urbanSTL

What I've been working on recently

^So, it's clearly on DeBaliviere, but...what is it?

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Apr 04, 2021

^So, it's clearly on DeBaliviere, but...what is it?

Apartments and retail. It's meant to mimic a street in Paris I lived on. Four buildings, one garage, and 340 apartments at $120 million. I have a What Should Be article in the works on NextSTL with more details. 

In other news, I'm concerned that this thread isn't always popping up in the discussion bar. When I am on my phone or not logged in, I can never find it. Anyone know why that is?

Elek.borrelli wrote:What I've been working on recently

This massing would be more than welcome on those useless park lots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Elek.borrelli wrote: ↑

Apr 04, 2021

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Apr 04, 2021

^So, it's clearly on DeBaliviere, but...what is it?

Apartments and retail. It's meant to mimic a street in Paris I lived on. Four buildings, one garage, and 340 apartments at $120 million. I have a What Should Be article in the works on NextSTL with more details. 

In other news, I'm concerned that this thread isn't always popping up in the discussion bar. When I am on my phone or not logged in, I can never find it. Anyone know why that is?

And that's all between FPP and Lindell?

I'm not sure what you mean by discussion bar, and I don't usually use it, but it shows up on the Discussion tab for me.

And btw, when are you going to take up my design challenge for a tower on a terraced podium between the Armory and Grand? Hmm?

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Apr 04, 2021

Elek.borrelli wrote: ↑

Apr 04, 2021

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Apr 04, 2021

^So, it's clearly on DeBaliviere, but...what is it?

Apartments and retail. It's meant to mimic a street in Paris I lived on. Four buildings, one garage, and 340 apartments at $120 million. I have a What Should Be article in the works on NextSTL with more details. 

In other news, I'm concerned that this thread isn't always popping up in the discussion bar. When I am on my phone or not logged in, I can never find it. Anyone know why that is?

And that's all between FPP and Lindell?

I'm not sure what you mean by discussion bar, and I don't usually use it, but it shows up on the Discussion tab for me.

And btw, when are you going to take up my design challenge for a tower on a terraced podium between the Armory and Grand? Hmm?

I'll definitely look into that tower. Sometimes I start projects then shift gears towards another. Each project is pretty hefty in the amount of time it takes. 

Yup, four 110,000 square feet buildings all between those streets. 

Nextstl - What Should Be: DeBaliviere and Lindell
By Elek

https://nextstl.com/2021/04/what-should ... d-lindell/

^I hate to say this, but those lots seem to be part of Forest Park, thus any such use would require a citywide vote to divest them. I was originally confused, as I figured Elek meant the lots on the north side of FPP. Driving through I get the impression the park goes right up to Metrolink, but looking at the G-map I could see where he was coming from. So I went to the city's parcel viewer to see who owns it and there's no listing for 250 DeBaliviere. Looking at the map it appears to be part of the park. (Even though G-maps doesn't show it.) I tried a few different variations as I figured it was possible I'd mistyped or misspelled DeBall-rav-'ere. Here's some snaps of what I saw on the address and information viewer:





It's a dang splendid idea, but I think this one is probably a non-starter. If Barnes can't get ahold of a tennis court on top of a garage they already lease I don't think we're going to get to build apartments on top of the park. (Unless maybe they belong to the park and all rent goes to supporting the park as a sort of endowment. But even that would be a hard sell, I suspect.)

I would be opposed to anything other than two large, single-family homes built on this site. Well, I suppose a two or three unit building designed to look like a single would be OK. 

Please, folks, let's not ruin this unique, historic stretch of Lindell with inappropriate uses. There's plenty of empty lots in STL to build on.   

framer wrote:I would be opposed to anything other than two large, single-family homes built on this site. Well, I suppose a two or three unit building designed to look like a single would be OK. 

Please, folks, let's not ruin this unique, historic stretch of Lindell with inappropriate uses. There's plenty of empty lots in STL to build on.   

I guess I don’t really get how a couple mixed use buildings bookending a mixed use corridor would ruin Lindell. And there are very few empty lots to build on that both sit next door to Forest Park and a Metrolink Station with access to both the Red and Blue lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Apr 12, 2021

 Looking at the map it appears to be part of the park. 

It is a part of the park. I think most everyone here, Elek is at least, that building there would require a city-wide vote.

framer wrote: ↑

Apr 12, 2021

I would be opposed to anything other than two large, single-family homes built on this site. Well, I suppose a two or three unit building designed to look like a single would be OK. 

Please, folks, let's not ruin this unique, historic stretch of Lindell with inappropriate uses. There's plenty of empty lots in STL to build on.   

I wouldn't say this is an inappropriate use per se. If this were to be a genuine proposal, I would definitely scale down the buildings (maybe have them step down like Expo). I was trying to recreate an already existing block in another city, so I didn't really consider how this would blend with the mansions other than being well landscaped in the back with few vantage points looking east or west. I appreciate the criticism as it makes me take a step back and see my concept from another POV of my own. To be honest, I was expecting more comments on the design, especially since my aim was for a more neo-brutalist feel. This concept also stems from a personal hatred of these lots, so I didn't really worry too much about the logistics of building on "park-land," though I recognized the need for a citywide vote.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Apr 12, 2021

Fun fact the houses next to these lots were built in 1967 and 1979.

The trio west of Union, built in 1978, are quite lame, IMO.

It's not really the age of a house that makes it great. But I can fully agree with you that not all the houses along that stretch of Lindell are remotely up to the site where they sit. As far as I'm concerned anything there that's less than an absolute showstopper can and should be replaced with something better, preferably adding to the density of the neighborhood. Particularly on that part of Lindell the lots are embarrassingly large and the houses, even the good ones, are set way too far back from the street. I feel like Holly Hills fronting Carondelet Park does a better job than some of those, and given the relative prominence of the two streets I find that . . . tragic. There are some absolutely spectacular showpieces through there, but there's also a lot of mediocre faux colonial and bland ranch ramblers.

Seems they would make a nice space for some future major new institutional use, with lower level connected under DeBaliviere perhaps.

Or, perhaps with the space under said institutional buildings and DeBaliviere all as one large, connected space, with a passage under the Parkway, to create a combined AV terminal with charging/storage, and the Forest Park Loop Musk-y Boring Tunnel / Metro / Delmar Trolley multimodal transit station...

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Apr 04, 2021

And btw, when are you going to take up my design challenge for a tower on a terraced podium between the Armory and Grand? Hmm?

Actual renders of this could be ready by the weekend. Hopefully, this is somewhat like what you were envisioning! Included in this concept are the planned buildings for Armory Phases II and III as well as my vision for the odd-shaped lot bound by Grand, 64, and the Market Street exit,  There are two garage entrances, one off of Grand and the other accessible via the highway exit.  These would obviously be apartments with numerous terraces and balconies. The design is meant to shield the outdoor space from the highway while providing panoramic views of the city. The building is 13-stories (4 garage and 9 residential) with the architectural height being just over 160 feet. This building would provide a much different look to midtown as seen from the south. 

^A building along those lines is going up in DUMBO right now: 
https://newyorkyimby.com/2021/05/olympia-passes-halfway-mark-at-30-front-street-in-dumbo-brooklyn.html

Some closer looks:

^ Nice touch with the infinity pool.  

wabash wrote: ↑

May 26, 2021

^A building along those lines is going up in DUMBO right now: 
https://newyorkyimby.com/2021/05/olympia-passes-halfway-mark-at-30-front-street-in-dumbo-brooklyn.html

Interesting. That is much less angular and on a much larger scale, but it incorporates a similar focus on terraces and outdoor space. In this specific design, my emphasis was on maximizing outdoor area while trying to shield some of the annoyance of the highway. In a way, I wanted to create a vertical neighborhood similar to how One Hundred described their terraces.

That's a really nice bit of work there, EB! I really love the lines and mix of private and public terraces. Should make for a good mix of different sorts of residences. Do you think a tiny bit of pedestrian targeting retail at bridge height would be useful, or is that utterly wishful thinking? (A C-store, say. That could serve commuters on the bus/train and residents of the building.)

I think this idea would be possible if MODOT got rid of the exit ramp there and allowed the land to be developed on.

^I believe the thing is carefully sited to work around the exit ramp. (Which would be why the garage is accessible via Grand and the exit.) It looks like it's wrapped in exit very much like the building across Grand. Now, how you stage construction with all that infrastructure already in place is a fiarly interesting question. But maybe it can be done without closing the ramp. All that said . . . it's a pretty stupid highway exit anyway. Does anyone even use it? I rarely if ever see traffic on it on those rare occasions I get off there by mistake. And it's convenient to nothing that I can fathom.

Anyway . . . this is my favorite of EB's renderings yet. (And EB has a great imagination.)