Again as we learned in the 1900 Olive debacle, a demo permit may be issued by the building division and then go to CRO.
Staging equipment on site may be a way to foster a sense of inevitability, a sign of owner ignorance that there's more red tape, or optimism that it'll be approved quickly.
- 991
I'm not going to give them any credit as to thinking through staging equipment to create any perceptions of inevitability. But your other two hypothesis make a ton of logical sense.
Lux has a dumpster on Kingshighway. I don't think they or Grove properties are ignorant of preservation review.
Agreed. There's already one yawning stretch of vacant lot- 4215-4239 Arco - that was demo'd for an unapproved proposal. No need for another.
Got it. Thanks for the info. You got the cynic in meLaife Fulk wrote: ↑Dec 11, 2021A lot were already condemned - not sure if code violations still are given if a building is boarded up? I posted this a few pages ago, but seems relevant:bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Dec 11, 2021Looks like grove properties slowly buying up those buildings as investments the last several years, on the city property records.
Probably just left to sit, never cited for code violations, waiting for them to rot to flip over to a developer for a 5+1 or something.
Fwiw, these are the condemnation records I found for the properties. All had demolition applications submitted and approved on 9/14/2021. They're not in a historic district, but they do fall within a preservation review district (per Ord 66609). Since any "demolition application in a Preservation Review District will be referred by the Building Division to the Cultural Resources Office for review" and no "demolition permit may be issued without the approval of the Office" (per CRO), either they did get reviewed and approved by CRO or someone really dropped the ball in approving them same day.
4534 Manchester - only condemnation record was from 2010, was occupancy only and was lifted at some point after issuance.
4538 Manchester - no condemnation record at all
4540 Manchester on 12/18/2018 for structural issues
4542 Manchester - empty lot owned by LRA
4544 Manchester on 1/4/19 for structural issues (fire damage)
4552 Manchester - only condemnation record was for a board up in 2010
4556 Manchester on 9/12/2017 for structural issues
I'll be curious to see how this goes. How do they not deny this given the denial of the Lux project on Kingshighway? Does Grove Properties have neighborhood and Ald support?beer city wrote: ↑Aug 12, 2022Prelim agenda - A demo request from Grove Properties buildings 4534-56 Manchester for a new mixed use multistory
New house in Soulard which is starting to have fewer and fewer vacant lots
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2-2022.pdf
- 2,419
Don't you think Grove Properties is aware of what happened with Lux and would have a different plan?
That said, absolutely nothing should be approved for demolition until financing is secured for redevelopment.
That said, absolutely nothing should be approved for demolition until financing is secured for redevelopment.
- 2,059
Really hoping we get a big one here if they hope to tear down all of these.
3-4 years ago I was talking with someone who was working on a big project that never made it past design phase at Manchester and Taylor - was supposed to be 7-8 stories I think... hoping for a nice big welcome mat into the westside of the Grove.
3-4 years ago I was talking with someone who was working on a big project that never made it past design phase at Manchester and Taylor - was supposed to be 7-8 stories I think... hoping for a nice big welcome mat into the westside of the Grove.
- 6,128
^I actually just wrote in against approval on this. The way they've sat on the properties and let them crumble reminds me all too much of what Drury did. They've not pulled a single permit on any of them since they were acquired, and most appear to have been occupied.
- 2,059
^For me, it depends on what they are replacing it with... but I definitely agree the land banking should be illegal.
Some reminder shots. These properties, like the ones on kings highway, would look stunning if given the love they deserve.
- 6,128
^I'm sure the current owners will try to go that route, but we need to put an end to this, and we can't do that by rewarding land speculators.
On the preliminary Preservation Board agenda
ADDRESS: 4534, 4538, 4540, 4544, 4552, & 4556 Manchester
ITEM: Demolish Six Residential Structures for New Construction
JURISDICTION: Preservation Review Area
NEIGHBORHOOD: Forest Park Southeast
WARD: Old Ward 17/New Ward 9
OWNER: Groveland LLC
ARCHITECT: Roman Rojas and Jeffrey McGee, Design Alliance
ADDRESS: 4534, 4538, 4540, 4544, 4552, & 4556 Manchester
ITEM: Demolish Six Residential Structures for New Construction
JURISDICTION: Preservation Review Area
NEIGHBORHOOD: Forest Park Southeast
WARD: Old Ward 17/New Ward 9
OWNER: Groveland LLC
ARCHITECT: Roman Rojas and Jeffrey McGee, Design Alliance
- 2,059
Curious how big this one will be... will it need to be substantial with 6 demos?
- 2,419
Do you allow six structures to be razed without it being pretty dang substantial?
I would hope not.
I would hope not.
Let's get this denied. Depending on the quality/size of the structure replaced I'd be open to it, but I really don't want a repeat of what Restoration STL did with Arco, tearing down the houses/apartments and then not building what they promised. If we don't even have a rendering yet, I don't think this is up to snuff.
This may be it. Found on the architect's website. Notice the brick storefront on the left.
Also, the parking solution is similar to AHM's proposal for FBD Zoning, which makes me believe this is a Manchester Ave. project.
Nice massing, and storefront retail. Build it.
Nice massing, and storefront retail. Build it.
- 2,059
Nice find and yeah the similarity is too much for this not to be it.
