There's been some chatter of a 12-13 story apartment tower replacing the Optimist International Building at 4494 Lindell Blvd. @ Taylor. I think sltgasm first mentioned this after attending a neighborhood meeting on the Lawrence Group's proposal for 4100 & 4108 Lindell.

Park Central's form-based code calls for this lot to be limited to 12 stories. There's a preliminary proposal published by Park Central, which is here. According to the document it would be 12-13 stories with 200 apartments averaging 800 sq.ft. which would be built as apartments, but with an eye to possibly, eventually selling them off as condos. The first two floors would be structured parking with 300 spaces. This size and number of apartments is comparable to the Opus proposal for Lindell & Euclid, one block west (12 stories, 217 apartments), although it appears this proposal wouldn't include any retail.

The way I see it there are two key factors: 1) The design 2) The demolition of the Optimist International Building

The Opus proposal got push-back because it's on a premier, high profile corner, and the design received a great deal of scrutiny while the demotion of the Heart Association Building went unmentioned. I think for this proposal any resistance would come less from NIMBY's and more from preservationists. That said, unlike the San Luis which was replaced by a parking lot, or the AAA building which was threatened by a CVS, a 12 story, 200 apartment tower seems like more of a step forward and therefore potentially deserving of less preservationist resistance. Also, this seems like the perfect type of development to benefit from and contribute to a future streetcar corridor.

^I'd support a design without office or retail. Taylor is not a retail corridor, that stretch of Lindell has no retail, and the 13 story building next door and 15 story building cattty-corner have no retail (although 4501 has some office space). I think the benefit of increased density is sufficient to justify the project without forcing it to be mixed use. Perhaps, similar to the West Pine Lofts, they could design the ground-floor with an eye to future adaptive reuse as retail. But for now, with retail struggling the way it is, I think a satisfactory design of 10 floors of residential on top of 2 floors of parking would be just fine.

I think the developer said that they wanted to build across the street on the parking lot but the basilica was not interested in selling. I really think we should implement some sort of heavy fee on single use parking structures and even more on surface lots in high density areas.

wabash wrote:The Opus proposal got push-back because it's on a premier, high profile corner, and the design received a great deal of scrutiny while the demotion of the Heart Association Building went unmentioned. I think for this proposal any resistance would come less from NIMBY's and more from preservationists. That said, unlike the San Luis which was replaced by a parking lot, or the AAA building which was threatened by a CVS, a 12 story, 200 apartment tower seems like more of a step forward and therefore potentially deserving of less preservationist resistance. Also, this seems like the perfect type of development to benefit from and contribute to a future streetcar corridor.

Meanwhile, down the street, they're tearing down another building for parking. Hopefully the streetcar will spur some kind of development there, too...

And yeah, the Basilica lot is an eyesore. They should be willing to compromise. Let some developers put up a high-rise with extra parking that they would be allowed to use.

flipz wrote:I think the developer said that they wanted to build across the street on the parking lot but the basilica was not interested in selling. I really think we should implement some sort of heavy fee on single use parking structures and even more on surface lots in high density areas.

I've often thought about a scenario like this. The city could establish "parking abatement districts" in high-density areas and within a certain distance of all MetroLink stations to tax surface lots and single-use garages. This would be especially useful for the Basilica lot, since it would allow the city to back the archdiocese into a corner. What are they going to do, move the Basilica?

normally I would agree with that statement above, but there is no precedent for retail at the base of apartment towers along Lindell as well as high-rises on west pine. Retail should certainly be encouraged and required along Euclid but there is none between Taylor and Newstead. I also think a height restriction in this area is absurd. Taller is better!

and why they/religious organizations get tax exemptions is beyond me...

The city could argue that the parking lot on that parcel doesn't fall under that exception because it's not used exclusively for religious worship

some news and cool rendering
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... d4e21.html

seanmcelligott644 wrote:some news and cool rendering
http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... d4e21.html

14 stories, ~200 apartments

It will be interesting to see how the Park Central Development Corp. responds to a 14 story proposal. The form-based code calls for a maximum height of 12 stories. The OPUS project at Lindell & Euclid (having previously gone through a bruising battle with NIMBYs) strictly adhered to that requirement. It's also noteworthy that on this block are towers of 22, 16, and 13 stories.

I like it. A lot.

It would of course be better were it built on a lot without a building on it already, and I am a fan of MCM design. Still, this is a definite plus for the neighborhood. If you're going to lose a good building, replace it with a great one. Honestly believe, given what I can make out from the renderings, that this could be a great one if built as proposed.

-RBB

^ my only design complaint is the vertical white slats on the front facade. looks too busy, IMHO. i'd also add one of those projecting, white-framed porches somewhere in the lower left corner to balance out the composition.