urbanSTL

I don't know if you necessarily need architectural standards. That might hinder creativity (the little there is). Maybe some sort of board that approves each design so that new buildings provide some sort of improvement to the aesthetic of the neighborhood.

I think you really just need more form-based code like the CWE has done. That'll go a long way in getting new projects to be built in a way that improves the walkability/conjestion of a neighborhood (not really sure how to describe what I mean).

I think you at least have to get credit for one very big item done right, they put the residential units facing the street and parking to the freeway/I-64 for this particular area. Is things nearly as good as the original proposal? no. Would I rather have Bruce Mills CWE/Euclid Ave development be subject to form base and this development be subpar but going forward? yes.

St. Louis with its population density, demographics and current growth can and should be flexible on where it should go with individual developments as it relates to coding/zoning/design. In other words, I believe the city is coming out ahead in the region as the desireable place to build multi residential units for a host of reasons including the varied building stock as well as neighborhoods you can build in. In the long run, A combination of continued CWE/Midtown/Downtown form base developement (Bruce Mills proposal on Euclid), continued dowtown loft development (Arcade) and a combination of more flexibility in coding/zoning/design for neighborhoods north of Delmar and south of I64/Hwy 40 such as FPSE, Dogtown (Highlands) will help the city stablize and maybe grow its population/demographics.

Took a look and the nicest looking part is that old building in the middle. They will also have to rehab a lot of the houses across the street if they plan on charging high end prices. There were a couple of houses being rehabbed but plenty more in bad shape.






As you can see, there is a lot of vinyl siding.

Fifteen years is being very generous. They will never be able to rent O'Fallon cookie-cutter units at those prices. People who have the money and want to live in the city are not looking for this type of development.

This is a perfect example of a developer not understanding their "market" or "demographic". The apartments looks tacky at best and would rent out for maybe $700 for a two bedroom in a middle income St. Louis suburb. How they expect to rent these for over $1000 in an "up and coming" neighborhood, with the already established CWE across the street, is beyond me. This looks like a developer money grab that will eventually blow up in their face or at least not yield the returns they thought it would....SAD!

Craptastic.

roger wyoming II wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:I think I've said this before, but I'll predict that with the growing medical center and CORTEX, that these will be successful. And that will be a problem as the takeaway will be that they're designed well. They're not.

Right.... it is a no-win situation. If it succeeds, the message will be "this is what the market wants" and lead to more; if it fails it will be "the area isn't ready for new construction yet."

It's my understanding that this really isn't a situation where the developer is attempting to build "what the market wants." Instead, it's a situation where the market cannot currently generate the rents at this location that are required to support the higher costs of better design and/or materials.

Good design does not have to cost more. Out of the box thinking can keep you budget neutral.

#SoManyGables

[quote="Alex Ihnen
That's just nuts. Have you seen the rents they're asking? There is literally Section 8/subsidized housing in St. Louis that looks better.[/quote]


The reason this looks like it does is about culture of the developer and the close relationship they have with the architect they have been using for 2 decades.

It looks 90's suburban but per square foot costs are probably comparable to more hip construction, once again it is about culture as much as cost.

Bottom line - if someone has made good money doing something a certain bland way they are comfortable with, you are going to have a hell of a time convincing them that they are wrong and their product is inferior. every indicator that is important to them is in the black.

beer city wrote:Bottom line - if someone has made good money doing something a certain bland way they are comfortable with, you are going to have a hell of a time convincing them that they are wrong and their product is inferior. every indicator that is important to them is in the black.

Good point. I think this would be just as relevant over on the BPV thread.

Alex Ihnen wrote:

sshoe wrote: It's my understanding that this really isn't a situation where the developer is attempting to build "what the market wants." Instead, it's a situation where the market cannot currently generate the rents at this location that are required to support the higher costs of better design and/or materials.

That's just nuts. Have you seen the rents they're asking? There is literally Section 8/subsidized housing in St. Louis that looks better.

True, but Section 8 and subsidized housing often receives millions in LIHTC and other government subsidies that help pay for the additional construction costs. And in the case of the LIHTC, the higher the construction costs, the larger the eligibility basis is going to be for the tax credits.

I agree that the quality of new construction is disappointing, but we get cheap looking stuff because the cost of living here is cheap. I would love to replicate the new construction that occurs in Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, etc., but their average rents are 30% to 50% higher than in STL. Their median home values are typically above $200K (at least they were), while ours is $140K. This is a downside to affordability.

onecity wrote:When you compare like-for-like with Minneapolis, in terms of schools, proximity to amenities, upkeep of the neighborhood, etc, STL in my opinion is somewhat pricier than the TC. A very large part of that city is on par with the nicer parts of UC/Clayton, TGS, Utah Pl, RH, Kwood, and WG. But IMO you pay a bit more for it, on average here due to its relative scarcity. I don't mean the bones of the buildings, but the whole picture - is I think cheaper there. We just have a lot more shabby to scary areas with poor to nonexistent amenities both in the city and the surrounding suburbs that really drag down the average and mislead the conversation on cost of living.

The point being: if you build something that is appreciably better than you'd find elsewhere and the amenities stack up, STL can support the higher prices because it already does wherever applicable.

First off, on average, TC is significantly more expensive (avg. rent of $954 in TC vs. $696 in STL). STL's top market (Clayton/Mid-County) had average rents of $843, while the avg. rent in their top market is about $1,100. So average or neighborhood specific, it's far cheaper here.

Second, you're right that in certain locations, higher prices can be supported. But it's arguable on whether or not this is a site that can support higher prices. I think we can all agree that a decent example of new quality rental construction is the Metro Lofts at FPWY and Euclid. But it has a superior location to Aventura, so it was able to underwrite higher construction costs with rents that would support it. Same will probably be said for Citywalk on Euclid.

I certainly agree that this project could have been better, but there seems to be this notion around STL that we can't get better quality new construction because "developer's believe this is what the market wants" or "we have bad architects," etc. I think this is a misnomer and the bigger issue is economics and market constraints.