this project. I think if the CRO selected 25 mid century modern buildings to preserve it's worth taking into serious consideration tearing one of them down. While it would've been nice to have more apartments in the Central West End, this building was just 7 stories which is shorter than most of the apartment buildings on Lindell around there (or behind it, the Hawthorne is 16 stories) and Lux Living is shady.

It seems like most of the NIMBYs were upset about tearing down the optimist building than the height, I have no idea if that concept rendering is economical but hopefully something can be worked out.

Laife Fulk · PostSep 30, 2021#3272021-09-30T17:12+00:00

JJ Rivera wrote: ↑
Sep 30, 2021
STL is the only city that lets NIMBYs kills valuable projects when in need of revenue and population growth! That building has no value whatsoever!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn’t even remotely true. Every big city has projects like this that get killed by NIMBYs. The amount of skyscrapers that have been scrapped in Chicago alone for similar reasons would be enough to create a world class skyline.

dbInSouthCity · PostSep 30, 2021#3282021-09-30T17:15+00:00

NIMBYs killed a Amazon HQ2 in NYC.

JJ Rivera · PostSep 30, 2021#3292021-09-30T17:23+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:NIMBYs killed a Amazon HQ2 in NYC.

Huge HQs can create huge problems when they leave cities! That was actually smart! That building from what I read has been seating there for sale for years 8 if not mistaken! Should we preserve certain building as they create a city’s personality yes! Should we save a building that doesn’t generate any revenue, its super hard to sell and no one wants? Nope! I’ve noticed Saint Louisans are either far left or far right (economics not politics) and that’s why it doesn’t grow! We can’t be choosers in a city that has lost population for the past 60 years. Just saying!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Laife Fulk · PostSep 30, 2021#3302021-09-30T17:27+00:00

Not sure that anyone is disagreeing with your main points here regarding this specific project. Only that your previous statement about only STL having NIMBYs is false.

JJ Rivera · PostSep 30, 2021#3312021-09-30T17:29+00:00

Laife Fulk wrote:Not sure that anyone is disagreeing with your main points here regarding this specific project. Only that your previous statement about only STL having NIMBYs is false.

Of course STL is not the only city! But for its population I’ve noticed how a lot of people wants to be choosers when we’re not at that level yet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wabash · PostSep 30, 2021#3322021-09-30T17:45+00:00

JJ Rivera wrote: ↑
Sep 30, 2021
Laife Fulk wrote:Not sure that anyone is disagreeing with your main points here regarding this specific project. Only that your previous statement about only STL having NIMBYs is false.
Of course STL is not the only city! But for its population I’ve noticed how a lot of people wants to be choosers when we’re not at that level yet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's good to see people being engaged and feeling protective (to an extent) of their neighborhood. Pride and participation is what you want. You just hope people are reasonable and open to striking a balance between preservation and efficient land use. Just because the entire city's population isn't growing (the Central West End is experiencing double-digit growth) doesn't mean residents should give up on trying to achieve the best outcome for their neighborhood.

St. Louis definitely needs to encourage density and development where it can. So that efficient land use, and the associated tax benefits, can help sustain services while other parts of the city are emptying out.

JJ Rivera · PostSep 30, 2021#3332021-09-30T17:47+00:00

wabash wrote:
JJ Rivera wrote: ↑
Sep 30, 2021
Laife Fulk wrote:Not sure that anyone is disagreeing with your main points here regarding this specific project. Only that your previous statement about only STL having NIMBYs is false.
Of course STL is not the only city! But for its population I’ve noticed how a lot of people wants to be choosers when we’re not at that level yet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's good to see people being engaged and feeling protective (to an extent) of their neighborhood. Pride and participation is what you want. You just hope people are reasonable and open to striking a balance between preservation and efficient land use. Just because the entire city's population isn't growing (the Central West End is experiencing double-digit growth) doesn't mean residents should give up on trying to achieve the best outcome for their neighborhood.

St. Louis definitely needs to encourage density and development where it can. So that efficient land use, and the associated tax benefits, can help sustain services while other parts of the city are emptying out.

You said it better than I did! Lol… But that’s what I meant!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gone corporate · PostSep 30, 2021#3342021-09-30T19:47+00:00

Noting that it would be quite expensive to redevelop the current Optimists International Building into current building standards (asbestos remediation, etc.), I would think that the owners would further their arguments towards sale, demo, and redevelopment if they could demonstrate just how out of date and expensive the current building is. That would greatly further the conversation , both in and outside of the neighborhood, towards how realistic it is or is not to rehab the current building, as well as for discussing or even just pragmatically considering potential future land usage opportunities.

Or: If the building's too expensive a liability for the Optimists to keep anymore, can they say that out loud as we're considering the pros and cons of demo?

Glad to see the development conversations are continuing here. Looking forward to fresh ideas for the site.

wabash · PostSep 30, 2021#3352021-09-30T20:30+00:00

gone corporate wrote: ↑
Sep 30, 2021
Or: If the building's too expensive a liability for the Optimists to keep anymore, can they say that out loud as we're considering the pros and cons of demo?

From the article posted above: "Optimist International, a more than 100-year-old children's charity, put its longtime headquarters on the market in 2020, citing costly maintenance and a smaller staff."

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 · PostOct 01, 2021#3362021-10-01T21:17+00:00

I though AMZ HQ2 was killed for giving subsidies to one of the largest, most profitable companies in the world, not true nimbyism.

I have to admit this site is not best representation of mid century in my book, and while I loathed the ADofSTL's demo of the San Luis (particularly egregious for the parking lot), for this one I have no heart strings tugged on. For the Preservation board to take a stand on this is...interesting. I do not mind that their rendering indicates that 16 - 17 floors would be their preference. I don't see Lux, given their record and preferred design/build methods to deviate and dive into mid rise construction. I call DOA.

chriss752 · PostOct 03, 2021#3372021-10-03T01:25+00:00

I had the chance to review the early concept plans for version 2 of this project. It needs a lot of work to be viable and good looking, but the architects are experienced and know what they're doing. I think the public will see what this looks like by the end of the year. Three options were presented with one option looking crazy. The other two were better, so one of those two will be chosen and run with.

jshank83 · PostOct 03, 2021#3382021-10-03T04:05+00:00

chriss752 wrote: ↑
Oct 03, 2021
I had the chance to review the early concept plans for version 2 of this project. It needs a lot of work to be viable and good looking, but the architects are experienced and know what they're doing. I think the public will see what this looks like by the end of the year. Three options were presented with one option looking crazy. The other two were better, so one of those two will be chosen and run with.

But maybe it’s good crazy….?

chriss752 · PostOct 03, 2021#3392021-10-03T05:03+00:00

jshank83 wrote: ↑
Oct 03, 2021
chriss752 wrote: ↑
Oct 03, 2021
I had the chance to review the early concept plans for version 2 of this project. It needs a lot of work to be viable and good looking, but the architects are experienced and know what they're doing. I think the public will see what this looks like by the end of the year. Three options were presented with one option looking crazy. The other two were better, so one of those two will be chosen and run with.
But maybe it’s good crazy….?

The crazy design was just that, crazy. While I give the architects credit for being creative, I feel like that option would've upset people more than the original proposal for various reasons.

PostOct 29, 2021#3402021-10-29T23:54+00:00

chriss752 wrote: ↑
Oct 03, 2021
I had the chance to review the early concept plans for version 2 of this project. It needs a lot of work to be viable and good looking, but the architects are experienced and know what they're doing. I think the public will see what this looks like by the end of the year. Three options were presented with one option looking crazy. The other two were better, so one of those two will be chosen and run with.

With the new design coming out in a few days, I will say that the design has advanced to the point where it looks good. Some things still need to be tweaked, but I think the proposal will be liked by many. I've been impressed by the hard work that the new architect has put into it, but it makes sense once you go with one of the big boys.

PostNov 01, 2021#3412021-11-01T17:26+00:00

Here is the new design.

It takes into consideration the corner structure and the new proposal is just 3 units less than the previous proposal. HOK worked hard on this proposal and it'll be interesting to see how far it gets.

Also of note...

This plan will not seek tax incentives (same as the last plan).
This plan includes 6, walk-up style units on Taylor Avenue.
The windows in the pavilion structure are slightly larger than they are currently. This is to allow more natural light into the building but preserves the look very well.
Neighbor meetings are scheduled for November 3rd at 6PM and November 10th at 5PM at the Optimist building. All are welcome.

Renderings...

tztag · PostNov 01, 2021#3422021-11-01T17:31+00:00

Winner! I love it, bravo!

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 · PostNov 01, 2021#3432021-11-01T17:31+00:00

Nice. HOK was able to translate Optimist intent into the design while keeping Lux's construction and materials methodology.

I'll be interested to see how far this goes as well. For my 2 cents, I wish it had gone taller and bolder with less mimicry.

quincunx · PostNov 01, 2021#3442021-11-01T17:33+00:00

A whole new building?
Is the developer still Lux Living?

chriss752 · PostNov 01, 2021#3452021-11-01T17:40+00:00

quincunx wrote: ↑
Nov 01, 2021
A whole new building?
Is the developer still Lux Living?

Yes. Still Lux.

The corner structure is to be saved. However, in the event the building collapses during construction, it'll be rebuilt 100% the way it was.

pattimagee · PostNov 01, 2021#3462021-11-01T17:51+00:00

Those walkouts on the top floor are a pretty nice touch.

framer · PostNov 01, 2021#3472021-11-01T18:51+00:00

Thumbs up.

sc4mayor · PostNov 01, 2021#3482021-11-01T20:45+00:00

This is fantastic. Can’t wait to see this one get going!

rbeedee · PostNov 01, 2021#3492021-11-01T21:56+00:00

Are they planning to seek incentives now, or do they think they can still make it work without incentives?

MattnSTL · PostNov 01, 2021#3502021-11-01T23:57+00:00

^The info today says no incentives being sought.

4490-4494 Lindell (Optimist Int. Bldg)

Choose Display Mode