urbanSTL

Incorporating elements of the best public spaces (www.pps.org) could help this plan to work.



I'd like to see extensive use of plant materials and unique landscape architecture; a campus-like setting, extra wide sidewalks; no poured concrete; period lighting and light features; high-end materials and finishes, etc...



The site plan is improved but I hope the owner understands the risks.



One of the greatest risk is that of missed opportunity. As stated previously, this area presents an opportunity for something unlike anything else while involving local flair. The national retailers should be able to state that their store here is unlike anything they have any place else.

I was under the impression that Phase II (which involves the demolition of the buildings along Tucker) is no longer being considered.

I was of the impression that Phase Two is theoretical at best .... and I've stated several times that tearing down those buildings would be a crime. Like others on this forum - I don;t see why they can't be integrated into the "grand plan." Its not like they want to build something all-together different - like an office tower. They want to build new residences at pretty much the same height. Why not just rehab whats there and build on the vacant lots?

Phase two looks good, but I'd like to play around with a much better mock up of Phase One that I think most here would prefer.

SoulardD wrote:^Fine, then incorporate the newly proposed high density devlopment in with the existing buildings. But don't let those vacant buildings sit there while important neighborhoods sprout up all around them, and don't miss the opportunity for millions of dollars worth of development in the city. So we have a laundry list of things to urge the devloper to consider. The parking lot, saving the existing architecturally significant buildings, encouraging local businesses to open there, etc. How bout we start working on those rather than saying other people on this board have their head up their ass?



Right now, Bohemian Hill looks horrible. I don't want it to stay the way it is. How anyone would argue that it should look the way it looks is beyond me.

I am not saying that it should look the way it does, nor has anyone else, but I know the reason it looks the way it does: nobody in their right mind would rehab those buildings with the guillotine blade of blight and eminent domain hanging over them. The reason those buildings are run down and underutilized is because the developer and the alderwoman are still colluding to take them for Phase II (theoretical only until funding can be secured). By the way, I have worked to do all of those things on your laundry list and intend to continue to do so. I also intend to continue to observe when I believe that somebody is wearing their ass as a hat.

I agree with leaving some buildings standing and building to incorporate them. If this can't work - put "Phase II" where "Phase I" is currently shown and if it's quality, successful work maybe a second phase could be allowed.

TGE-ATW wrote:

SoulardD wrote:^Fine, then incorporate the newly proposed high density devlopment in with the existing buildings. But don't let those vacant buildings sit there while important neighborhoods sprout up all around them, and don't miss the opportunity for millions of dollars worth of development in the city. So we have a laundry list of things to urge the devloper to consider. The parking lot, saving the existing architecturally significant buildings, encouraging local businesses to open there, etc. How bout we start working on those rather than saying other people on this board have their head up their ass?



Right now, Bohemian Hill looks horrible. I don't want it to stay the way it is. How anyone would argue that it should look the way it looks is beyond me.

I am not saying that it should look the way it does, nor has anyone else, but I know the reason it looks the way it does: nobody in their right mind would rehab those buildings with the guillotine blade of blight and eminent domain hanging over them. The reason those buildings are run down and underutilized is because the developer and the alderwoman are still colluding to take them for Phase II (theoretical only until funding can be secured). By the way, I have worked to do all of those things on your laundry list and intend to continue to do so. I also intend to continue to observe when I believe that somebody is wearing their ass as a hat.

The 'guillotine blade' of blight has only been around recently. The buildings have been in their present state for decades. There's an observation it seems like you have missed.

How about this for a missed observation. They are blighted currently and have been for years as the neighborhood gets better and better around them. They were never re-developed with the boom from LF Square or Soulard because they were isolated from the historic districts, making them ineligible for the tax credits that have spurred so much of the rehabilitation among their neighbors. Now that Soulard and LF Square have fully arrived, I would guess that they could feasibly be re-developed without the use of tax credits, but are currently impeded by their designation as blighted. Why do you want these buildings torn down so badly SoulardD?

Ehh...they're ugly buildings anyway...









And to quote Borat..."...NOT!"



If that's blight worthy of demolition, then we've been transported back to 1949 and the Housing Act authorizing slum clearance has just been passed.



[BTW, image courtesy of builtstlouis.net]

check mate. Under no circumstances should a developer be allowed to clearcut these buildings for new, faux-historic condos and offices.

Oh, and also courtest of Rob Powers and builtstlouis.net, let's not forget the South African Nuaro (totally a guess at the spelling) -designed Bohemian Hill infill houses, which would, in various diverse and yet stylistically unified form, have repopulated this neighborhood's landscape...







While the corner unit could use some alterations, these infill houses blend seamlessly into Bohemian Hill and offer quite a "bohemian" style of architecture to a decidedly conservative St. Louis.[/img]

When I said the best of the buildings should be kept and integrated into the existing development, those pictures obviously represent the ones I was talking about. I don't want these buildings torn down badly, TGE. I just want better for Bohemian Hill than what's currently there. I don't want to live next to boarded up buildings and the crap they bring any longer. Guess I'm crazy.

But Soulard, that is the same justification for why the Ville neighborhood recently had 48 demolition applications! If we demolished all vacant buildings in the city, we'd take a devastating architectural hit. Historic preservation can be a form of economic development. Places like Soulard and New Orleans' French Quarter draw so many people precisely because their historic character is so preserved.



And while I am not a die-hard preservationist, I am wholly against leveling entire neighborhoods, even in cases such as this when the "neighborhood" is only a couple blocks.



For everyone's reference, here were the years of completion on the buildings in one of the blocks facing demolition:



1717 S. Tucker - 1895

1719 S. Tucker - 1895

1721 S. Tucker - 1894

1723 S. Tucker - 1894

1725 S. Tucker - 1894

1729 S. Tucker (Corner) - 1886



1211 Soulard - 1893

1215 Soulard - 1899

1217 Soulard - 1899



1724 S. 13th - 2000

1722 S. 13th - 2000

1720 S. 13th - 2000

1718 S. 13th - 1895

1716 S. 13th - 1895

1714 S. 13th - 1901

1710 S. 13th - 1913



That's just one block!

Yes, these buildings on Tucker should be saved and incorporated into the development. To be honest, the more modern buildings could go. Though I would like to see them stay, they would be replaced by similar development.



So . . . let's save this group of buildings and push for parking behind the grocery.

SoulardD, you are not crazy, I want those buildings fixed and occupied too-- I think we all do. However, I honestly think the houses that are already there are better by far than anything else that may be planned for the area. Here is a frustrating look into the future. I think that a community housing corporation or various re-habbers would be interested in the properties, but Phyllis Young refuses to unblight them, which keeps them from being a viable rehabilitation project. Meanwhile, phase I gets built leaving the homes on the western side of Bohemian Hill staring at a sh*tty blind sidewall. The homes become even less desirable and the residents give up. The owner-occupants jump ship abandoning the properties to the LRA and slumlords thus acccelerating their downward spiral. At that time, Gilded Age or the city once again goes for acquisition (now at an even lower price), grabs the land and demolishes whatever they can to make room for Phase II. But, Phase II absolutely HAS to be situated along 12th street, It can't be sandwiched between the alley behind the 12th street houses and the sidewall of Georgian Square. So, the fact that the homes were strategically never de-blighted comes back into play. The homes along 12th are either taken by eminent domain or are purchased and demolished. Phase II gets built. Ta Da!. The only way to prevent this is to rescind the blight. I am convinced that that would open the door to a revival of the Bohemian Hill properties. But, the blight won't be rescinded because Alderwoman Young and Gilded Age are working together. Make no mistake. They will take those houses and level them unless enough of her constituents make preservation a priority.

Matt Drops The H wrote:
For everyone's reference, here were the years of completion on the buildings in one of the blocks facing demolition:



1717 S. Tucker - 1895

1719 S. Tucker - 1895

1721 S. Tucker - 1894

1723 S. Tucker - 1894

1725 S. Tucker - 1894

1729 S. Tucker (Corner) - 1886



1211 Soulard - 1893

1215 Soulard - 1899

1217 Soulard - 1899



1724 S. 13th - 2000

1722 S. 13th - 2000

1720 S. 13th - 2000

1718 S. 13th - 1895

1716 S. 13th - 1895

1714 S. 13th - 1901

1710 S. 13th - 1913



That's just one block!

For further clarification: There are six buildings facing 13th. Three are historic, three are modern. There are five buildings facing Tucker. All are historic structures. I believe there are two buildings on Soulard. These structures constitute all buildings in the path of "Phase II".

I know I'm alone here - but I really hate those modern additions to the area. But we can all agree - those old homes along Tucker must stay.

Just let them start the construction on phase I. If this is indeed such a desirable spot, project then the nature of the free market will determine the fate of those houses. If the project is successful, the best use would probably infill housing.



The renderings and site plans are mere speculation at this time. No one will commit to design.

ONLY in St. Louis would buildings such as these be torn down in 2007!! W.t,F!? Those could be in Cambridge/Boston, New York or Philly, but no, in St. Louis, we'd prefer a faux historic Brentwood Forest in one of our most architecturally significant neighborhoods. hey, a Starbucks AND a Panera?!?! wow, now that's progress!! Let's bring Ballwin to the City! Hello, 1947.

I actually agree with JCity, this is ridiculous.

Shimmy wrote:I actually agree with JCity, this is ridiculous.

And I second that.

Third. And I like the newer stuff, because it's different. Mixing architecture in a neighborhood just makes it more unique and fun. I'd love for Phase II to include some more modern looking structures as well and some of the faux historic stuff.

I agree with JCity, too. In many cities, these buildings would be put under glass and treated like rare gems. St. Louis is too quick to squander its gems.

I haven't been following this closely lately, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but does anyone know when Phyllis Young is up for re-election?



It seems to me like there would certainly be some residents in the ward willing to run for public office that also recognize the importance of balancing redevelopment with preservation of our city's architectural heritage, since Alderwoman Young apparently doesn't get it.

The challenge is that the properties in the photo along Tucker are privately owned. The area is a redevelopment area and is not an historic district. This means that the owners can do whatever they want with them.



I think the greatest opposition to their preservation and enhancement (even minimal buidling code enforcement) is coming from the owners. This has been the condition for more than 20 years.



An argument could be made that the city contributed to the condition by designating the area for redevelopment. If it would have been made part of the historic district across the street, it would be a very different game.



The only means to force the hand of the private market (ownership), at this stage is through redevelopment and eminent domain. I don't think even if it was attempted, you could make the case for historic district designation.



I emphatize with recent homebuyers (owner-occupants) who were not aware that they were buying houses in a redevelopment area and not an historic district. We should support them in the future, should it become necessary, to get top market value for their home. I think there around 6 owner-occupants in the area.