urbanSTL

The site plan shows an entrance to the garage form the alley.

Sorry, missed that. The Lindell curb cut is still required? I can see it being too hard to manage the traffic with only a single entrance on the alley.

The naysayers are coming out today for this building on other sites. The one’s calling it ugly! I would love to see what they think is pretty or should be built.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbeedee wrote: ↑

Mar 23, 2022

Sorry, missed that. The Lindell curb cut is still required? I can see it being too hard to manage the traffic with only a single entrance on the alley.

I don't know about required. Their traffic engineer figured there wouldn't be that many car trips per day.
Be sure to send them feedback on this.

Mapguy wrote: ↑

Mar 23, 2022

The naysayers are coming out today for this building on other sites. The one’s calling it ugly! I would love to see what they think is pretty or should be built.

Those types are to be expected

There seems to be very little interest in this forum on the issue of the historical setback on Lindell.  What makes Lindell Boulevard a 'BOULEVARD' is the setback provision from Kingshighway all the way to Grand.   The current rendering, with the structure right up to the Lindell property line, would 'close down' and 'choke' the boulevard at its most important nexus (with the added insult of an ugly parking structure right at the sidewalk).  There are diverse opinions on the building itself, but everyone should be united in objecting to the vandalism of an historic streetscape.  Set it back, and build higher!

fdayt wrote: ↑

Mar 25, 2022

There seems to be very little interest in this forum on the issue of the historical setback on Lindell.  What makes Lindell Boulevard a 'BOULEVARD' is the setback provision from Kingshighway all the way to Grand.   The current rendering, with the structure right up to the Lindell property line, would 'close down' and 'choke' the boulevard at its most important nexus (with the added insult of an ugly parking structure right at the sidewalk).  There are diverse opinions on the building itself, but everyone should be united in objecting to the vandalism of an historic streetscape.  Set it back, and build higher!

I disagree. For this one parcel, having it up to the sidewalk on Lindell is just fine. It won't affect much beyond this block of Lindell. Besides, the northern block sits closer to Lindell than any other portion on that side of the street. Draw a line from Citizen Park to Kingshighway and you'll see what I mean.

There are diverse opinions on the building itself, but everyone should be united in objecting to the vandalism of an historic streetscape

Lol.

I think it might make for a nice terminus to the boulevard, a capstone signifying the transition from the CWE, CITy, to the pastoral park. Note that St. Xavier at Grand doesn't abide by the setback either. There's a trio of violators on the south side at 3920 Lindell. It ends on the north side at Qdoba.

I'm generally a big supporter of consistent setbacks. I guess I'm a bit undecided on this one, but my gut tells me to move it back and maintain the setback. 

On the other hand . . .   

What is the proposed setback vs the required setback? I know I could dig up the info, but clearly other people already know the answer. Thanks in advance.

Lindell is a joke of a road to be called a boulevard. IMO it’s too wide, not grand in design, lacks trees in numerous places, has way to many drive aprons that breaks its continuity, and is only poking at being pedestrian and cyclist friendly. If we are concerned with it being a boulevard we should be trying to abolish the middle turn lane for a median of trees in as many continuous places as possible. A setback on a building won’t affect the feel of this road that sorely needs resurfaced through its entire stretch even when it becomes olive.

Build the building on the sidewalk as long as appropriate pedestrian scale is also considered. IMO that would be about 15-20’ from back of curb to facade.

(Sorry made an edit. Originally I had wrote build it on setback which I do not support in this case as it’s too large of a set back.)

LArchitecture wrote:Lindell is a joke of a road to be called a boulevard. IMO it’s too wide, not grand in design, lacks trees in numerous places, has way to many drive aprons that breaks its continuity, and is only poking at being pedestrian and cyclist friendly. If we are concerned with it being a boulevard we should be trying to abolish the middle turn lane for a median of trees in as many continuous places as possible. A setback on a building won’t affect the feel of this road that sorely needs resurfaced through its entire stretch even when it becomes olive.

Build the building on the setback as long as appropriate pedestrian scale is also considered.

A lot of this. I don’t get calling Lindell a “grand boulevard” when it’s anything but and in terrible condition overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mapguy wrote: ↑

Mar 23, 2022

The naysayers are coming out today for this building on other sites. The one’s calling it ugly! I would love to see what they think is pretty or should be built.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where have people been calling the building ugly? The building itself seems largely uncontroversial. I've seen people say it's kind of boring but don't think I've seen anyone say it was ugly.

The Koplar property is in the Central West End Historic District (est. 1974), which on Lindell (the southern boundary of the district) extends from Newstead to DeBaliviere.  Part of the charter is that "setbacks will be strictly enforced".  The intent is to keep clean sight lines along each block.  There is a height limit in the district.  West of Newstead, on corner lots, buildings are allowed to go only as high as 24 stories.  The intent is to maintain the historic look, feel, and sense of scale of the neighborhood.  Although modern design is not prohibited the district standards  clearly are meant to provide a structure more architecturally referenced to nearby buildings such as the Chase.  The Albion project, as currently presented, would need variances on all of this.  They are also seeking a TIF, in the face of our mayor's statements that she will not look fondly on TIF's in the affluent central corridor.  Of course the Koplar organization knows all of this.  One wonders what else they know.  

Pretty sure board of adjustment will approve the variances for the setbacks and height. This property is particularly interesting since it falls within the Form Based Code district as well, which does away with the historic district rules for this site.

As for this seeking a TIF, there is no indication this is seeking one. A tax abatement, yes. TIF, unknown.

If you’re that bent out of shape over the height and setbacks, just be happy this wasn’t the much taller version that I was shown. That would’ve made some people have a stroke if they’re nitpicky over the things you mention.

Central West End Form-Based District:

Para. D(a):  "The ordinance shall apply to any New Construction...within the Central West End Historic District (CWEHD).  In the CWEHD...new construction shall (i) comply with...standards set forth in the Form-Based District; and (ii)  to the extent possible comply with...design standards prescribed by the CWEHD...
PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO THE CWEHD DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL PREVAIL..."

Para. D(b)(iii): " In the event of any conflict with any height requirements of the District with the Local Historic District the Local Historic District shall control..."

This should be interesting!

Zero chance on tax abatement.  Alderman Tina Pihl states on her web-site that one of her priorities will be to "Stop giving tax breaks to luxury developments in wealthy neighborhoods."  And, as to the Albion design standards it is interesting that Ms. Pihl has a BA in Architecture from Yale.

fdayt wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2022

Zero chance on tax abatement.  Alderman Tina Pihl states on her web-site that one of her priorities will be to "Stop giving tax breaks to luxury developments in wealthy neighborhoods."  And, as to the Albion design standards it is interesting that Ms. Pihl has a BA in Architecture from Yale.

Tina was involved in the negotiation on City Foundry Phase 2 and Cortex KDG was she not? Those are apartments in better neighborhoods yes? And despite me not really liking her or Tishaura, they're willing to work with the developer on incentives to insure a decent outcome for everyone involved. So saying "zero chance on tax abatement" is a bit much, yes? And is it a stretch to say that I believe Tina said that in her campaign to win over some voters upset with development patterns in the 17th Ward? After all, it is a thing in politics but even she understands that it would be against her ward's interest to put the breaks on development whether they get incentives or not. 

I get that you're new here, but the posts you're posting on this thread seem like you're really hoping that the parking lot stays and this project is canned because "OH GOD, the setbacks aren't adhered to!", "OH GOD, it's too tall!", "OH GOD, a tax abatement!". These seem like NIMBY concerns wrapped in a "devils advocate" sort of way. 

This parking lot has sat this way forever as the site has never been built on. Most people understand this and most people would rather see this lot go away for what's presented. As such, expect things like the setback and high rules to be less of an issue because, well, no precedent has been set for this property ever. The tax abatement issue will surely be worked out in a calm and organized fashion because the people at city hall understand what this is and despite how some might act in public, they want it. People would be dumb not to want it in its current form or the form I was shown last fall.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2022

fdayt wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2022

Zero chance on tax abatement.  Alderman Tina Pihl states on her web-site that one of her priorities will be to "Stop giving tax breaks to luxury developments in wealthy neighborhoods."  And, as to the Albion design standards it is interesting that Ms. Pihl has a BA in Architecture from Yale.

Tina was involved in the negotiation on City Foundry Phase 2 and Cortex KDG was she not? Those are apartments in better neighborhoods yes? And despite me not really liking her or Tishaura, they're willing to work with the developer on incentives to insure a decent outcome for everyone involved. So saying "zero chance on tax abatement" is a bit much, yes? And is it a stretch to say that I believe Tina said that in her campaign to win over some voters upset with development patterns in the 17th Ward? After all, it is a thing in politics but even she understands that it would be against her ward's interest to put the breaks on development whether they get incentives or not. 

I get that you're new here, but the posts you're posting on this thread seem like you're really hoping that the parking lot stays and this project is canned because "OH GOD, the setbacks aren't adhered to!", "OH GOD, it's too tall!", "OH GOD, a tax abatement!". These seem like NIMBY concerns wrapped in a "devils advocate" sort of way. 

This parking lot has sat this way forever as the site has never been built on. Most people understand this and most people would rather see this lot go away for what's presented. As such, expect things like the setback and high rules to be less of an issue because, well, no precedent has been set for this property ever. The tax abatement issue will surely be worked out in a calm and organized fashion because the people at city hall understand what this is and despite how some might act in public, they want it. People would be dumb not to want it in its current form or the form I was shown last fall.

I repeat: Zero chance on 'Tax Abatement'.  Alderman Pihl is a smart and savvy pol, and seems absolutely dedicated to improvement in living conditions in the poorer sections of her ward. (Good for her!)   But there is no largess for this goal in tax abatement for this project.  She is bright enough to know that the"But For" hired-gun consultants for projects in St Louis always overlook the clients  manipulation of the project's  IRR data to bolster their case - knowing the well-documented incompetence of St Louis agencies.  Plus, she knows, as we all do, that a project at this location can make it on its own.   Good grief, if not there - where?

But TIF's - such as the one at Cortex  - aha!  If Albion went for a TIF to finance the project Ms. Pihl and Mayor Jones can withhold approval until they get a ~10% slice of the TIF bonds redirected to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AFHT).  Of that multi-million dollar pot the Mayor gets her 50% slice to buy votes and fund projects on the North side and Ms. Pihl gets the other half for projects in the poorer sections of her ward.   She WOULD approve a TIF under those circumstances, as she did for Cortex.  And who could blame her?  How else to provide some small measure of equity in funding improvement projects in poorer St. Louis neighborhoods?  She would also be thanked by the St Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) who will approve just about any TIF since they have to pay their salaries and expense accounts with fees on TIFs - and this will be a big one.  And Albion can simply cook the books a little more to request an even larger TIF to cover their 10% loss - knowing that the TIF Commission ranks up there as perhaps the most incompetent agency of all, and is never going to question the numbers.  (See the state audit of several years ago, which excoriated the agency.)  The hired guns cover their ass by repeatedly stating that they did not verify or audit any data from their client, and cannot be held responsible for report inaccuracies.

Everyone wins but the 'suckers' ..er...I mean the taxpayers.

Either way the project will go ahead.  But for what its worth I do hope (likely in vain) that it will conform to Historic District standards.  But...hey...just my opinions. 

Either way the project will go ahead.

On that I agree. No one wants to be the person who screws this up, especially on the heals of the Census estimate.
A TIF would also have to include a payout to SLPS otherwise SLPS gets nothing until the bonds are paid off versus a not 100% tax abatement wherein SLPS gets something in year 1.

i can't really take setback hand-wringing seriously when there's more consternation over the setback than the entire Lindell frontage being a parking garage.

urban_dilettante wrote:i can't really take setback hand-wringing seriously when there's more consternation over the setback than the entire Lindell frontage being a parking garage.

True that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can someone please share what the proposed setback is vs. the required setback?