Share
407
Full MemberFull Member
407

PostFeb 15, 2006#26

I hadn't seen this development for a while so drove by it this morning. After seeing the (mostly) complete Phase 1 I still hold that this is a good development. It has already spurred rehabbing in nearby areas.



However, I noticed a few things that bugged me. The streets throughout Phase 1 are terrible. You would think McBride would have done something about this. They are one huge pothole. Another thing is that the alleys are not very nice. Are these permenant or just temporary?



I also noticed on my driveby, that there is an highway underpass on the west end of the development that looks like it has been blocked off for many years. I think the street is caled Thurmon, but I may be wrong. Are there any plans to reopen this street in the future? It seems like it would provide the area better access to the Shaw area.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostFeb 15, 2006#27

Thanks for bringing it up. I will bet they blocked off Thurman back in the day to protect Shaw from what was the wrong side of the highway. Certainly they should open it.



Regarding the streets? Aren't they city owned streets & alleys and the responsibility of the city? Even so, it seems like the developer could have done some improvements.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostFeb 15, 2006#28

The streets and alleys will be paved as construction wraps up. You don't exactly want construction vehicles traversing newly paved streets.



Really, my only complaints with the development are the excessive green space and cul-de-sac streets. Besides, the developer could have made more money with more homes, where the green space and cul-de-sacs cut take up lost lots.
407
Full MemberFull Member
407

PostFeb 15, 2006#29

Southsider, I was hoping that was the case with new pavment. I agree with you on that Cul-De-Sac. I am not against them as a whole, but their was no reason to put one in this project. In McBride's defense, this was their first urban project though. As for green space, I guess it was just a marketing point for the subdivision.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 15, 2006#30

Subdivisions do not belong in St. Louis, and I actually was astonished, yesterday, I drove down hampton to the hardware store past murdoch, next to the cigar store. Then I drove up a few streets, and back onto Hampton. I could not believe these 50's style houses! They have driveways! I did not know this kind of suburban development was built in the city before. I am not saying these houses are bad, but I did not expect this.
407
Full MemberFull Member
407

PostFeb 16, 2006#31

Most cities have a diverse housing stock. Many homes in St. Louis Hills have driveways. Not all of the City of St. Louis has to be an urban corridor. What makes a subdivision? I used the world to describe Botanical Heights, but in the truest sense that is probably incorrent. Botanical Heights is a neighborhood. Same goes for the homes off Hampton.



I would wager that many people prefer those kinds of homes with driveways. If they wish to live in the City and choose such a residence to reside in, good for them. What's wrong with that?
479
Full MemberFull Member
479

PostFeb 16, 2006#32

It's hard to hold anyone to any standards when everyone knows wholesale clearance is on the way.
79
New MemberNew Member
79

PostFeb 16, 2006#33

The city shouldn't offer every choice. We are a city, if you want a suburban home move to the suburbs. St. Louis Hills is a more suburban like section of the city and that is because when it was built that area was open country and farms, it is what the area could support. McRee Towne (Botanical Heighs) is close to the city center and was built on land that once held a higher density. That area could support a higher density, and the city should have required it. St. Louis is the center of the region and it should use its land to its highest and best use. That is why the city shouldn't offer any more suburban style homes. We can do better, and to do any less would be a disservice to the citizens of St. Louis and its history.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostFeb 17, 2006#34

Every neighborhood in St. Louis was originaly built as a subdivision. Every neighborhood in St. Louis was (originaly) developed on what was open country and farms. When McRee Town was originaly built, it was on the western edge of the St. Louis area, just as West County subdivisions are today. The city eventually filled in around it, and now the area feels very urban.



I just don't think of this development as "suburban". Actually, it looks to me just like much of the South Side. Large family homes on large lots with backyards and alleys etc. Give it some time; I bet it will grow on you.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 17, 2006#35

Grow on me, maybe, I don't know. My initial reaction was one of disgust, however, over time, this might change.
2
New MemberNew Member
2

PostMar 01, 2006#36

The new Botanical Heights development is going along fine. I am in the process of building a home out there. It's close to the central west end, the downtown area and all of the highways. I'm excited about it.
480
Full MemberFull Member
480

PostMar 01, 2006#37

Everyone talks about how the city needs diverse housing stock, then when these are built people complain that they're not like all the other housing in the city. That just doesn't make sense to me. I'd be opposed to blatantly suburban housing, but you have to admit that these are at least a little more city than homes going up in the suburbs. If we want the city to come back we have to draw people. People have different preferences and need different options. Also, it's not like there was a line of developers waiting to build dense projects on this land.
2
New MemberNew Member
2

PostMar 01, 2006#38

SoulardD wrote:Everyone talks about how the city needs diverse housing stock, then when these are built people complain that they're not like all the other housing in the city. That just doesn't make sense to me. I'd be opposed to blatantly suburban housing, but you have to admit that these are at least a little more city than homes going up in the suburbs. If we want the city to come back we have to draw people. People have different preferences and need different options. Also, it's not like there was a line of developers waiting to build dense projects on this land.


You're right about that....these have more of a city feel to it. Plus you have to be a visionary and see the big picture. In 5 to 10 years, that area will be a major player in real estate location.
6,660
AdministratorAdministrator
6,660

PostMar 01, 2006#39

That's why this development is so dissapointing and such a loss for the city. For such a great location we got a low density development with only marginal designs. A suburban developer in the city is still a suburban developer until he learns what makes a good urban development. In this case, McBride only did half their homework.
26
New MemberNew Member
26

PostMar 02, 2006#40

I ride past these places everyday....I don't mind low density, but I do mind the lack of brick / any semblance of an urban aesthetic.
508
Senior MemberSenior Member
508

PostMar 02, 2006#41

SoulardD wrote: Also, it's not like there was a line of developers waiting to build dense projects on this land.


I agree with this, in 5-10 years building a high quality urban development on land like this may be more a part of the St. Louis "development culture", but in the recent past it just hasn't been. We need to take baby steps here in St. Louis - first show people there is a market for new city housing, then move on to the higher design.



I'd encourage people to look at the project from a land use perspective as opposed to the design of the individual buildings. The point is that new homes and homeowners are coming in to stabilize a neighborhood that was in decline, that's why I see this development in a positive light.
119
Junior MemberJunior Member
119

PostMar 02, 2006#42

^ Well said, stl555!
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostMar 02, 2006#43

As I've had time to digest the idea of Botanical Heights and see the finished product, I've been able to accept the appearance of the homes. I do have two problems with this development though - 1) I would prefer that the houses were built closer together and 2) I would have rather seen detached garages.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMar 02, 2006#44

The "City Series" homes on the middle blocks of the development sit on narrower lots and have detached garages. I think too many of the drive-by critics here are judging the full development by those bigger and attached garage homes (albeit still alley-oriented) most visible from I-44. Take a drive sometime down the internal streets as it may change your impression.



In the suburbs, developers usually place higher density units as a buffer from highways and commercial. But in Botanical Heights, the most suburban of the homes are the ironic I-44 "buffer." As you move away from the highway, you transition into the denser narrow-lot, detached garage City Series homes, and even attached townhomes. While the townhomes are the cheapest units, the City Series homes on narrower lots cost more than the more suburban homes closest to I-44.
79
New MemberNew Member
79

PostMar 02, 2006#45

For all the arguments about design and style, let's not kid ourselves that this revitalized the neighborhood. It destroyed an existing neighborhood and replaced it with another. That is not revitalization; it is urban clearance 1950's style. Revitalizing a neighborhood is not so much about buildings, but people.
508
Senior MemberSenior Member
508

PostMar 02, 2006#46

^ as the old neighborhood was not replaced with a highway, large public housing blocks, or open green space, I would disagree that this was urban clearance 1950's style. I actually think the new houses and residents will contribute to the stability of not only this neighborhood, but surrounding areas as well.
79
New MemberNew Member
79

PostMar 02, 2006#47

How is it any different? While the style of construction may be different, the underlying concept is the same. They are trying to repair the land without helping the people that were there before. Urban Renewal took place across the country and took many different forms. In St. Louis we had highways and superblocks, but we also had lower density housing that was built in the form of Laclede town. The land that it sat on was cleared in the late 1950's through the 1960's (Mill Creek Valley). We have been clearing neighborhoods on a large scale since the 1940's, and while what has been built has changed over time, the fundamental misconception is still in place, and that is the idea that you can fix a neighborhood by clearing it. You aren't fixing the neighborhood or revitalizing it, you are simply trying to brush away the problems of urban life without ever truly dealing with the problems. That is why this project is no different than any "slum" clearance that has gone on in this country.
480
Full MemberFull Member
480

PostMar 02, 2006#48

laboubet wrote:Revitalizing a neighborhood is not so much about buildings, but people.


If this is your argument, laboubet, then you totally concede our point. No PEOPLE would want to live in the neighborhood the way it stood before this development. (As evidenced by the vacant, falling down shells of what used to be homes) Now PEOPLE have bought the second phase out before construction even began.
79
New MemberNew Member
79

PostMar 02, 2006#49

People were living there. So is it OK for the city to tell people you're not good enough to live here?
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMar 02, 2006#50

McRee could have seen homes more like Salisbury Park, making them more affordable, but then, some posters would be likely criticizing their design, instead of the displacement. Besides, the townhomes are affordable, but haven't been selling. Phase Two, which is entirely single-family, was completely sold before construction even started on the first home.



The Garden District Commission did retain records of where former residents of acquired property moved, as they were required to provide moving assistance. Such assistance included finding comparable apartments within the City, including the same ZIP code. However, the most popular ZIP code for McRee Town residents ended up being 63118.



I remember this detail as reported by George Robnett, former GDC Director to surrounding neighborhoods. The Garden District comprises the Shaw, Tiffany, Southwest Garden and McRee Town neighborhoods. In other words, surrounding neighborhoods had a voice in demolishing McRee Town.
Read more posts (117 remaining)
Share