I try to shy away from the brick-front/vinyl sides debate, but those photos make a great comparison. IMO, the all-vinyl homes look better than those with brick on the front only.



Too bad brick is so danged expensive!

Framer wrote:I try to shy away from the brick-front/vinyl sides debate, but those photos make a great comparison. IMO, the all-vinyl homes look better than those with brick on the front only.



Too bad brick is so danged expensive!

I couldn't agree more. One thing I've noticed about infill here in Chicago - if it's vinyl, it's ALL vinyl. If it's brick, it's all masonry of some sort. I just don't think vinyl and brick complement each other well at all.

Agreed. All vinyl looks much better than the vinyl mullet. In Chicago there are plenty of older homes that are all siding and still manage to appear urban. Also, in Chicago they build a lot with brick fronts and cinder-block on the other three sides. This, at least, still gives the feel of a brick building.

Such a travesty, urban neighborhood with suburban yards!



In Cities in Full, author Steve Belmont stipulates that the lowest density that should exist in cities is in townhouse neighborhoods which either means attached homes or no less than ten feet spacing. The homes in the pictures above demonstrate the lack of urban design and the further entrenchment of poverty and jailing of low income families into the City with high crime and the worst public schools save for Metro and magnets. Belmont has a point when he argues that new housing to be built in the major cities should be for middle and upper middle class residents allowing older suburban houses from the 1940s-1970s to pass down to the low income and poor. These suburban homes are located closer to suburban jobs (Westport, Airport, Earth City, I-170 Industrial) where many poor and low income people work, crime is lower, schools are better (Ritneur, Ferg-Flo, and Hazelwood over St. Louis City schools any day), neighborhoods are intact with parks and not in decay or surrounded by vacant blocks, and houses have more modern amenities than older City homes passed down from 1960s middle class to low income.



These are the points made by Steve Belmont in his book Cities in Full.

I agree with the all siding, but for some reason I think of Cleveland when I see them. That's not a bad thing, I just do.

It is an interesting book, and I do not agree with everything especially the author's blaringly obvious bias throughout the chapters.



Sorry Arch and Jefferson for the over-application of the book's tenants.



The houses are built with an urban massing and scale with attention to vertical instead of horizontal layout, large front porch, high foundation, proximity to the street, and garage in the rear. Again the complaint is the separation between buildings.



If these homes are geared towards working class and middle class, then they pass the book's test for rebuilding the inner city. The author has high principles for rebuilding the inner cities and discusses at length "gray zones" like many low density and LRA destroyed neighborhoods in North St. Louis. One examples of those high standards is that the lowest density housing in the future be attached or minimal spacing townhouses for the upper class and middle class living in multi-family buildings. I will say his argument is a stretch and that the homes above are a good step in the right direction towards rebuilt northside neighborhoods.



However, the question remains:

Will the low density buildup of urban scale houses in this manner adversely affect their northside neighborhoods when the auto is no longer "king" and transit scaled housing is needed?

^Well, they have designed mixed income housing. Those are often referred to as "today's projects" on these boards. Granted, they could have been designed better, but they were still designed.

Am I the only person who thinks this totally rips the urban quality and history out of St. Louis. I know some of the houses were in bad shape, but throwing up these plastic siding eye-sores totally reaks of Atlanta style suburban countrified bullsh*t. In 50 years St. Louis will heavy no more urban neighborhoods on the Northside and you will think you are driving threw Nashville. Total bullsh*t !

No. While not wanting to bash Nashville or suburban Atlanta, I basically agree with you. The typical St. Louis architecture that was (likely) originally there has been obliterated, replaced with something that looks out of place and certainly not typical of the city of St. Louis.

IOW, there is really nothing wrong with these houses per se, they're just way out of context compared to what was (likely) there before. Not being a fan of vinyl, the style of the houses aren't bad and they are rather attractive, except for the mullets.

I say likely because I don't know for sure what was there. But taking into consideration similar occurances (and worse) in St. Louis (especially the north side) I can only assume that what WAS there was the typical St. Louis architecture.

If we can't replace what was lost there, we should strive for something better...IMO more urban and target upper income while providing a mixture of incomes, including low income mixed in.