Hibernia Apts - 6300 Clayton Avenue

DogtownBnR · PostJan 17, 2013#262013-01-17T14:01+00:00

I know several people who attended this public session in Dogtown the other night. It was VERY contentious. It was the young, progressive residents versus the old curmudgeon
residents. Of course, there were some older folks in favor, but it got ugly at times, with one man even taking it as far as saying 'we can take this outside' to another. That guy was a joke. The developers were being attacked due to the parking and the fact that the building did not match the existing structures. Sounds to me like a bunch of stubborn old folks, resistant to change. They'd rather have an empty lumber yard I guess. One older gentleman did support it and brought up the row of vacant businesses on Clayton, between Tamm and Graham. Great point! There used to be several viable businesses along that strip. An influx of people in this complex, the zoo development and others, can only take Dogtown to the next level. Some curmudgeons just don't get it! They don't understand, if you don't replace residents who have either passed away or moved away, the neighborhood dies. The attitudes at this meeting are the same ones that are killing the City as a whole. This resistance to change, NIMBY attitude holds the entire City back. I am venting, but I think I have a good point. People need to get a clue and do what is best for their neighborhood and the City, even if it means they are inconvenienced here and there!

moorlander · PostJan 17, 2013#272013-01-17T14:34+00:00

framer wrote:"Fiber cement panels". Ugh.

I repeat my earlier critique: this design looks/feels cheap.

Fiber cement panels are used in a number of modern building designs. Some are pretty cool in my opinion.

http://www.google.com/search?q=fiber+ce ... 24&bih=651

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 17, 2013#282013-01-17T15:38+00:00

^ Yep and ^^ yep.

beer city · PostJan 17, 2013#292013-01-17T16:31+00:00

Honestly, nice concept, the renderings and execution could be better though, this is a half step above Aventura, and about 2 step below Cortona

roger wyoming II · PostJan 17, 2013#302013-01-17T16:43+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:I know several people who attended this public session in Dogtown the other night. It was VERY contentious. It was the young, progressive residents versus the old curmudgeon residents.... This resistance to change, NIMBY attitude holds the entire City back. I am venting, but I think I have a good point. People need to get a clue and do what is best for their neighborhood and the City, even if it means they are inconvenienced here and there!

I certainly have some sympathy for the old curmudgeons.... a five-story apartment building is a substantial change for the character of that neighborhood and the concerns voiced in the meeting likely would have been voiced at a similar meeting in any other city in the country. The thing to look at is how these concerns are answered. Are they legitimate? Can changes be made that address valid concerns while still allowing for a good project to go forward? It is good that locals are engaged and it is healthy that people can voice their concerns about what the neighborhood should be, even if it looks a little messy. (Had similar engagement been present for the Aventura, perhaps we would have had a better design?)

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 17, 2013#312013-01-17T16:48+00:00

beer city wrote:Honestly, nice concept, the renderings and execution could be better though, this is a half step above Aventura, and about 2 step below Cortona

? I think Cortona is awful. Perhaps the finishes and materials are high-end, but it's set in a moat of parking, disconnected from everything:

beer city · PostJan 17, 2013#322013-01-17T19:57+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:
beer city wrote:Honestly, nice concept, the renderings and execution could be better though, this is a half step above Aventura, and about 2 step below Cortona
? I think Cortona is awful. Perhaps the finishes and materials are high-end, but it's set in a moat of parking, disconnected from everything:

Talking about the architecture, not the plan,though I am not crazy about the south side of dogtowns plan either, no beter than Cortona

onecity · PostJan 18, 2013#332013-01-18T00:48+00:00

How do we not get this? How? No one, no one goes to another city and remembers the neighborhood with lots and lots of parking. The places we love in the city are dense. Why can't be build this way today?

Because in STL, people have been conditioned to perceive that it is unsafe to walk on a sidewalk in a neighborhood in the big bad City. You must park so your car is safely in sight, and your destination is the shortest possible walk from your safely parked car, in case any brown people are nearby. And dense neighborhoods are where poor people and brown people live, and since they can't afford cars and stupid stuff like that ad infinitum. That's what I think the problem here is.

And that because of the spectacular white flight of the 50s thru 80s, almost no one except transplants or those who never left the city has firsthand, let alone secondhand knowledge of what it's like to live in a dense city.

framer · PostJan 18, 2013#342013-01-18T03:40+00:00

moorlander wrote:
framer wrote:"Fiber cement panels". Ugh.

I repeat my earlier critique: this design looks/feels cheap.
Fiber cement panels are used in a number of modern building designs. Some are pretty cool in my opinion.

http://www.google.com/search?q=fiber+ce ... 24&bih=651

You're right, of course; I shouldn't blame the cement panels alone. But come on, the renderings they've released are awful.

goat314 · PostJan 24, 2013#352013-01-24T22:52+00:00

Project gets the go ahead!

link: http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 0546b.html

roger wyoming II · PostJan 24, 2013#362013-01-24T23:01+00:00

^ I'm kind of scared to know what the plans are for 32 parking spots across the street... what street & any demo?

onecity · PostJan 24, 2013#372013-01-24T23:17+00:00

A way to circumvent this anti-city stupidity:

1) Build with the stated goal of selling 16 extra-large luxury condos.
2) After the building permit (for 16 units) is granted and significantly into the construction process, alter to 60 apts or whatever due to "market forces."
3) 60 units, 15 spots.
4) Done.

Seriously. That's what it'll take to get appropriate density.

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 25, 2013#382013-01-25T03:39+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm kind of scared to know what the plans are for 32 parking spots across the street... what street & any demo?

Latest word was that the developers purchased a vacant lot across the street for the additional parking spots: http://goo.gl/maps/uF2ER. The city really needs a way to measure parking after the face. This lot should be surveyed and if found to be sparsely used, the developer should be able to sell or develop the lot.

imran · PostJan 25, 2013#392013-01-25T03:49+00:00

I am okay with parking options for residents. As long as they are hidden from view. Behind, Above, Underground. Just not in in-your-face parking lots and parking garages. They are an ugly necessity, like trash dumpsters. People go to all lengths to hide trash dumpsters....wish they would do the same with parking structures.

ImprovSTL · PostJan 25, 2013#402013-01-25T04:03+00:00

imran wrote:I am okay with parking options for residents. As long as they are hidden from view. Behind, Above, Underground. Just not in in-your-face parking lots and parking garages. They are an ugly necessity, like trash dumpsters. People go to all lengths to hide trash dumpsters....wish they would do the same with parking structures.

But what kind of precedent is this setting? Neighborhoods deciding that real, positive developments be required to bow to their parking wishes?

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 25, 2013#412013-01-25T04:10+00:00

It doesn't set any new precedent, it fails to. Even 1 space per unit is less than many apartment developments. What I don't understand is why they can't try it on the lumber yard lot and then a parking survey could inform the neighborhood/developer as to whether an additional $300K should be spent on more parking.

DogtownBnR · PostJan 25, 2013#422013-01-25T16:38+00:00

Looks like the APT complex has been approved by the board of alderman.
Great news for Dogtown!!!! I'm so glad that the stubborn curmudgeon types did not kill this great project. Whether or not it is perfect is irrelevant. Any residential addition to the area is a good thing, considering the population losses mentioned below. Here is the word from Alderman Ogilvie.... Well done getting this passed!

The Board of Adjustment voted to allow the building based on the following conditions: That the owner control a minimum of 63 parking spaces (1 parking space to 1 unit, which is the normal zoning requirement) and that the first three stories of the building be brick. This is pretty close to what the Clayton - Tamm Neighborhood Association voted on at the meeting last week. After that meeting, my letter to Board of Adjustment (and the developers) said I would only support a building that met that basic parking requirement. At the time of the meeting, the developer controlled only 47 spaces. They were exploring the possibility of leasing more parking from the Zoo, but in my opinion this was not adequate for the long term as of course the lease could expire in the future. In the week between the neighborhood meeting and the Board of Adjustment hearing, the Apted's made an effort to acquire more property from Pete Katsinas, in order to ensure that they would have adequate parking for the long term. The day of the hearing they brought updated drawings showing this additional parking. Based on the additional parking, the Board of Adjustment approved the plan.

Opinion among residents is clearly divided on this. I have heard from many people in support, on the fence, and against the building. I don't know that we will all agree on this in the long run, but I do intend to keep working with homeowners to improve whatever they see as issues with the building, including on street parking and ensuring that current homeowners have on street parking near their home. The opinions of our neighborhood have already altered the project, off-street parking has been added by acquiring more land, and the building will at a minimum include more brick than was originally proposed. The concerns people have about this building are the same concerns people would have, I think, with any proposed development here.

Here are some things I do know: Between 2000 & 2010, Clayton-Tamm lost almost 9% of its population, or about 200 people. Perhaps 90 or 100 people will live in this building - even if fully occupied it won't even get us back to the neighborhood's population in 2000, let alone 1990. If we want to maintain the services people like to have near their homes, and our property values, we need to maintain our population level. To do that we are going to have to add housing where we can. This lot is one of the few places in the neighborhood to add housing. The pricing for each unit is very comparable to other market rate buildings being built in St. Louis. There is no reason this building can't succeed in a great neighborhood like ours.

Thanks,

Scott Ogilvie
Alderman Ward 24

roger wyoming II · PostJan 25, 2013#432013-01-25T18:08+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:Latest word was that the developers purchased a vacant lot across the street for the additional parking spots: http://goo.gl/maps/uF2ER. The city really needs a way to measure parking after the face. This lot should be surveyed and if found to be sparsely used, the developer should be able to sell or develop the lot.

Cool. Seems like a tight fit for that many spaces but hopefully it works. Monitoring post development is a good idea, too. Another aspect we really haven't talked about is how easily Dogtown can be lived car-free (or perhaps one-car free for couples). As I'm not a resident, I really can't say, but it doesn't look like it is the most transit-friendly.

Anyway, here's my long-term vision for transit related to the area:

As part of the Zoo redevelopment, the Zoo leases to Metro a true transit-oriented development that also serves as a hub serving fixed transit lines (quality brt or streetcar). An east-west line would begin downtown along Chouteau (Chouteau and Broadway could be a hub) then along Oakland to the hub; at the hub it would either continue on down Oakland or jog down Clayton through Dogtown and then on Clayton over to the Galleria/metrolink. This line would serve and boost downtown, near southside neighborhoods, Chouteau Greenway, SLU medical campus, FPSE, SLU High/Science Center/SLCC/Highlands, Zoo/Forest Park, Dogtown and Clayton. A north-south transit line would go down Hampton.

DogtownBnR · PostJan 25, 2013#442013-01-25T19:36+00:00

^Would love to see streetcar transit in the area, especially down Hampton.

Dogtown has a lot of things to do, that can be accessed without a car.
Forest Park is within walking distance. Many restaurants and stores as well.
Not close enough to a metro station, as mentioned.

dredger · PostJan 25, 2013#452013-01-25T23:34+00:00

^ Would extending the loop trolley to dogtown be a good idea? It would definitely give the Metrolink connection desired and could terminate or incorporated into a well placed bus stop. The plus side, you can phase in multiple extensions going south on Hampton on one end and going toward Clayton CBD on the other end. The downside is that you got a tourist trolley at first with frequency not as deriseable.

RuskiSTL · PostJan 26, 2013#462013-01-26T18:16+00:00

ImprovSTL wrote: But what kind of precedent is this setting? Neighborhoods deciding that real, positive developments be required to bow to their parking wishes?

Finally democracy in planning. Just like the saucer. This may not be what posters on this website would've wanted but at least its through the right process. And after all, those are the people that are most directly affected by the development, good for them for speaking up.

downtown2007 · PostJan 26, 2013#472013-01-26T18:25+00:00

I think the parking minimum should have been thrown out the window. Wish they would have went with the lower number.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 27, 2013#482013-01-27T21:50+00:00

dredger wrote:^ Would extending the loop trolley to dogtown be a good idea? It would definitely give the Metrolink connection desired and could terminate or incorporated into a well placed bus stop. The plus side, you can phase in multiple extensions going south on Hampton on one end and going toward Clayton CBD on the other end. The downside is that you got a tourist trolley at first with frequency not as deriseable.

My thought was that the Zoo TOD/transit hub I described above would also be a good site for a more regular Forest Park circulator bus (and place to rent bikes. etc.) Such a circulator could be linked up with the Metrolink & trolley. I wonder what it would cost to have the trolley go straight through Forest Park over to Hampton.

STLEnginerd · PostJan 28, 2013#492013-01-28T12:14+00:00

Should have demanded first level facing Clayton would be retail.

Alex Ihnen · PostJan 28, 2013#502013-01-28T14:46+00:00

^ no place for retail customers to park.

Hibernia Apts - 6300 Clayton Avenue

Choose Display Mode