urbanSTL

Greenville, South Carolina seems to have figured it out. Why can't we? Check out these pics from SSP:

The parking structure even looks kinda good... are those solar panels atop the brick pillars?

DeBaliviere wrote:Greenville, South Carolina seems to have figured it out. Why can't we?



Check out these pics from SSP:



Link

I really like this development... I'm jealous!



Sometimes I think we should have a thread for good examples of urban design like this and others. It would be a good resource.

constant change wrote:

Greenville, South Carolina seems to have figured it out. Why can't we? Check out these pics from SSP:

The parking structure even looks kinda good... are those solar panels atop the brick pillars?

I feel an obligation to mention that Greenville, SC is my home town.



Here are some pictures I've taken on my last two trips back home... http://picasaweb.google.com/dstnphllps/GreenvilleSC

I seriously don't understand our issues with smart development. It's like a disease here.

trent wrote:I seriously don't understand our issues with smart development. It's like a disease here.

It ties in to the local motto that CVC didn't use in the latest ad campaign: "At least they're doing something." Which is why we have such architectural magnificence as the Jones Dome, St. Louis Centre, the 11th Street Parking Garage, Gateway One and (fill in your favorite here).



But beware: If you dare to question the design or planning of a new development, you'll be branded as "a typical St. Louis naysayer." (Or a communist. After all, the market is all that matters, even though the vast majority of new projects in town are driven by everything but the free market.)

To me, a naysayer is one whose motto is to not even bother, to expect failure. My motto is to demand the best and most sustainable for the city. Is that a naysayer? A nitpicker, maybe, but not a naysayer.

Watcher wrote:There is a bulldozer here this morning knocking down all the trees. Depressing....

I talked to a Gilded Age representative today; the grocery store/Walgreens/Starbucks portion of the project is proceeding full steam ahead. They seem to have won; the trees that are now gone are the first step in site clearance.

Fantastic!



Such a threshold of development would ensure a legitimization of the retail market in a once depressed and later ignored retail market. Such an untapped retail market in the City makes one ponder the future buildup in retail and may provide a base for Ball Park Village and Pyramid's retail destination.



Upon recent travels through LaSalle or what once was LaSalle except a few blocks, it seems that the mixed use housing built over Darst Webbe and the Georgian or hospital complex will indeed unite Lafayette Square and Soulard into one urban fabric again.

I disagree. The new faux LaSalle Park is a barrier ("mixed use housing"????) It has an institutional, sterile feeling that is at complete odds with the personalities of Soulard and LaFayette Square. Also, it has no zoning or buildings that can accommodate the commercial uses that would generate pedestrian traffic (life) along the Lafayette corridor. The new strip mall parking lot directly across the street from the sterility of LaSalle Park has the potential to permanently destroy any chance of linking LF Square and Soulard with urban, dense, pedestrian oriented uses.

I apologize if this has been posted before, but I recently found this Koman promotional brochure and thought I'd share:



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



Great picture at the bottom of the page showing the scale and location of the site.

ummm - am i crazy or does that photo mysteriously "eliminate" several of the buildings that thwy hope to tear down along Tucker?



Maybe its just the perspective.



I still stand by my old position ... no one should tear down those beautiful buildings along tucker to replace them with cheap crap of the exact same dimension. Rehab the ones that are there. Build on the vacant lots. For the love of God - I'd even be happy with just keeping the street front portions and gutting the rest

^ Yep - the brochure shows Phase II as if it's a done deal. All the homes up to Tucker are gone in their rendering. I was most surprised by the extent of the public housing that can be seen in the last photo on the second page. Good luck connecting this area to downtown, expanding the success of Lafayette Square or luring higher end retail to this area if hundreds upon hundreds of public housing units remain at your doorstep.

The PDF has an creation or upload date of 5-16-07, at least according to the URL. I think they may have just not updated the brochure. I know from a few different sources that the phase 2 will not happen as shown in that rendering, if there even is a second phase.

The last photo in the brochure underscores how low-density the near south side has become. Sad.

JMedwick wrote:You know, while the loss of the homes along Tucker would be unfortunate, the increased density proposed in Phase II is the only way I even find Phase I palatable.

I agree, and if you look at building N, I think, it looks like it's a fairly large 6 story residential building. It'd be a shame to lose the architecture of these homes, but maybe they could incorporate them somehow into phase II. I just hope we aren't left with a row of old run down homes next to the shipping docs of a big box retail center that will never be touched.

The buildings fronting Tucker must be saved. If we allow the demolition of these buildings, very few are safe in my opinion--these are gorgeous structures that will surely last another 110 years.

There are three buildings along Tucker that should really be saved - maybe more, but if they are to be taken down, it's encouraging that they would be replaced by such dense structures. While I mourn the loss of buildings such as these, I still believe that St. Louis has such an extensive stock of similar buildings that there will never be demand for their reuse. There's no reason that this project means that neighborhoods such as TGS, Shaw, etc. are in danger of being bulldozed.

You guys are right. We should just assume that that phase II drawing was not pulled out of their ass, and that that is really what they are planning. I mean, look at the great design of phase I. It has it all. National chain stores, 24 hour lighted surface parking abutting a major street. Slapdash suburban schizophrenic faux historic design elements. I think we should trust Koman all the way. Just look at the rendering for their new Farmington Crossing development. Beautiful.



taken from Arch City's new post in the outstate Missouri section

TGE-ATW wrote:You guys are right. We should just assume that that phase II drawing was not pulled out of their ass, and that that is really what they are planning. I mean, look at the great design of phase I. It has it all. National chain stores, 24 hour lighted surface parking abutting a major street. Slapdash suburban schizophrenic faux historic design elements. I think we should trust Koman all the way. Just look at the rendering for their new Farmington Crossing development. Beautiful.

[image]

taken from Arch City's new post in the outstate Missouri section

I'm not sure that the conversation is whether we should trust Koman. I think what we're talking about here is whether the homes facing Tucker should remain or if the added density of what appears to be multistory residential/retail/commercial would help the near South Side restore some of that lost density and lost activity. For the most part, I like what Gilded Age has done in Lafayette Square. Their developments have generally added density, used nice materials, etc. I hope that if phase II happens they have a hand in it. With all the property they own in this area, I think they may have the most to lose if this is screwed up. Shouldn't that be a driving force in them making sure this project is done correctly?

Build around the extant buildings. Incorporate them into a high density design. Do not destroy beautiful, functional, historic buildings and then replace them with cheap copies to be used for the same purposes. Also, if your theory about Gilded age having the most to lose if this thing isn't done "right" were true, they wouldn't have gone ahead with phase I.

/not done right

//not even close.

TGE-ATW wrote:Build around the extant buildings. Incorporate them into a high density design. Do not destroy beautiful, functional, historic buildings and then replace them with cheap copies to be used for the same purposes. Also, if your theory about Gilded age having the most to lose if this thing isn't done "right" were true, they wouldn't have gone ahead with phase I.

/not done right

//not even close.

I won't argue with you that phase I wasn't done right, if it looks like it does in the renderings. But, is it never ok to tear down three story buildings for 6 story higher density buildings? Isn't density what we're going for? Am I wrong in thinking that these homes were beautiful and functional when they were built, but after being cutoff the grid by the highway have lost their functionality and have gone to disrepair? Is it wrong to think that dense residential on top of retail/commercial would bring back some of that lost functionality and bring back some of that lost activity?

I'll play the Missouri skeptic and offer this:



Let's say these beautiful buildings are to be torn down and replaced with excellent, contemporarily designed buildings of greater density.



That may, in the long run, be a good thing, but...



They will likely not be able to garner sufficient pre-sales to justify doing anything pricy--or maybe anything at all. My guess is that they will demolish all of the properties in Bohemian Hill and replace them with suburban style commercial establishments with medium-sized setbacks, a la new Soulard strip malls.



Why? Because no one in the city--not the aldermen, not the neighborhood associations, not churches, not social clubs, not any sufficient group of residents within any particular neighborhood--demands urban design. We may go so far as to suggest it on our most radical days, but we will rarely see it through.



I can't wait to run for alderman when I get back. I just have to pick a ward now. Maybe I will try to unseat Gregali in my home ward #14 and bring some civility to Chippewa and Kingshighway.

Matt Drops The H wrote:My guess is that they will demolish all of the properties in Bohemian Hill and replace them with suburban style commercial establishments with medium-sized setbacks, a la new Soulard strip malls.

Now THAT would suck.