Bohemian Hill Mixed Use Development/ Georgian Square

MattnSTL · PostAug 12, 2007#4512007-08-12T04:18+00:00

The renderings appear improved, but still could be better.

BTW, the piece of equipment is a cold planer, used for grinding asphalt. likely has nothing to do with construction on the shopping center.

shimmy · PostAug 12, 2007#4522007-08-12T04:55+00:00

Renderings look good. Its not perfect for us urbanists, but I think its a small victory and a step in the right direction.

markofucity · PostAug 12, 2007#4532007-08-12T17:00+00:00

interesting - another starbucks (they're putting one on Broadway as well). and a question - are the buildings on the far left IN PLACE OF residential buildings currently on site?

trent · PostAug 12, 2007#4542007-08-12T17:34+00:00

Can never have enough coffee.

I'll hold comment on the renderings until I see a site plan. But I just don't understand this cities reluctance to put a grocery store up to the street, with parking behind. The rest of the rendering looks good, but there's no site plan there, so it's hard to tell.

jeff · PostAug 12, 2007#4552007-08-12T17:36+00:00

I must say that I feel A LOT better about this project after seeing these renderings. As mentioned earlier, they're not perfect, but they're a lot better than what they might have been. Looks like they'll have retail facing the street including the Walgreens, a restaurant, and another unknown retailer.

The grocery store being set back is a compromise, but if everything else is up to the sidewalk, I'd be happy.

watcher · PostAug 12, 2007#4562007-08-12T18:10+00:00

It appears the building surround the parking lot and the fence becomes a sight barrier. This is much better that the original site plan and much more urban in design.

I wonder if Koman or Gilded Age provided the renderings. My vote, Koman. They are involved in a similar project in Wildwood AND Gilded Age is inept.

soulardd · PostAug 12, 2007#4572007-08-12T22:54+00:00

markofucity wrote:interesting - another starbucks (they're putting one on Broadway as well). and a question - are the buildings on the far left IN PLACE OF residential buildings currently on site?

The buildings on the far left would not be replacing existing housing. There is a weird strip of decayed concrete/grass between 13th and 14th streets on the South side of Lafayette that would maybe be just wide enough for a single row of buildings. As things are now though, those buildings would be interesting because both sides would have street frontage, the East side would front 13th and the West side would front 14th. I think that'd be really cool. We'll see what actually happens, though.

jmedwick · PostAug 13, 2007#4582007-08-13T01:00+00:00

While it is hard to tell much about the design without seeing a site plan, one important point:

From the rendering, it appears that the low wall is used to buffer the parking lot from Lafayette. Yet the wall also seems to have only one break in it, in the middle, and no breaks on the eastern and western ends where the sidewalk fronting the retail buildings that face onto the parking lot should/would intersect the sidewalk along Lafayette. This is a big problem as the placement of the major sidewalk entry in the middle of the parking lot is not pedestrian friendly. Such poorly placed walls and sidewalks can reduce pedestrian traffic to and from the development. The pedestrian connections into the site should be located on the easter and western ends where the sidewalks for the retail buildings that face onto the parking

Also it does not appear that 14th continues south of Lafayette, another potential improvement.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 13, 2007#4592007-08-13T14:22+00:00

I don't think we can tell too much from th renderings other than that they are better. There doesn't appear to be a car entrance along the front of the development - we're assuming this is the north side right? Anyway, a Walgreen's, grocery store and a Starbuck's suddenly makes living in the Georgian 100x's more attractive.

markofucity · PostAug 13, 2007#4602007-08-13T14:26+00:00

if the buildings on the left are new buildings then I have to say I like it so far .... wonder what in the hell they will be .....

tge-atw · PostAug 13, 2007#4612007-08-13T15:43+00:00

I'm trying to remember the details, but somebody just got brownfield tax credits to redevelop that old gas station (weird grassy patch) between 12th and 14th. I expect that those buildings in the rederings are just hypothetical versions of a development on the site.

Edit: 1805 S.Tucker recieved $15,000 from the StateEnvironmental Improvement and Energy ResourcesAuthority toward cleaning up the site, a former gas station. The recipient, the Red Brick Community Land Trust, will collaborate with Soulard YouthBuild in the renovation of two existing buildings (one dubbed "The Toad") adjacent to the vacant lot. Red Brick also plans to integrate three new houses, off-street parking and green space within the site. All housing will be affordable.

trent · PostAug 13, 2007#4622007-08-13T18:27+00:00

I can't tell, but that structure in the middle of the wall resembles a bus stop, but I think it's an entrance.

MattnSTL · PostAug 13, 2007#4632007-08-13T18:29+00:00

^I think you may be right.

soulardd · PostAug 14, 2007#4642007-08-14T02:51+00:00

^If that's a pedestrian entrance, then are you suggesting that's not a huge parking lot behind the wall? I don't see any auto entrances. Maybe that's a garage to the far right? Maybe this rendering is intentionally cryptic.

Anyone else notice the lack of huge, tacky, suburban signage? Is that usually left out of renderings? I'd hate to see a big ugly lit up sign out front.

matt · PostAug 14, 2007#4652007-08-14T14:00+00:00

Much improved design but if there's something I absolutely despise, it's parking lots. So much can be creatively and easily done to soften them up. I don't know of any good examples in St. Louis. Maybe this one will be a leader?

Expat · PostAug 14, 2007#4662007-08-14T14:55+00:00

Renderings can be misleading, so I will hold my final judgement. But, this certainly looks like an improvement. I will be glad when land is valuable enough to put parking on top of or under grocery stores instead of front or back. If it is truly as handsome as this rendering implies, I wouldn't mind having this in my neighborhood.

trent · PostAug 14, 2007#4672007-08-14T18:55+00:00

I believe there is in fact a parking lot behind the wall. If you look closely, you can see what looks to be cars, behind the wall. They apparently plan on putting a lot of trees in the lot as well. I'm guess it's Starbucks on the far left, and then something else, with a Walgreens, and then the City Grocery on the right.

I still want to see a site plan.

matt · PostAug 17, 2007#4682007-08-17T20:46+00:00

Rothchild has one of his blighted building now listed for $93K. It's at 1719 S. Tucker.

soulardd · PostAug 25, 2007#4692007-08-25T22:36+00:00

The empty lot at the Southwest corner of Lafayette and Tucker is for sale as well. Anyone have any theories?

arch city · PostAug 26, 2007#4702007-08-26T02:35+00:00

http://komanproperties.com/05162007/Geo ... Square.pdf

framer · PostAug 26, 2007#4712007-08-26T03:31+00:00

Well now, that's darned curious! What the heck's going on here?

Buildings G through P look great. Might even be worth losing the existing ones. Maybe.

soulardd · PostAug 26, 2007#4722007-08-26T03:45+00:00

Wow. Look at the height of N in the rendering. Building G-P would be the best part of the development. I really hope this happens.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 26, 2007#4732007-08-26T04:04+00:00

Look like just about all of "Phase II" is three stories. I don't know how anyone can say that this isn't a better use of land that what is there now. So why can't they put "Phase II" where "Phase I" is shown and put "Phase 1" to the north of the Georgian along Park? It's not as if people are going to be driving along 55 and spot this place and exit. If it was north it would be easier to access for people in Laf Sq. and downtown.

marmar · PostAug 26, 2007#4742007-08-26T07:25+00:00

I don't like the big parking lot in front of the big store off Lafayette. Why can't the lot be in back, or better yet UNDER it...making it more pedestrian freindly thus allowing more room for residential? This could be wonderful if they put a little more thought into it, IMO.

Aside from that point, the rendering looks great...for new construction/infill.

matt drops the h · PostAug 26, 2007#4752007-08-26T07:36+00:00

If there would be any local businesses involved in this, I'd be less hesistant. And while it's not the worst site plan St. Louis has seen (don't worry, Southtown, you still win!), it's got a lot of problems.

With the loss of all the great architecture for businesses you could find anywhere, I'd put this in the loss column. If I were still in St. Louis, I'd be protesting still. I will email with my thoughts at the very least.

If I were in the neighborhood, I would be researching the Foodland site still. Is there any way? Please?

Bohemian Hill Mixed Use Development/ Georgian Square

Choose Display Mode