urbanSTL

davidnark-- with all due respect to the fine residents of the DeMun neighborhood, it's time to get over it. Your resistance to a new highrise there is a demonstration of the mentality that has held St. Louis back. I can appreciate the historic fabric of the neighborhood, but not everything has to be uniform. I have a real problem with the suggestion that innovative architecture detracts from the appeal of older neighborhoods. In fact, I think a combination of both old and new (tasteful new) creates a visual and contextual complement. We needn't look any further than another Midwest city that has blended the old with new beautifully (with plenty of exceptions, to be fair)-- Chicago. But these new buildings are not built because they look cool, they are built in response to demand, as is this proposed tower for DeMun. Neighborhoods should not be micromanaged, they must be allowed to evolve-- as long as that evolution is respectful of what has been there all along. I believe highrise residential buildings are necessary components of an urban landscape and new ones are a sign of a healthy housing market. For the record, I never like to see old buildings torn down, but if it's already too late, make its replacement fresh and different. It is far more disrepectful, in my opinion, to construct a lesser incarnation of what was there before.



There is NO DANGER WHATSOEVER of the DeMun neighborhood losing its historic charm. The neighborhood is chock-full of old buildings with tons of character and history. The addition of a new tower will not threaten the personality of the neighborhood, it will add to it. You said "If it were downtown or the CWE it would be one thing" but you seem to ignore the fact that there are already several highrises lining Skinker. A new highrise would not be an anomaly. It shouldn't matter that San Bonita is zoned for single family homes. There are plenty of single family homes that face no threat whatsoever. That's what variances are for. Cities must be dynamic, they must adapt to and embrace change.



I hear a lot of reasonable arguments against the tower, but I don't hear reasonable alternatives. For better or worse, you have a vacant lot there. If the neighborhood opposes changing the zoning on that street, then one can conclude that only a new single-family home will be acceptable, which will ultimately end up looking like a clapboard piece of sh*t compared to its older neighbors. The only sensible replacement would be something bold and different-- be it a highrise or an innovative contemporary mid or lowrise condo development. I'd rather see a tall new building there, which would add hundreds of new residents and increase the density to support more amenities, at the same time sending a message that we are a dynamic city on the move instead of "more of the same."



You've seen most of the infill in this city that tries to mimic the existing fabric of the neighborhood-- most of the time they are sorry reproductions of the real thing that look inherently cheaper than their neighbors. It's time to get over "fitting in with the neighborhood" all the time. Modern does not necessarily equal tasteless, and conformity doesn't necessarily equal tasteful (sometimes repros are just insulting).



Stepping off my soapbox, we are a city of old infrastructure. I wouldn't trade my old city for the world, but there is so much room for an infusion of the new. If I noticed a trend of tearing down old neighborhoods and rebuilding them from scratch, I would be in total opposition. I do not want to compromise the established grace of Saint Louis. But there isn't even a remote threat of that happening. The fact is that there is a market out there that is being ignored, and it will be the city's loss if this opportunity isn't seized.

Jivecity, with all due respect to your guns blazing approach to development, do you understand why zoning codes are in effect? They are designed to designate and control specific uses for districts in the city. Residents who have invested decades of years and/or hundreds of thousands of dollars in their single family neighborhood are justified in expecting that the neighborhood not be altered by 20-story, concrete highrises that will increase traffic and density, eliminate sunlight during half the day for dozens of residents, and create a dangerous precedent for future development. Not to mention that the proposed designed for this structure is objectivly ugly and inconsistent with the historic architecture in the area. St. Louis City has literally hundreds of lots available in parcels that are zoned for high-rise developments. These lots should be fully utilized before we go destroying the fabric of stable communities. Thankfully, a large number of folks with great political power share my views on this topic.



PS I lived in the CWE for over five years. Even though I didn't live in a high-rise structure, I was estatic over each high-rise proposal becaue they were architectural appealing and consistent with the zoning and fabrick of the neighborhood. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN DEMUN!

davidnark wrote:St. Louis City has literally hundreds of lots available in parcels that are zoned for high-rise developments. These lots should be fully utilized before we go destroying the fabric of stable communities.

But the "fabric" (only one house, actually) is already destroyed. There is a vacant lot there now. And alas, I still fail to see how a new highrise would compromise the stability of this neighborhood.

davidnark wrote:PS I lived in the CWE for over five years. Even though I didn't live in a high-rise structure, I was estatic over each high-rise proposal becaue they were architectural appealing and consistent with the zoning and fabrick of the neighborhood. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN DEMUN!

Skinker is already lined with several highrises. How is this particular proposal so inconsistent with the rest of the streetscape? I'm sure it would have a Skinker address, not San Bonita.

JivecitySTL wrote:It shouldn't matter that San Bonita is zoned for single family homes. There are plenty of single family homes that face no threat whatsoever. That's what variances are for. Cities must be dynamic, they must adapt to and embrace change.



I hear a lot of reasonable arguments against the tower, but I don't hear reasonable alternatives. For better or worse, you have a vacant lot there. If the neighborhood opposes changing the zoning on that street, then one can conclude that only a new single-family home will be acceptable, which will ultimately end up looking like a clapboard piece of sh*t compared to its older neighbors. The only sensible replacement would be something bold and different-- be it a highrise or an innovative contemporary mid or lowrise condo development. I'd rather see a tall new building there, which would add hundreds of new residents and increase the density to support more amenities, at the same time sending a message that we are a dynamic city on the move instead of "more of the same."

First, it does matter that the neighborhood was zoned single family. Nearly half the homes in the neighborhood have children. These residents moved into the neighborhood with an expecation--backed by long-standing ordinances--regarding density, architecture, and character. To be stable and successful, the city needs to preserve and embrace family-oriented neighborhoods as well as high-rise communities. Development needs to consider more than childless yuppies and wealthy empty nesters. Building high-rise towers in a neighborhood in which tens of children play outside everyday is not sound policy unless you are a greedy developer or a guns-blazing-develop-at-all-costs advocate.



Second, if you read my post above more carefully, you would have noted that the residents of the neighborhood would probably suport a low to mid-rise condo development that matched the existing architecture in the neighborhood. The residents are willing to find a compromise between a single-family home and a high-rise tower.



Third, there are NOT any high-rise condos that border the single-family neighborhood in question. All of the high-rise deveopments along Skinker border Northwood, Southwood, or Rosebury--the three streets in the neighborhood that were zoned for, and consist of, condo and apartment developments. The single family neighborhood in question is comprised of San Bonita, Alamo, and Buena Vista, which only contain single-family homes.

I did read your posts, david, and I can appreciate your position?to an extent. And granted I don?t live in the neighborhood, I am just speaking from the perspective of a passionate city resident who would like to see St. Louis get with the program so to speak. I guess I?m just a little frustrated with the conservative approach and response to development in this city. I think this town is ready for the big and bold projects that attract new blood to other cities. I am sick of everything here having to look identical to everything else around it. Where is our creativity? I think Cornerstone is one developer who can think outside the box, and quite honestly, this proposal is refreshing compared to the relatively staid design of most new construction in this city.

And granted I don?t live in the neighborhood, I am just speaking from the perspective of a passionate city resident who would like to see St. Louis get with the program so to speak. I guess I?m just a little frustrated with the conservative approach and response to development in this city.

davidnark moved into and purchased a home in his current neighborhood for a particular reason and those residents want to have those reasons upheld.



It's frightening that people here are willing to just disregard and attack people who own property in the City because those people are opposed to a development. St. Louis needs MORE people living here who own their houses. It may sound conservative, but I think it's more about these people trying their best to protect their investment and quality of life that they've grown accustomed to.



A big bold project in the middle of a family oriented neighborhood probably won't fly in a lot of places, not just STL. Go east, there are plenty of opportunites for big and bold. The CWE would welcome a project like this with open arms i bet.



Certain projects are not appropriate for certain neighborhoods. Would anybody like to see suburban style houses built in the CWE in Maryland Plaza?

First, it does matter that the neighborhood was zoned single family.

I agree, it does matter. Why would a developer even consider an area for a highrise condo that is zoned single family? IMO the developer brought this fight upon himself.

Zoning designations change like the weather in big cities.

olvidarte wrote:davidnark moved into and purchased a home in his current neighborhood for a particular reason and those residents want to have those reasons upheld."

That's perfectly valid, but it doesn't mean things can't change. Neighborhoods change all the time, especially in major cities.

olvidarte wrote:St. Louis needs MORE people living here who own their houses.

You're right. So why such an effort to stop new homeowners from entering the neighborhood en masse?

I'm going to agree with David Nark on this one. I can especially understand his concern of the "dangerous precident" once this zoning change has been allowed there is nothing stopping city hall from rezoning the next lot down and the next lot down and so on. While I am in huge favor of highrise development along Forest Park, sometimes it doesn't work. Urban development isn't just about big buildings plopping down around the landscape. While this one development will not destroy the fabrick of the neighborhood, it does start the process. Imagine if in ten - fifteen years that 6, 7, or 8 more highrises were built upon the lots of torn down houses in this neighborhood, would it's fabrick be destroyed then? Possibly. And while some may say it'd be great for 8 new highrises to be built there, the people living on San Bonita now I doubt would say that. Great cities have great neighborhoods. We don't need to undermine a great neighborhood like Demun. I've see the Condo at San Bonita and Demun and I think a similar project would work well on that lot. We can't just drop large buildings where they don't belong.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this one then. I think a highrise along Skinker-- where other highrises already exist nearby-- would fit in just fine to the neighborhood. I don't view it as being an imposing aberration like some of you do. DeMun is already a mixed-dwelling neighborhood with single families, highrises, condos and apartment buildings of all sizes. I think that mixture gives the neighborhood its character to begin with.



I personally do not think the quality of life would change dramatically for those who currently live in single-family homes in DeMun if a highrise were built on a vacant lot overlooking the park, with the exception of perhaps the homes directly next door to the new building. Even then, I think there are plenty of people out there who would pay top dollar for a home in that neighborhood even if it were next to a highrise. To me it seems like the logical next step for an urban neighborhood growing in popularity. All this talk about setting precedents and what will become of the neighborhood seems like a lot of hype. I believe people had the same fears when neighborhoods became racially integrated.



Apparently I'm in the minority here, so I'll just respect the majority here and leave it at that.

You're right. So why such an effort to stop new homeowners from entering the neighborhood en masse?

Because current residents don't want that new mass of people living around them, that's why they live in a neighborhood zoned single family.



Some people like high density areas, some would rather live in a less dense area. In St. Louis, we're lucky to have both types of areas and people have a choice to either live with a lot of people or to live with just a few.



I totally understand your points and agree with some of the things you've said, however I believe property owners who have invested in a neighborhood have a right to say how they want their neighborhood developed.

^Fair enough. I just wish there was a more progressive mentality in neighborhoods like DeMun-- which is primed to become a HOT area due to its location and mixed-use atmosphere. There are a lot of neighborhoods nearby full of single family homes, but there are not that many that would lend themselves so well to highrise development.

Jivecity does have a certain point. Highrises are just not going to sprout up in the majority of the city, and quite obviously not in the suburbs. Skinker has some fine old homes, but its one of the few areas in the city that would be attratctive to developers for high-density development. I am also not convinced that a highrise would somehow radically disfigure the neighborhood.



I definitely want to respect the wishes of the people who live in the area, because I know I'd fight like hell to keep a Wal-Mart from opening up in my 'hood. But unlike Wal-Mart, I think a highrise would be good for the area, and I just get the impression that the resistence is more knee-jerk or sentimental than carefully reasoned. Just an opinion.

Maybe drawings of the "concrete" building could be displayed so that the rest of us avoid taking sides until we grasp more of where the residents are coming from with the building as a monsrtosity and the proactive side with the building is refreshing in its design enough that the highrise of homeowners(with their children) will blend with the neighborhood so that the two will be as paramours intertwined in a healthy relationship. Obviously me bias shines through as the possibility of the two buildings being in a romantic relationship with each other, which is not far-fetched. However, seeing the points made and their lack of covering an important base, which is if this building is quality architecture that all people can agree on or not agree on. Maybe if this debated highrise does not get rethought and added to the fabriC(no Ks<this German influence is not dominant in the English language) then the current highrises up Skinker that appear out of date could be rethought and buildings of more quality architecture erected (and taller to solve the market problem, but not step out of bounds, 400 feet like the Plaza at Clayton). The current discussed points need not be examined further since they have been beaten to the ground and JiveCity has yielded, but what about a different approach not bringing up past arguments? Keep in mind Lindell has a few empty lots, and if that does not work the buildings on Pershing juxtaposed to that new lowrise at Parshing, Forest Park Blvd. and Skinker appear slumish for the back for a block or two and maybe those could be considered, but then again that's sticking my nose too far into other people's business.

Peace and Love

I hate to beat a dead horse, so all I will say is that I agree with Jive, for all the points he listed. I think outside of the neighborhood, opinions like Jive's are the majority.

JivecitySTL wrote: Apparently I'm in the minority here, so I'll just respect the majority here and leave it at that.

I agree with you. It would be different if the area had no high rises to begin with...then it would be out of character. However, using some vacant land to build a high rise on where high rises already exist?



I fail to see the huge controversy.

I think a lot of you DeMunites are a little paranoid about an encroaching skyscraper boom in your neighborhood, so to put your minds at ease, I'll offer a reality check...



St. Louis is not a boomtown, the metropolitan population has been stagnant for almost half a century, and fears that developers will suddenly clamor to tear down old homes to build high-rises are simply not on the horizon in most of our lifetimes. There is no threat of your neighborhood being overtaken by towers whatsoever. The charm and history of the area are what makes DeMun and adjacent neighborhoods so sought after. Developers know this.



The parcel in question overlooks Forest Park- it is perfectly suited for a luxury high-rise with million-dollar views. A two- or three- or four-story building would completely squander the opportunity to exploit the magnificent views of the park and city skyline. Would you pay top dollar for a four-story "penthouse" with mediocre views and the noise of cars, trucks and Bi-State buses speeding by all night? If something is going to be done, it should be done right-- not half-assed as so many new developments are-- with the most efficient use of available property.



If the actual design of the proposal is the issue, I can understand that. Certainly a high-profile building should be handsome (which does NOT mean "old-looking," barf). The design should be dignified, striking and graceful. But I just can't understand why a neighborhood wouldn't want to welcome new residents who would certainly create more vibrancy, street activity, services, and yes, eyes on the streets to watch over the precious neighborhood children.



Historic and progressive are not mutually exclusive concepts, and developers are finally taking a new look at St. Louis. We need to get with the program, because there are a lot of dynamic cities in this country where the upwardly-mobile populace are moving to, and St. Louis sadly has not been on that list for a long time. Our city is poised to be among the best of the best if we can stop resting on our laurels and get with it. If not, other cities (that we all know don't have half of the character and charm of St. Louis) will continue to pass us by left and right. I'm not suggesting we "follow the crowd" but we do need to recognize what elements create a dynamic, exciting urban lifestyle. St. Louis is hurting for intelligent contemporary design to enhance the cityscape, and DENSITY is not a dirty word!



I'm always baffled that St. Louisans go to cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston or Chicago for the excitement and vibrancy and hipness that those cities offer while kvetching that St. Louis is boring and dead. Yet when an opportunity comes around to give St. Louis a little taste of the action, we NIMBY the hell out of it and demand peace and quiet! It's absolutely ridiculous.



Are we in or are we out?



PS: I hope I am not DeMunized for my statements, ha ha!

^nice post



You should cut and paste it to the post dispatch and have it run as an editorial. Very nicely put.

STLgasm wrote:I think a lot of you DeMunites are a little paranoid about an encroaching skyscraper boom in your neighborhood, so to put your minds at ease, I'll offer a reality check...



St. Louis is not a boomtown, the metropolitan population has been stagnant for almost half a century, and fears that developers will suddenly clamor to tear down old homes to build high-rises are simply not on the horizon in most of our lifetimes. There is no threat of your neighborhood being overtaken by towers whatsoever. The charm and history of the area are what makes DeMun and adjacent neighborhoods so sought after. Developers know this.



The parcel in question overlooks Forest Park- it is perfectly suited for a luxury high-rise with million-dollar views. A two- or three- or four-story building would completely squander the opportunity to exploit the magnificent views of the park and city skyline. Would you pay top dollar for a four-story "penthouse" with mediocre views and the noise of cars, trucks and Bi-State buses speeding by all night? If something is going to be done, it should be done right-- not half-assed as so many new developments are-- with the most efficient use of available property.



If the actual design of the proposal is the issue, I can understand that. Certainly a high-profile building should be handsome (which does NOT mean "old-looking," barf). The design should be dignified, striking and graceful. But I just can't understand why a neighborhood wouldn't want to welcome new residents who would certainly create more vibrancy, street activity, services, and yes, eyes on the streets to watch over the precious neighborhood children.



Historic and progressive are not mutually exclusive concepts, and developers are finally taking a new look at St. Louis. We need to get with the program, because there are a lot of dynamic cities in this country where the upwardly-mobile populace are moving to, and St. Louis sadly has not been on that list for a long time. Our city is poised to be among the best of the best if we can stop resting on our laurels and get with it. If not, other cities (that we all know don't have half of the character and charm of St. Louis) will continue to pass us by left and right. I'm not suggesting we "follow the crowd" but we do need to recognize what elements create a dynamic, exciting urban lifestyle. St. Louis is hurting for intelligent contemporary design to enhance the cityscape, and DENSITY is not a dirty word!



I'm always baffled that St. Louisans go to cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston or Chicago for the excitement and vibrancy and hipness that those cities offer while kvetching that St. Louis is boring and dead. Yet when an opportunity comes around to give St. Louis a little taste of the action, we NIMBY the hell out of it and demand peace and quiet! It's absolutely ridiculous.



Are we in or are we out?



PS: I hope I am not DeMunized for my statements, ha ha!

These are well-written arguments, but the neighborhoods' position is fairly simple. There are about eight homes that are "in our neighborhood" but front Skinker. Each is over 75+ years old and is representative of beautiful St. Louis architecture from that period. Each is currently zoned single family home. Unfortunately, all of the owners of these home except one has made it know that they would like to sell their properties for inflated values to developers who will tear them down for luxury highrises. Not a single person can tell me with a straight face that they support historic preservation, but also support the idea of tearing down these beautiful historic homes in the name of "development." St. Louis has lots of vacant or underitilized lots in good locations, we should maximize these areas before we support tearing down our historic properties and destroying the character and fabric of one of the most successful and historic single family neighborhoods in the city.

I don't think any of us are saying to tear down any of those existing homes, but this is already an existing vacant lot. Why not build a tower?

I don't live in DeMun, but very close, and I simply can't understand the mentality that a new high-rise ON A BLOCK OF SKINKER LINED WITH HIGH-RISES won't fit in!!!



No one is suggesting that the single family homes should be torn down, but this is a vacant lot!!! How St. Louis of us to prefer a vacant lot over urban development, only because the neighbors don't think it will fit in (even though it will)!



I don't get it, I just don't get it.



Fine, let's see what eventually gets built there. My hunch is it'll be a schlocky historic replica single-family complete with a pseudo brick facade and dry wall. Talk about devaluing the neighborhood-- it'll look like sh*t!



Build the tower! Seize the wonderful views and welcome more neighbors to your wonderful neighborhood!

STLgasm wrote:I don't live in DeMun, but very close, and I simply can't understand the mentality that a new high-rise ON A BLOCK OF SKINKER LINED WITH HIGH-RISES won't fit in!!!



No one is suggesting that the single family homes should be torn down, but this is a vacant lot!!! How St. Louis of us to prefer a vacant lot over urban development, only because the neighbors don't think it will fit in (even though it will)!



I don't get it, I just don't get it.



Fine, let's see what eventually gets built there. My hunch is it'll be a schlocky historic replica single-family complete with a pseudo brick facade and dry wall. Talk about devaluing the neighborhood-- it'll look like sh*t!



Build the tower! Seize the wonderful views and welcome more neighbors to your wonderful neighborhood!

It wasn't a vacant lot just over a year ago--it was a historic home that was torn as the result of a backroom deal between Lyda and the developer! Now that it is a vacant lot, no one with a real interest is suggesting that the lot remain vacant, but rather that it be used in a manner consistent with all of the properties in the neighborhood in which it lies. I realize I am beating a dead horse with much of this crowd, but every single EXISTING high-rise on Skinker borders condo and apartment buildings to the west, not single family homes. This distinction may not matter to those persons who live "close to the area," but it means the world to those who live with their families in the milddle of the area. This includes the city counselor, who lives two houses west of the vacant lot, and our federal congressmen, who lives five houses west of the vacant lot.

davidnark wrote: This distinction may not matter to those persons who live "close to the area," but it means the world to those who live with their families in the milddle of the area. This includes the city counselor, who lives two houses west of the vacant lot, and our federal congressmen, who lives five houses west of the vacant lot.

Well, most of us don't have a congressman for a neighbor. If he can't or won't stop this project then nobody will. I haven't seen any renderings for this project any available?