urbanSTL

I would stand up for them by saying that all brick homes just might cost too much, but the article says they want to bring back middle and upper class families to north st. louis. I hate to say it, but I don't see many upper class families leaving clayton and ladue to move into "bosley estates" where the homes have vinyl siding on 3 sides. If people are ever going to get over the stigma that N. St. Louis has, they'll have to be forced to with some special development. I'm pretty sure this isn't it.

SoulardD wrote:I would stand up for them by saying that all brick homes just might cost too much, but the article says they want to bring back middle and upper class families to north st. louis. I hate to say it, but I don't see many upper class families leaving clayton and ladue to move into "bosley estates" where the homes have vinyl siding on 3 sides. If people are ever going to get over the stigma that N. St. Louis has, they'll have to be forced to with some special development. I'm pretty sure this isn't it.

Exactly.

Oh i don't know guys. How many of you have seen some good pictures of the north side and its old housing stock from when they were built? Here i am talking no trees and some pretty bland looking all brick houses. How about some before and after pictures of the ballyhooed Levittown. What makes any house distinctive is what the owners do to make the houses unique. Trees and age will do wonders (as will a few shutters or a front porch) for these houses. But first you gotta give time for the owners to move in and make their mark. All in all I say its a soild first effort at adding people to an area thats loosing people.

JMedwick wrote:All in all I say its a soild first effort at adding people to an area thats loosing people.

It is a first effort, but as I was saying if you really want to turn an area around, you have to build something that makes people take notice. Something that changes thier perception of the area. Hopefully you're right and the owners can pick up where the builders left off, I guess only time will tell.

IMO the new houses going up in Old North St. Louis look much better than this stuff. I can't really say I hate the look of this new development, but the renderings look like they won't fit in with the existing stock.



Any news if the existing housing is going to be spared or will this be like McRee town's mass demolition in the name of progress?



Throwing up new houses in North City isn't going to change anyone's opinion of the area at least locally. It's going to take incentives to get people to move in. What incentives are needed I don't know, but it will have to happen on the federal level as St. Louis isn't the only city with the depopulation/aging housing stock problem. What this area really needs is a new influx of immigrants like what happened with the Bosnians in S. City back in the 90s.

I wish it would happen in North St. Louis like it did in Lafayette Square...individuals buying houses cheap, restoring them, and then good infill guided by strict regulations. You don't see these kind of houses in LS, so why should we see it in north St. Louis? Our city is a treasure, and north St. Louis is no exception...so let's not trash it with housing that sorta kinda looks appropriate--but isn't.

Well, gotta agree with you about brick fronts being better than all vinyl, Arch City. But another thing I don't like (about McCree town and other developments)...all the houses have the brunt of their bulk parallel to the street...like suburban developments. In the city, houses are typically narrower and longer to fit the typical old city lot size. I guess they combined lots to make these houses fit in this manner (thereby decreasing density, like some of the people wanted). If people want less density, then maybe they should consider moving to the suburbs. After all, cities are about density. I wish developers would realize this, too, or the city wise up and enact some legislation.

Sorry, but the siding on McBride's Botanical Heights homes isn't vinyl, just as the siding on Whittaker's New Town St. Charles homes isn't vinyl. So actually, not all "mullet" homes in the City are using cheap vinyl siding.



I can't remember what the material is, but I think it's a concrete composite. And if so, is concrete siding really any different than concrete block, the material of choice on Chicago's "mullet" infill?

southslider wrote:Sorry, but the siding on McBride's Botanical Heights homes isn't vinyl, just as the siding on Whittaker's New Town St. Charles homes isn't vinyl. So actually, not all "mullet" homes in the City are using cheap vinyl siding.



I can't remember what the material is, but I think it's a concrete composite. And if so, is concrete siding really any different than concrete block, the material of choice on Chicago's "mullet" infill?

Yes, it looks like vinyl siding and that's all that matters. It also looks like a subdivision in Chesterfield and that's depressing.

I don't think it looks like vinyl, but rather, almost like wood siding. For one, the pieces are broader, and the materials obviously more durable. As the cost comes down, this new concrete-composite may actually replace vinyl as the material of choice, since more durable and aesthetically pleasing.



In fact, if the homes were entirely sided with this new material, I don't think as many people would mistake it for vinyl. In other words, it only looks inferior when next brick. But if only doing brick fronts, it's still better than vinyl. And I only prefer concrete block sides when the homes start getting less than ten feet apart (as in new Chicago construction), but at that point, you almost might as well go attached.

In reguards to vinyl, it was made as a cheap substitute for wood, aka frame, homes. Whether its vinyl, concrete, cast iron or real wood, if it looks like wood (frame) siding, it still looks cheap with brick fronts, IMO, and STILL doesn't fit the character of St. Louis...oh, I know, there are old frame homes in the city...but the classic St. Louis neighborhood is BRICK. And I don't buy the "diverse" argument as far as wood (or vinyl, or whatever) goes.

As for the 10 feet or less between houses, that's called a "gangway", which also used to be very common in St. Louis homes that were close together. Take a good look around Soulard next time you're there.

Question: If they're making concrete siding to look like wood, then why the hell can't they make it look like brick? I would MUCH prefer that on the sides.

This is completely ugly, and a complete was of space, the houses are too far apart.





I agree, rehab the houses in North St. Louis, and do not build suburban style homes. I do not understand why community groups and aldemen would support these houses in St. Louis. This kind of sh*t is not acceptable in Dogtown, then, why in North St. Louis? Eventhough the area is run down, some of it can be salvaged as in McRee Town.

This project has stalled, with only four houses completed and three left incomplete. One of the unfinished houses never had siding or face brick applied, so all four sides show weathered OSB board exposed to the elements. Wouldn't want to buy that house now after such prolonged exposure.



St. Louis Patina has an image of the row of Bosley Estates houses here:

http://stlouispatina.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ed-to.html

^

Unbelieveable.