Boland Place development Richmond Heights

Discuss new retail, dining, business and residential projects within St. Louis County, including Chesterfield, Riverport, Earth City, Westport and more.
^ I don't know if I would. My current and my house in Shrewsbury had everything to do with raising my family, having a single family residence in a single family residential neighborhood yet having close proximity and ease of location. In this case, I can see where the immediate families and residences are coming from. Replacing an empty school with a relatively large apartment block, whether it is luxury or not, is a significant change to the immediate neighborhood. trying to picture a large apartment block going in across my street as I type and my first reaction falls in line with the residents who oppose this project

As far as developers offering premiums for future development in the immediate area is a stretch IMO. The premiums have come and gone for commercial development as everything has been bulldozed on Hanley and its access to I-64. I see this development as opportunistic, a large parcel obsolete of its use under one ownership in a desireable area.
Image

Image
Cool. Thanks for all the RH updates Moorlander.
40 South News- Brentwood, Maplewood, Richmond Heights
Boland Place apartments approved

SLW on February 2, 2016 at 11:07 am said:

My home will be on the market soon. Thank you to the mayor and city council for forcing me out of my house. This is NOT the Richmond Heights I moved to.

SV on February 2, 2016 at 9:46 am said:

This is awesome! So happy to see this past.


http://40southnews.com/boland-place-apa ... -approved/[storify][/storify]
^ In reference to the SLW quoted above... But the big box store, destroy other neighborhoods for huge TIF parking lots, and live next to an interstate is what he moved to Richmond Heights for? Give me a break. l would bet $5 that this guy doesn't actually leave and in 10 years he (begrudgingly) admits the development doesn't really negatively impact his home at all.
^Or the value of his home doubles in five years, and he sells for a nice profit.
Framer, seriously think that someone's house in St. Louis is going to double in value because an upscale apartment block is built across the street in a slow growth region? Since moving from St. Louis almost six years ago I have lived in one the nations best economies here in the San Fran Bay area. My house out here has appreciated considerably since the recession but not even close to doubling. Where as I'm hopeful that my house in Shrewsbury will get back to pre-recession value.

Considering of the multiple locations and TOD possibilities within I-270 itself is it so bad that home owner's across the street in a single residential neighborhood prefer to keep it that way. Their is some great developments going on in the central corridor that seem to fit the immediate area so much better. But as a home owner myself I'm siding with the neighborhood on this one as everything I read states their is no support for this within the neighborhood at all.
dredger wrote:
But as a home owner myself I'm siding with the neighborhood on this one as everything I read states their is no support for this within the neighborhood at all.


Because they're BANANAs. It seriously seems like they want nothing built there.

The traffic on Dale isn't from local residents: it's cuthrough drivers that live nowhere nearby looking to bypass traffic on Big Bend, Hanley, Manchester and/or I-64.
^ Can't agree with the community that nothing should be built there but not going to agree that every apartment block proposal that comes along is the best or only development solution because it is denser housing or is mixed use.

What I think would be a much fitting development is what is being proposed for the Old Maryland School lot in Clayton, Townhouse/row house, 2 story, type development. In other words, add single residential home ownership back into the community in the one of the last remaining parcels to do it. RH like so many of immediate inner communities outside of Clayton & maybe U City have destroy a lot of housing that has resulted in negative population swings that now RH is going all in for this particular development.
dredger wrote:
^ Can't agree with the community that nothing should be built there but not going to agree that every apartment block proposal that comes along is the best or only development solution because it is denser housing or is mixed use.

What I think would be a much fitting development is what is being proposed for the Old Maryland School lot in Clayton, Townhouse/row house, 2 story, type development. In other words, add single residential home ownership back into the community in the one of the last remaining parcels to do it. RH like so many of immediate inner communities outside of Clayton & maybe U City have destroy a lot of housing that has resulted in negative population swings that now RH is going all in for this particular development.


If the property didn't back up to I-64 I'd agree with you in that two story townhouses would be preferable. Buy nobody is going to want to pay market price to buy a townhouse that backs up to an interstate. That's why they're going with rentals and I understand it.
One of the articles, that was much more fairly balanced about residents supporting the development than what I've read on south 40 news, mentioned that there was a townhouse proposal for this parcel 12 years ago and it too but it was shot down.
I overheard a fairly balanced reaction from RH residents at the gym this morning.

I follow south 40 news and the author does a great service for the community. But he knows the hand that feeds and would never challenge or call out his readership. At least that's my read.
Did the project get a tax abatement?
Good point Dweebe, but would have to suggest that the developer is lining up his project so the units themselves would face the street and or the lot/fields behind it. In other words, he is avoiding the freeway having as much impact as possible. Considering that you could easily leave pocket park, fields, considering the size of the old school grounds as a buffer with a townhouse, rowhouse development.

From the layout, I assume that parcel actually being offered is defined by the old school buildings only. Someone with some knowledge can pass on the remaining school grounds/fields going to RH? or does RH own the whole grounds already or is it the school district? I have driven by a few times but that has been a few years ago.
dredger wrote:
Framer, seriously think that someone's house in St. Louis is going to double in value because an upscale apartment block is built across the street in a slow growth region?


I'm exaggerating, of course, but I do think this neighborhood has tremendous growth potential: Close-in, centrally located, with affordable prices and an (apparently) pro-development leadership. If this project proves successful, I can see other developers and speculators buying up property in the area.

BTW, I actually agree with you (as I mentioned earlier in this thread); I personally feel this building is too big for the immediate neighborhood, and I would have voted it down.
^ Definitely agree that RH, Brentwood, Maplewood as well as Shrewsbury has a lot of room for growth as well trend its demographics back upwards. I think all of them are failing on pushing development around their respective metrolink stations to their full potential over the long term.

But you have to give RH for a lot going on in relatively short period as of late. As you stated, pro development leadership. If not mistaken, you got

1) Boland Place as well as Manhasset Village (if spelled correctly and believe within RH boundaries on the other side)
2) The Boulevards Phase II w/ 179 residential units & office space, nice to see the residential & office. Wish they can claw back the property that was suppose to be phase III and continue the march with more residential/office
3) Menards, for better or worse
4) Hotel/retail between rec center & Hanley/I64 interchange looks like it is slowly but surely going forward. This location and or another hotel next to University Tower are probably the best locations you could ask for. Assume you could make the site plan better to accommodate foot traffic from the Brentwood metrolink station
and not least
5) RH scores big and snags Big Sharks bike shop.

The one surprise, how the space around university tower hasn't been developed into more of dense, mixed use, another hotel, so on. Nor do I think you see another hotel at Brentwood & Clayton with Brentwood Drury Inn now in place, another hotel proposal at Hanley and wouldn't be surprised to see something for Clayton CBD relatively soon.
This one has been quiet for some time now. Seems that officials in Richmond Heights are getting impatient:

http://40southnews.com/richmond-heights ... g-planned/
The developer is now seeking a TIF to make up a $2.5 million shortfall in the financing.

http://40southnews.com/developer-says-a ... financing/
Image

Who is online

In total there are 7 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 7 guests (based on users active over the past 30 minutes)
Most users ever online was 969 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:56 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests