The Euclid - 32 N Euclid

Renovations and new construction in the Central Corridor -- defined by the area south of Delmar Avenue and North of Interstate 44/55.
First unread post235 posts
New proposal for next to whole foods. Park central will review 11:30 on 8/27. Office retail and residential.

Image
Would that replace the top top cleaners building?
^ yessir.
Kind of boring but I wouldn't block it. I might push them a little on why that's all they want to build on such a prime lot. They are way underestimating its potential IMHO.
Awesomeness! Things keep rolling in the Central Corridor!

(Although I'll miss Club 34)
Club 34 will be gone? Noooooo!!!
With the right finish materials this will look pretty slick
Didn't catch this at first, but part of the proposal is to move Koman's own offices/employees into the building. Looking like Koman is finding a full time home in the city and hopefully starting a pipeline of projects in addition to this proposal and optimist rehab. Really curious what is going to be proposed with Koplar's Lindell/Kingshighway prime real estate.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... d55e1.html

He said Koman would move its headquarters to the Euclid development from downtown St. Louis. The headquarters had been at CityPlace in Creve Coeur until Koman sold that office complex last year. About 15 people work at the company’s temporary headquarters at the Cupples Station 9 building downtown
STLEnginerd wrote:
Kind of boring but I wouldn't block it. I might push them a little on why that's all they want to build on such a prime lot. They are way underestimating its potential IMHO.


The reason it is capped at 6 stories (+2 of underground parking) is because the Form-Based Code for this property requires a 30' setback (from the street) for any floors above 6 (note how on the CityWalk project the 7th floor is significantly set back on both the Euclid & West Pine sides). It also imposes a 12 story cap. This property has a different classification than the new BJC outpatient building one block south, which did not call for a setback after the 6th story, and therefore could go up the full 12 on a similarly narrow site.

I'm sure Koman would have liked to at least have the option of going to 8, 9 or even 12 stories, but the requirement of the setback combined with the narrowness of the site effectively prevents that.

It's another example of the Form-Based Code actually inhibiting density. However, the counter-argument is that it makes for a more pleasant pedestrian experience and a more attractive neighborhood as a whole (i.e. in the tradition of Haussmann's Paris). The logic is that it's okay for taller towers to loom over the broad boulevards of Lindell and Forest Park Parkway, but that along narrow Euclid it's important to let in light and keep it feeling somewhat open and airy.
^ah that IS interesting. I guess it'll do then.

Im not sure how i feel about it now. I'd like it to be taller because in the rendering it look very short, but 6 stories is actually decent height, so maybe its just the perspective they rendered that's throwing me off.
^Yep. It's a terrible rendering. The building looks fine, but you almost have to squint to see what's going on with it in the middle of all that road and sky. And for some reason they have the Forest Park Hotel building completely dwarfing it (despite the fact that they're both 6 stories). It would have a much more significant street presents than the rendering portrays.

These offer a more impressive perspective of what a 1/2 block of 6 stories of retail and apartments can look like:

Image
Image
It's safe.

It's not terrible to me, but it feels too safe in design as well as height.

That block, with its dynamically diverse architecture, deserves better, in my opinion.

Its design is more fitting for Creve Coeur or for a SLU lot in Midtown.

I know the meeting is coming, but I sure hope Roddy encourages Koman and Trivers to "push the envelope" as he did with Covington Partners (although I believe Covington's design was attractive and contemporary).
I think the height/6 stories is very appropriate. There are some fairly attractive 2 story historic buildings at Euclid and Laclede that currently are grounding that intersection. Rather than towering over, shorter new buildings ( like 9 north )will relate better to the historic stock and make their preservation that much more likely in the long run.
^Good point.

arch city wrote:
I sure hope Roddy encourages Koman and Trivers to "push the envelope" as he did with Covington Partners


I thought that the problem with the Vanguard/Covington proposal wasn't that it wasn't adventurous enough, but that the review board just thought it looked kind of cheesy and crappy and wanted better materials and bigger windows.

Historically, the review board seems to want more understated and simple designs than anything "pushing the envelope." I could see them going for this one without too much pushback (unless Roddy takes some issue with the TIFs request as he did with Covington's tax-abatement request).

That said, I don't disagree with your take on it. It looks nice, but Brown/Grey with black and white accents isn't the most exciting of pallettes.
Here's an example of a 50' wide building (the lot in question is 80 feet wide at its narrowest, so a 30' setback would leave 50 feet).

Image

This would not however, fulfill the 12 story height max. :D

I'd personally like to see some art deco detailing at least as an homage to the cleaners sweet entrance.
My understanding is that Koman had looked into purchasing the Boy Scouts building as well for a larger project that could have allowed more height. But they decided to purchase just the Euclid site, which limited things to six stories.

I think it's a great design and scale for the street. Studies show that going over six stories does not add to neighborhood density. It just gets you higher. Personally, I like the variety.
Presbyterian wrote:
Studies show that going over six stories does not add to neighborhood density. It just gets you higher. Personally, I like the variety.


What's the reasoning behind that? I'm genuinely curious, as it seems to defy the expected result that more floors = more people on a given piece of land = more density.
^ I think in part it has to do with size, or footprint of the dwelling or number of units which could or would reduce the number of households as you go higher. Developers also get a premium as they go higher but also have a smaller buyer pool. Those who can afford it probably prefer less density within that space not more.

The extreme of this is probably the NY city residential tower that is the highest in the western hemisphere if not mistaken but also one of the most expensive and each floor/level or even multiple levels on top are one dwelling in itself. I believe the top twenty floors constitute 10 dwellings at most.

Personally, I think this proposal is a good fit as is. I would much rather see a tower by Koplar on their prime location. St. Louis simply doesn't have the population, GDP, and growth to have 10-20 story buildings everywhere. Some good low to mid rise infill development, some good rehab such as the Optimist building, and hopefully some new Cortex/Wexford Class A space in the near future are some big steps in the right direction.
^Ah, that makes sense. So building higher effectively increases density only marginally (a couple people per floor) at a much higher cost, generally speaking.

I, too, like this development. I think we all can agree that the Lindell/Kingshighway lot is the most obvious for a high-rise addition to the CWE. And as stated before, by dredger and others, realistically speaking there simply isn't the demand for high-rises everywhere. And while still not as modern as many would prefer, this project certainly takes a step in that direction: more and bigger windows, the absence of red brick, etc.
I don't follow this logic... the higher you go, even if there are fewer people per floor above a certain height, still adds density. If the theory is true that density is not added above 6 floors, I believe it would somehow have to do with required larger separation between tall buildings than between mid-rise buildings. But I'm not convinced and would like to see some research.
^ RW, I'm not saying all cases but you have to admit that it is not a direct 1 to 1 result in terms of height gives you the same density because their is also market and social forces involved based on demand and what a capital market is willing to finance..

You could easily build a 10-15 story high rise geared/marketed toward a higher end buyer that will have the same number households as a moderately priced 5-8 story mixed us building on Euclid. In other words, just because you add height doesn't mean you are necessarily adding density in terms of population/household head counts.
^ I guess I'm just trying to keep it in perspective of Saint Louis projects in the CWE or wherever space is tight.... I just don't see how greater density would not be accomplished if say another two stories -- say one more commercial office and one more residential -- were added to this particular project. I just don't see how those two extra floors would change the dynamic of the building such as you'd lower the overall number of people per floor. Or if Citywalk were lowered to 6 floors, would it have the same density as it will have with more? A cite by presby to literature would be helpful to my understanding.
I'm still trying to figure out the anger at this building being "only" 6 stories. That energy should be put in to the empty lots on the SW corner of Euclid/Lindell and SE corner of Kingshighway/Lindell.
Hopefully it's not long before we see something comparable but 12 stories on the Plaza Dental site, which is just about identical to this one but doesn't have the 6+ story setback requirement.
Call me OCD but can the mods correct the headline to "West" Pine?