It should just be built. The house is already gone and it will make your property value rise. Its ashame, but you can't do anything about people selling their property to a developer. We should definently be building only on vacant lots in St. Louis though. We have no reason to tear down things anymore.
- 197
but the issue is that regardless of the lot being empty the properties next to it are single family homes (as opposed to the highrises to the north which are for the most part immediately next to small apartment buildings).
The only thing that could probably fit the bill for that lot would be a small apartment building............
The only thing that could probably fit the bill for that lot would be a small apartment building............
^I wholeheartedly disagree with you. A small apartment building on that site is a half-assed proposal for such a prime location. This site overlooks one of the nation's largest urban parks. It needs to be something bold and it needs to take advantage of the views.
What I love most about St. Louis is our amazing architectural legacy, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's that somewhere along the line our collective mentality regarding urban design has degraded into "mediocre is good enough."
Once again, your neighborhood will not be swallowed up by skyscraper developers. We're talking about one vacant parcel facing the park. Let's call a spade a spade. It's sitting there practically begging for a tower to be built, and all the residents have to say is, "No thank you, we'll wait for something less remarkable." Resistence to growth is what has held the city back for so long. It's time to evolve and realize that tall buildings aren't the shadow of doom. And most importantly, not a single structure will be sacraficed.
What I love most about St. Louis is our amazing architectural legacy, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's that somewhere along the line our collective mentality regarding urban design has degraded into "mediocre is good enough."
Once again, your neighborhood will not be swallowed up by skyscraper developers. We're talking about one vacant parcel facing the park. Let's call a spade a spade. It's sitting there practically begging for a tower to be built, and all the residents have to say is, "No thank you, we'll wait for something less remarkable." Resistence to growth is what has held the city back for so long. It's time to evolve and realize that tall buildings aren't the shadow of doom. And most importantly, not a single structure will be sacraficed.
Davidnark mentions that the high rise(s) should be built in other vacant lots in the city. My question would be, are there any other vacant lots with such a perfect location for a high rise, overlooking the park?
The other point, about residents buying houses in the neighborhood because of the current SF zoning regulations, is unfortunately a "too bad, so sad" situation. Hey, it happens everywhere. People who bought houses along 141 long ago didn't want to be forced out for the widening of the road, but it had to be done. People who bought houses in Lake Chesterfield didn't want their lake to disappear into a sinkhole, but it happened.
Another point arguing against the case of the high rise was something about not wanting or needing a bunch of yuppies taking over the neighborhood, because it's better with the current single families and their kids. Hate to say it, but yuppies are probably much better for the vibrancy of a city than kids. To be honest, the city probably isn't a great place to raise kids anyway. But if those families insist on staying in the city, away from high rises, how about looking into the beautiful new Botanical Heights neighborhood?
If you're in a location that seems too good to be true, you should probably expect that it won't last forever. If you don't like a new high rise in the neighborhood, sell your house, make a huge profit, and find somewhere else to live.
The other point, about residents buying houses in the neighborhood because of the current SF zoning regulations, is unfortunately a "too bad, so sad" situation. Hey, it happens everywhere. People who bought houses along 141 long ago didn't want to be forced out for the widening of the road, but it had to be done. People who bought houses in Lake Chesterfield didn't want their lake to disappear into a sinkhole, but it happened.
Another point arguing against the case of the high rise was something about not wanting or needing a bunch of yuppies taking over the neighborhood, because it's better with the current single families and their kids. Hate to say it, but yuppies are probably much better for the vibrancy of a city than kids. To be honest, the city probably isn't a great place to raise kids anyway. But if those families insist on staying in the city, away from high rises, how about looking into the beautiful new Botanical Heights neighborhood?
If you're in a location that seems too good to be true, you should probably expect that it won't last forever. If you don't like a new high rise in the neighborhood, sell your house, make a huge profit, and find somewhere else to live.
- 101
I think you can have houses in harmony with apartment buildings, its already happening on skinker. Attracting some extra yuppies to the area isnt as bad as depreciating property and attracting some ghetto allstars. Bottom line in my opinion: its a good neighborhood for a family and 100 extra rich people living on the corner is not going to hurt.