This is probably a generous use of the word, but I'm...stunned (?) at how much better this looks than the last proposal, IMO. Having said that, I sure hope it's not Lux.
^It looks like a Hoefer Welker design, which has become Lux's architect of choice. Crestwood, Maryland Heights, Katz, PortKC, and Freight House were all designed by Hoefer, and this follows the style.
Craft Alliance would be torn down. Facade seems to be a rebuild or "facadism" sort of thing.
U City's parking min is one spot per bedroom. Waaaaay too many for this.
Wow- what an improvement on the sad rendering below
And that first view shows a trolley
Ha
Lots of windows, sidewalk activation. I don’t see a curb cut (hope parking entry would be from the alley)
And that first view shows a trolley
Ha
Lots of windows, sidewalk activation. I don’t see a curb cut (hope parking entry would be from the alley)
Still says "Assessor Update Pending." I'm surprised WUSTL would sell to Lux.
6640 Delmar Sold 2022-06-04.jpgIf they quit putting in amenities that sound cool but are very hard/expensive to keep up, it would be a start. I do hope they can get it together soon.chriss752 wrote: ↑Aug 19, 2022Posted in my Facebook Group, so I don't have too many details but supposedly LuxLiving is taking over the project. This is hilarious considering I recommended the site to Vic last year and he said he wouldn't pursue it because someone else was and the parking requirements were difficult to work with. Yet here we are.
I don't mind how it looks, but I'm opposed to them doing anything else until they address the shitshow at their company, the deferred maintenance issues, and that Ely Walker lofts fiasco. Quality over quantity needs to be the focus for them because at this point, the sheet of issues they have is quite long and utterly shameful.
299787833_10166156843420618_4624473424168257517_n.jpg
This will feature 300 apartments (133 studios, 134 one-bedroom, and 33 two-bedroom), 512-604 parking spaces (that's the requirement), and 10,000sf-20,000sf of retail and restaurant space.
The whole building is 500,000sf but 208,000sf of that is dedicated to parking garage usages. The parking entrance is apparently on Loop South Street. Parking is also two levels below-grade and two levels above-grade (4-story garage) across the entirety of the site. Maximum building height is 88ft tall.
So a significant increase in density (at 152 units per acre) but it came at a massive cost (huge parking garage that'll seldom be used).
The whole building is 500,000sf but 208,000sf of that is dedicated to parking garage usages. The parking entrance is apparently on Loop South Street. Parking is also two levels below-grade and two levels above-grade (4-story garage) across the entirety of the site. Maximum building height is 88ft tall.
So a significant increase in density (at 152 units per acre) but it came at a massive cost (huge parking garage that'll seldom be used).
U CIty's parking mins are ridiculous! So many will go empty. Where are the environmentalists in U City?
^They’re ridiculous from an environmental standpoint as well as economical. You could probably get away with doing 300 parking spaces here (1:1 ratio) and still not have all of them used. Most residents here will likely not have a car anyways. I don’t know how much extra money Lux is spending on just parking here and at McKenzie, or how much more the developer of the Avenir will spending, but it’s certainly just burning money.
And if they’re not backing the cost of parking, then tax payers are, which is money burned.
And if they’re not backing the cost of parking, then tax payers are, which is money burned.
McKenzie and Avenir got tax abatements, IIRC. The rule of thumb is $20-25k per space, more for underground.
How do they figure the requirement? I thought it was 1 per bedroom, here that would be 333, plus some for the retail.
How do they figure the requirement? I thought it was 1 per bedroom, here that would be 333, plus some for the retail.
I’ll post the table they provided when I get back to my computer. It might clear up some things, but it seems ridiculous. The number of variables being considered is excessive and I don’t know if U-City requested that or Lux just went ahead and did it.
Multi-fam
Restaurants, bars, and taverns
Retail stores, retail specialty shops, grocery, and service establishments not elsewhere specified in this Section
267 x 1.5 + 33x 2 + 5 + 14 = 4861.5 spaces for each dwelling unit, except that 2 spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit containing 2 or more bedrooms; plus visitor parking for dwellings with 6 or more dwelling units, at the rate of 1 parking space for each 6 dwelling units or fraction thereof for the first 30 dwelling units and 1 space for each additional 20 dwelling units
Restaurants, bars, and taverns
10,000/75 = 1341 space for each 75 square feet of gross floor area (GFA)
Retail stores, retail specialty shops, grocery, and service establishments not elsewhere specified in this Section
10,000/200 = 501 space for each 200 square feet of floor area
More or less that’s it, just it shows the numbers throughout the day
Bicycle parking
Residential
300/4=75
plus 1 per 5 vehicle parking spaces for the commercial space
Residential
| Number of Dwelling Units | Minimum Required Number of Bicycle Parking Racks |
| Eight (8) units or less | Zero (0) |
| More than eight (8) units | One (1) per four (4) dwelling units |
plus 1 per 5 vehicle parking spaces for the commercial space
^ Forgive my ignorance, but what would the minimum required parking spaces be if this was just a few blocks east in the City?
Others probably know the answer better, but I imagine there's no parking minimum considering how much the NIMBYs freaked out over the OPUS project at Skinker and Delmar for not having enough parking for those pesky, transient, WashU student residents.EssTeeEll wrote: ↑Aug 30, 2022^ Forgive my ignorance, but what would the minimum required parking spaces be if this was just a few blocks east in the City?
If there is a minimum, I imagine it's 1:1. So this would have 300 spaces under the scenario.
^ Oh yeah, somehow I blocked that out of my mind. Lol. That was frustrating to see unfold, but hey at least we have a nice lot to look at for the foreseeable future. In that case, it probably wouldn't matter then and they'd need about the same amount of spots to appease the locals.
…say you are an environmentalist in u city (with maybe a touch of a libertarian streak that makes you think you should let the market decide) - is there an effective way to advocate for dropping (or even reducing) parking minimums? I get that it wouldn’t impact this project, but -big picture- I understand the ways that dropping parking requirements can encourage development and drop housing costs. I hadn’t realized how massive u city’s requirements were before this project. Any advice?
Talk to your councilmembers (you have two). Talk to fellow U City environmentalists, urbanists, affordable housing advocates, libertarians, property rights advocates, freedom lovers, etc. Build a coalition for reform. Not easy, I know.
It's also not too late for this project. It can get a variance. The absurdity of its parking mandate is a great chance to make a stink over the regs in general. A building of mostly students in a walkable place obviously shouldn't have this much. I'm not sure which, if any, U City hearings it might have. If it meets zoning (does it? height?), and they don't seek incentives.
The Loop is Core COmmercial which has a height limit of 35 feet, if I'm reading right.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/view ... 64,38.6725
It's also not too late for this project. It can get a variance. The absurdity of its parking mandate is a great chance to make a stink over the regs in general. A building of mostly students in a walkable place obviously shouldn't have this much. I'm not sure which, if any, U City hearings it might have. If it meets zoning (does it? height?), and they don't seek incentives.
The Loop is Core COmmercial which has a height limit of 35 feet, if I'm reading right.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/view ... 64,38.6725
This new proposal looks great to me. I for one am thrilled that we missed that big brown turd that Opus tried to drop on us; man, that thing was ugly!
It's minimum one per dwelling unit for residential except in FPSE where it's a max of one per dwelling unit. I don't recall what the CWE FBC has. In the CBD there is no parking min in zoning, but I think other mechanisms come into play if there's controversy over how much parking a place is providing. And as DB frequently pints out, the financiers may require an amount of parking whether there is a gov't mandate or not.EssTeeEll wrote: ↑Aug 30, 2022^ Forgive my ignorance, but what would the minimum required parking spaces be if this was just a few blocks east in the City?
The draft FBC for Delmar and DeBaliviere removed parking mandates. I don't know yet if that's still the case. There is a meeting in Sept about it. The Opus project needed a variance for parking amount, height, and one more thing maybe density of dwelling units.
For commercial it depends on the use. Here's a subset-
A.
Retail stores within floor area of more than 3,000 square feet shall provide parking space sufficient to accommodate one motor car for each 700 square feet of floor area in excess of 3,000 square feet which is actually used for the selling of merchandise.
B.
Banks and office buildings with floor area of more than 7,500 square feet shall provide parking space sufficient to accommodate one motor car for each 1,250 square feet of floor area in excess of 7,500 square feet which is actually used for banking purposes or for offices.
C.
Restaurants, bars, taverns, and exhibition halls with more than 1,000 square feet of floor area shall provide parking space sufficient to accommodate one motor car for each 200 square feet of floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet which is actually used by patrons or customers for such purposes.