Status: "Dormant"



I spoke to the head guy at Cornerstone Properties yesterday.



Cornerstone is the developer for the proposed 15-story condominium tower overlooking Forest Park. He said that the project is "dormant", but not cancelled. I didn't think to ask him about the rendering, which was drawn up by Trivers.



He did not get into why the project is dormant, but when asked if it was because of NIMBY pressure he said, "I can't get into it". When I suggested emphatically, "Yeah, NIMBY's are the cause for the dormancy", he laughed and said, "That's part of the reason."



What other reason could there be?



He sounded as if the information about the project's dormancy was "CIA Classified" or something. He went on to tell me about other Cornerstone projects - namely the Gaslight Square condos, which he is excited about.



By the way, I told him about the urbanstlouis.com and he thought it was cool. I suggested that he should join.

Interesting. I would suspect that NIMBY pressure would be one of the main reasons for this being dormant. Whatever the reason, hopefully it still gets built.



ArchCity, I know you often speak to developers for project updates. Don't know if you always do this, but you should invite all of them to come check us out. The would be cool to have some developer perspectives and representation on this forum.

Yeah, I always tell them that I am with St. Louis Rising (or belong to Urban St. Louis) to make it more credible. I've had good rapport via phone or email with THF Realty, Cornerstone, Summit Development, Baker Development (Park East), Linda Tucci, Downtown St. Louis Partnership, and several others. The guy at Summit was really cool and sent me that Clayton Towers rendering before they released it to the public.



I plan to communicate with Martin Van Der Werf too.



They usually warm up to you after they type in the internet address and see that the forum/board is legit.



And yes, I encourage them to visit and join. They never do probably because they are busy developing projects and writing articles.

That does make you wonder how much they read these forums, and if they ever take anything we post into consideration. We may never know. At least you'll have me on the forum as a developer whenever I get going.

I am one of the NIMBYs in this instance. Cornerstone bought and essentially secretly tore down a 80+ year old historic home on the site in which their tower is proposed. This lot is and always has been zoned single family, which makes sense because every other home on the street is single family. At the time the home was torn down, the few people that were aware of it were told that it was being torn down to be replaced by a small park. Cornerstone basically lied to the community.



I am a big fan of new urban development, but not at the expense of one of a handful of city neighborhoods that has remained strong throughout the many city downfalls. The neighborhood was justifiably apalled and shocked to learn that Lyda Krewson was working with this developer behind the scene to rezone the lot from single family to a whatever zone allowed for an ugly 15-story concrete monstrocity (I saw the renderings). Thankfully, the many political powers in the neighborhood and in the existing condo tower north of the site have stalled or eliminated the project.

where exactly was this supposed to be? (it sounds familiar, like maybe a project nearby the Demun neighborhood)

davidnark wrote:I am one of the NIMBYs in this instance. Cornerstone bought and essentially secretly tore down a 80+ year old historic home on the site in which their tower is proposed. This lot is and always has been zoned single family, which makes sense because every other home on the street is single family. At the time the home was torn down, the few people that were aware of it were told that it was being torn down to be replaced by a small park. Cornerstone basically lied to the community.



I am a big fan of new urban development, but not at the expense of one of a handful of city neighborhoods that has remained strong throughout the many city downfalls. The neighborhood was justifiably apalled and shocked to learn that Lyda Krewson was working with this developer behind the scene to rezone the lot from single family to a whatever zone allowed for an ugly 15-story concrete monstrocity (I saw the renderings). Thankfully, the many political powers in the neighborhood and in the existing condo tower north of the site have stalled or eliminated the project.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree. While I understand the concerns of the neighborhood, I think a new highrise along Skinker is a complement to what is already there, as well as a significant sign of confidence and investment in the neighborhood. I fail to see how the construction of a classy residential highrise will lead to the demise of the neighborhood. I think it would in fact do just the opposite, by bringing in more residents who, as a result, will also care deeply about their neighborhood. I'm the biggest preservationist out there. I HATE when buildings are torn down for mediocre purposes, such as greenspace, parking lots/garages, Walgreens, gas stations or suburban-looking buildings. But in a city so rich in historic fabric (which we must cherish), we desperately need to build quality new residential projects that meet the demands of prospective city dwellers. The City has a number of beautiful old homes, stately historic highrises, opulent mansions and trendy lofts to choose from. People who desire those dwellings have countless options available to them. But what the City sorely lacks is NEW, innovative highrise residential buildings, which are becoming increasingly popular in major cities across the country. With the exception of the Park East and its impending sister project in the CWE, the City of St. Louis is devoid of post-1960s highrise residential buildings, and by ignoring the demands of the market, the City risks losing more residents and would-be residents.



I don't understand why Skinker can't emerge as another highrise district that integrates well into the supporting DeMun neighborhood. It baffles me that the street wasn't originally lined with highrises; it seems so appropriate to overlook Forest Park and the rest of the city from great heights. If the city doesn't start tapping into the market that we all know exists, Clayton will. It is the city's gain to suck it up and allow bold new highrise buildings, even in neighborhoods that may not be used to it. It is a sign of growth, it is a sign of a dynamic city, it is a sign of urbanity. With all due respect, if what you desire is peace, quiet and conformity, maybe you'd be better suited for the suburbs.

Wow, a post by Jive that I completely agree with. That can be rare sometimes.

nice essay Jive...I also whole heartedly agree with you



This project would have been great competition to Clayton. The city needs to start thinking about how they are going to retrieve all those people who have left in the past for the hi-rises in Clayton and this would have been a great start. If I was a millionare I would much rather have a view of the largest urban park in the rather than the sterile Clayton skyline.

ArchMadness wrote:nice essay Jive...I also whole heartedly agree with you



This project would have been great competition to Clayton. The city needs to start thinking about how they are going to retrieve all those people who have left in the past for the hi-rises in Clayton and this would have been a great start. If I was a millionare I would much rather have a view of the largest urban park in the rather than the sterile Clayton skyline.

I think Clayton's skyline looks nice viewed from 170. It looks very modern and like a "suburban downtown" should look, I suppose. The rest of Clayton's architecture is very uninspired mid-to-late twentieth century stuff, if I'm not mistaken.



So, I agree, I'd much rather have a view of Forest Park.

I don't mean along Lindell exactly, but around the area.

Hello,

I'm new. I agree with those who contend that erecting condo/apt. bdlg.s along Lindell and Skinker would arbitrarly ruin the housing stock and ambiance of those neighborhoods. The western Forest Park neighborhood is lined with 1900-1920s homes designed in unique styles combining Spanish renaissance, Italiante renaissance details, and French doors. The DeMun neighborhood is unique in that homes of these styles can only be found elsewhere in Clayton, U. City, and the CWE. If the homes on Skinker would be replaced by highrises than the homes are too valuable to destroy, but will need to be dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere. Forest Park's buildings of similar style include the World's Fair Pavillion and maintainance building. Thus, the homes on Skinker blend with Forest Park. and there removal would alter FP's relationship with DeMun. The mansions of Lindell are there to stay. BJC takes up the eastern border, and the obtrusive highway 40 the south. I propose in several decades that highway 40 be removed and replaced with either a combination of an underground highway or just Metrolink line. Then, the land could be turned into more of 8th avenue along Central Park. Of course, this sounds crazy, is too expensive, and Forest Park's perimeter is too permanent in order to copy Central Park's rows of highrises. The best alternative is too focus on Tower Grove Park's perimeter, or link downtown with Grand center with a Manhattan like neighborhood of highrises. Too make that possible highrise neighborhood possible a stately park one block wide by several wide would need to be at its core. This was the theatre and arts district of Grand could be linked with the region's center that is downtown. Any ideas? I'm open to more possibilities.

my understanding was the the cornerstone project was going to go in a sidestreet just off Skinker (not on Skinker proper), so it wouldn't really add to the Skinker row of highrises as much as infringe on the neighborhood behind ((of course i could be completely wrong on that since i only kind of heard about the whole thing offhandedly)). I think Skinker would be a great high rise street, but as mentioned it has a bunch of great looking houses south of the highrises approaching Clayton which i would not want to see destroyed. It really is a shame that 40 kills the southern edge of Forestpark, i agree with smsplantsu that they should some how reclaim that land (of course it would probably be a monumental task involving much earth moving, lidding and or underground tunneling ((but hey, maybe when the city population climbs back up to 700,000 or so in 2040 it will be more feasible )).

As I said before, I am uncomfortable with the thought of tearing down historic buildings of any kind to build new construction, but as I understand it, the parcel of land on which the Conerstone project is/was to be built is currently vacant. Vacant land in an urban context is a soul-sucking waste of space that makes me nauseous. It is sad that a beautiful old home was torn down there, and I would not have supported that demolition. But now that it's done, it is time for the neighborhood to swallow its pride and welcome a bold new addition. A park is not an adequate replacement for an opulent old home, but a fresh new highrise can be if its done right.



I say stop your whining and welcome this new development with open arms. You live in the CITY, where tall buildings are supposed to be built, where density is supposed to be embraced. There are hundreds of wonderful old homes to choose from in the Skinker/DeMun neighborhood if that's what you desire. Get over your provincialism and let new residents enjoy your neighborhood from new heights. There are already five or six highrises there, it's not like you won't be able to adjust to it.

MODOT should turn 40 into one of those high tech tunnels they have by the airport on Lindbergh and then build condos and apartments on top. Add buttresses for supports, and there you are. Who wouldn't want to live on top of a highway?

now i remember what i was thinking about (after looking around online for it). Apparently Cornerstone has/had another project at the intersection of Clayton and University Lane for a mixed use 5 story project that got nimbyed off the table (because of size and "commercial" issues). Apparently it would have had commercial uses on the first floor and 30 some condos ontop, and would have replaced a parking lot. Some neighbors complained it was too big, too commercial, too dense and used up much needed parking...... It seems that whole neighborhood has a big thing against larger projects, in fact because of that project they are now coming up with a whole new urban design policy for that chunk of Clayton Rd.



I agree that if the house is gone they should definitely build something there (how redundant is a small park when you have FOREST PARK across the street????). At the same time, if the neighbors were lied to then the developer was asking for a backlash. Since none of us are trying to live or raise a family in that neighborhood i don't think it's fair to singlehandedly condemn the guy who might very well have reasonable objections (my impression was that most of the neighborhood south of Southwood, and definitely by San Bonita, consisted of single family homes). Either way, there are more than enough vacant lots begging to be built on further east....

To be less pronounced my intentions were not to side with the NIMBY's, but to layout the correlations between the park and its neighbors. Personally, a row of high rises along Skinker like along Central Park is my hope too. Making this reality will be more of a feat for areas where vacant land doesn't already exist. At intersection of Clayton and Skinker there is a bank, some other building, and parking that could be replaced. It's across from Hi-Pointe theatre. Cornerstone should be built, I do not denounce that further since its on vacant land.

I do hope that someone seizes the great opportunity that is the empty lot at Kingshighway & Lindell.

I will clarify several of the questions on this issue.



The lot that was torn down has a San Bonita address (I live on San Bonita a few houses west of this home.) It is the eastern most lot on San Bonita, so it borders Skinker on its eastern edge. There are no high rises west or south of the lot that was torn down. There is one three-story contemporary high-rise building immediately south of this lot (that was built with a variance after much negotiation with the neighborhood), and the remainder of the lots between the lot in question and Clayton Road are single-family homes. Essentially, the lot in question forms the northeastern border of one of the oldest and most stable single-family neighborhoods in the city.



Generally, the residents of our neighborhood support the redevelopment of this vacant lot. The residents do not, however, favor a large high-rise that is inconsistent with every other home on the street and all of the properties immediately south and west of the lot. I suspect that a three-story luxury condo project--like the project built two blocks west on the corner of San Bonita and Demun--would be acceptable to the residents.



I love the city and love city development. There is a notable difference, however, between a high-rise development in the CWE or downtown--where the property is zoned for high-rises and the residents purchase homes with such knowledge and expectations--and rezoning lots that have been zoned SF for over 80 years. It inarguably would alter the character of a historic neighborhood with great character and charm. For those that are not familiar with the neighborhood, this is a neighborhood with a great diversity of residents (financially, ethnically, and otherwise), and a community atmosphere that supports over a half-dozen well-attended neighborhood events each year.



The good news is that this neighborhood is in the process of obtaining both state and federal historic status, which would eliminate the risk.