Share
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostOct 21, 2005#151

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:
Arch City wrote:Paris, respectfully, just because a park is "within 5 blocks of each living person's home" it doesn't mean that actual green space is high. It just means that a park, which may or may not be green, is 5 blocks away. What matters most in determining green space is the concentrated acreage of green space - trees, bushes, flora, and other vegetation. Apparently, despite all of the parks in Paris, Paris still has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant. Hypothetically, it could be that all of the "park" land in Paris still might not add up to the "green space" acreage accessible in St. Louis. I don't know this for sure.


I disagree that "concentrated acreage" is what matters most. In a dense city such as NYC and Paris the proximity to a park is what matters most. Taking an hour to walk a few blocks and just decompress in a local pocket park is far more valuable on a daily basis than the massive urban park where you run and play ball.



You need the big urban park for weekends but proximity to a park by foot cannot be overlooked.
Urban Review St. Louis, you have grossly misunderstood what I wrote.



I said..........



"What matters most in determining green space is the concentrated acreage of green space - trees, bushes, flora, and other vegetation."



Essentially, I suggested that green space and park space are not necessarily synonymous, which is true.
282

PostOct 21, 2005#152

Arch City wrote:Urban Review St. Louis, you have grossly misunderstood what I wrote.



I said..........



What matters most in determining green space is the concentrated acreage of green space - trees, bushes, flora, and other vegetation. Essentially, I suggested that green space and park space are not necessarily synonymous, which is true.


I realize what you said. But, your argument was St. Louis "probably" had more total acreage of "green" space than Paris. You were discounting Paris' and NYC's parks because they didn't meet your definition of green.



I'll take NYC's quality and proximity of parks over total acreage of green any time.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostOct 21, 2005#153

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:I realize what you said. But, your argument was St. Louis "probably" had more total acreage of "green" space than Paris. You were discounting Paris' and NYC's parks because they didn't meet your definition of green.



I'll take NYC's quality and proximity of parks over total acreage of green any time.
Urban Review St. Louis, first, I was not discounting Paris' and NYC's small urban parks. Don't be ridiculous. Second, I did not say those parks were not green. In fact, I said, "just because a park is "within 5 blocks of each living person's home" it doesn't mean that actual green space is high (in the park)." In essence, I suggested that small "park" (which can be a "common" area or square) can have green space.



I even said the NYC park had manicured bushes and trees and was beautiful. I don't think that is "discounting" the parks in those cities at all. However, "park" space and total green space accumulation are not necessarily synonymous. Furthermore, it is not about my definition of "green space". It is about what is universally accepted...........



A green belt or greenbelt is an area of largely undeveloped wild or agricultural land surrounding or neighbouring an urban area. A similar concept is the greenway which has a linear character and may run through the urban area instead of around it. The more general term in the U.S. is green space or greenspace, which may be a very small area such as a park. (Definition: Green Space)



Either way, the accessible or available acreage of green space to Parisians is apparently very low. So apparently all of the parks, no matter the proximity to homes in Paris, still yield a low percentage of actual green space per inhabitant according to literature. This is not "discounting" the parks in Paris. It is apparently just a fact.
282

PostOct 21, 2005#154

Arch City wrote:Either way, the accessible or available acreage of green space to Parisians is apparently very low. So apparently all of the parks, no matter the proximity to homes in Paris, still yield a low percentage of actual green space per inhabitant according to literature. This is not "discounting" the parks in Paris. It is apparently just a fact.


So somebody took some data and determined greenspace ratio is low. Your point? Oh, here it is:


Arch City wrote:Paris, on the other hand, is unlike any other city in the world. It did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers. Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world. Imagine if Paris had built up. I?d rather have Forest and Tower Grove park than a stubby six story building any day.


Here you clearly argued against the Paris model of low-rise buildings with smaller non-green parks - instead favoring bigger greenspace. You used the low greenspace ratio to support your argument.



"Imagine if Paris had built up." What, more like St. Louis with lots of useless open green space? Imagine if St. Louis had built up with 4-6 story buildings rather than 2-story flats. Our smaller parks would be teaming with people beyond drug dealers.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostOct 21, 2005#155

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:
Arch City wrote:Paris, on the other hand, is unlike any other city in the world. It did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers. Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world. Imagine if Paris had built up. I?d rather have Forest and Tower Grove park than a stubby six story building any day.


Here you clearly argued against the Paris model of low-rise buildings with smaller non-green parks - instead favoring bigger greenspace. You used the low greenspace ratio to support your argument.



"Imagine if Paris had built up." What, more like St. Louis with lots of useless open green space? Imagine if St. Louis had built up with 4-6 story buildings rather than 2-story flats. Our smaller parks would be teaming with people beyond drug dealers.
Totally wrong again Urban Review. I was arguing against height restrictions that helped to siphone (or limit) overall green space in Paris. I was not arguing against Paris' park model at all. You need to read more thoroughly.
282

PostOct 21, 2005#156

Arch City wrote:
Urban Review St. Louis wrote:
Arch City wrote:Paris, on the other hand, is unlike any other city in the world. It did not want its beauty and charm cluttered and ruined by skyscrapers. Yet, it is said that Paris has one of the lowest ratios of green space per inhabitant in the world. Imagine if Paris had built up. I?d rather have Forest and Tower Grove park than a stubby six story building any day.


Here you clearly argued against the Paris model of low-rise buildings with smaller non-green parks - instead favoring bigger greenspace. You used the low greenspace ratio to support your argument.



"Imagine if Paris had built up." What, more like St. Louis with lots of useless open green space? Imagine if St. Louis had built up with 4-6 story buildings rather than 2-story flats. Our smaller parks would be teaming with people beyond drug dealers.
Totally wrong again Urban Review. I was arguing against height restrictions that helped to siphone (or limit) overall green space in Paris. You need to read more thoroughly.


Ok, you were arguing against height restrictions which I phrased as arguing against Paris' low-rise model and you were aruguing against overall green space which I phrased as favoring bigger greenspace.



If we could end up with a Paris - low greenspace ratio and all - just by having a height restriction I'd say we implement it right away! Of course, reality doesn't work that way - having a height restriction doesn't guarantee one of the most dense cities in the world just as not having a hight restriction will guarantee you'll have a thriving high-rise metropolis.



I agree with all your other points about high rises and the 4643 Lindell project.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostOct 21, 2005#157

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:Ok, you were arguing against height restrictions which I phrased as arguing against Paris' low-rise model and you were aruguing against overall green space which I phrased as favoring bigger greenspace.



If we could end up with a Paris - low greenspace ratio and all - just by having a height restriction I'd say we implement it right away! Of course, reality doesn't work that way - having a height restriction doesn't guarantee one of the most dense cities in the world just as not having a hight restriction will guarantee you'll have a thriving high-rise metropolis.



I agree with all your other points about high rises and the 4643 Lindell project.
But height restrictions do ultimately impede on green space and land availability, which then becomes a quality of life issue.



Furthermore, for clarity, I was not arguing against Paris' park model at all, which you are suggesting (have suggested) erroneously. Your "phrasing" or suggestion of such is totally misleading and misguided. Paris' park model is not the issue here and it is not a concern of mine. The issue is height restrictions, which eventually lead to lack of green space and land resources.
282

PostOct 21, 2005#158

Arch City wrote:But height restrictions do ultimately impede on green space and land availability, which then becomes a quality of life issue.


So central Paris' height restriction ultimately led to their low green space ratio which led to their current quality of life. Total acreage of green space is not the full measure of quality of life. I think by most standards the quality of life in central Paris is quite high. So where does this leave your argument?



Making such a general statement as "height restrictions do ultimately impede on green space and land availability, which then becomes a quality of life issue" is just too broad to have any credibility.



So if St. Louis imposed say a 10-story height restriction throughout the city we'd impede our green space and land availability? Hardly. One, we are not going to develop Forest Park, TGP or any other city parks. The one exception is the Gateway Mall - I'd like to see us get rid of that useless stretch of green space.



But ultimately we'd have land availability issues right? I wish! We've got land running out our ears in this city. Even in the West End where this project exists we've got extra land - all those parking lots previously discussed.



St. Louis already has height restrictions in place - called zoning. These hight restrictions have let to neither lack of green space nor shortage of land availability. Quality of life is questionable.


26.52.040 Height regulations.



Buildings may be erected to such height that the cubic contents of said building above the established grade shall not exceed the volume of a prism having a base equal to the projected horizontal area of the building and a height of two hundred (200) feet. In the case of buildings occupying a lot having frontage on intersecting streets and which buildings are so designed as to provide a setback or open space at one (1) corner or corners where such street intersections occur, or when such setback begins below the two hundred (200) foot height above the established grade, the volume determined by the above rule may be exceeded by an amount equal to the volume so taken out of the reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height; provided, however, that the total volume of the actual building shall not exceed by more than twenty-five percent (25%) the volume of said reference prism of two hundred (200) foot height. (Ord. 59979 ? 14 (part), 1986.)


The above quote is from the I-Central Business District regulation. Others seem more limited in height. Does anyone know the zoning for 4643 Lindell? St. Louis' zoning ordinances can be found at http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/title26.htm



Absolute statements about height restrictions backed up by an irrelevant piece of data from a highly desirable and urban city just doesn't fly with me.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostOct 22, 2005#159

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:So central Paris' height restriction ultimately led to their low green space ratio which led to their current quality of life. Total acreage of green space is not the full measure of quality of life. I think by most standards the quality of life in central Paris is quite high. So where does this leave your argument? :roll:



Making such a general statement as "height restrictions do ultimately impede on green space and land availability, which then becomes a quality of life issue" is just too broad to have any credibility.


Dude, who said that green space was the FULL MEASURE of quality life? You are grasping now. Where on earth is that said anywhere in this thread? I certainly didn't. I said that it impedes on quality of life and of course quality of life has many indicators - medical, education, employment, crime, etc. Who doesn't know that? There's no doubt in the minds of many that Paris' quality of life index could be higher if green space was greater, otherwise, why is it measured worldwide or even a concern of environmentalists, urban planners, and cities. Why is Paris implementing plans to change its woeful green space index if it were so content with its quality of life? Quality of life of any city can always be improved. Always. Where does this leave your argument? :wink:


Urban Review St. Louis wrote:So if St. Louis imposed say a 10-story height restriction throughout the city we'd impede our green space and land availability? Hardly. One, we are not going to develop Forest Park, TGP or any other city parks. The one exception is the Gateway Mall - I'd like to see us get rid of that useless stretch of green space.



But ultimately we'd have land availability issues right? I wish! We've got land running out our ears in this city. Even in the West End where this project exists we've got extra land - all those parking lots previously discussed.



St. Louis already has height restrictions in place - called zoning. These hight restrictions have let to neither lack of green space nor shortage of land availability. Quality of life is questionable.


Interesting. How do you know St. Louis wouldn't develop Forest Park or TGP? Although I don't immediately anticipate it, if land availability became critical enough anything could happen. And, so you think that just because there is land "running out our ears" smart development, that is readily accessible, should not be encouraged?



Mills Properties is proposing to build a 30-story tower in the CWE with 317 units. Do you know how much land would be absorbed if 317 units were put in typical complex-style on farmland? Why not build up when possible? Does it not bother you that land is being absorbed in the St. Louis region faster than population is growing? The attractiveness of living in a new state-of-the-art residential tower just might persuade people to move east to St. Louis City versus moving farther west to Lincoln County or south to Jefferson County.



In St. Louis City is green space and land availability at immediate risk now? I would venture to say no. While it would be unlikely to happen in our lifetime, if the city imposed a height restriction of 10-stories, in time green space and land availability certainly would be at risk. Paris wasn't threatened overnight either, but she is now. And let me add that Paris has green space, but it is low - thus placing it at risk.


Urban Review St. Louis wrote:Absolute statements about height restrictions backed up by an irrelevant piece of data from a highly desirable and urban city just doesn't fly with me.
It's okay Urban Review, you don't have to accept it. It is your prerogative. But even the City of Paris thinks otherwise. I find it interesting that some people romaticize Paris so much that she cannot have any flaws.



I found this whole excerpt on the internet (unaltered)........



The Quartier Verts program is designed to increase the amount of green space in the city to rebalance the public space and improve the quality of life for its inhabitants. An outline of the project can be found at (in French) at

http://www.paris.fr/fr/deplacements/Dos ... sVerts.ASP
399
Full MemberFull Member
399

PostOct 22, 2005#160

I love zoning regulation quotes and trying to define indefinite things like "quality of life" as much as the next guy, but this topic has really derailed. Maybe it could be branched off into "Arch City and Urban Review St. Louis' ever expanding Greenspace/Zoning/Land Use/Paris/Height Restriction Discussion".



And if the moderator actually did that I think it'd be pretty funny.
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostOct 22, 2005#161

^Actually, I feel the mini-topics we are discussing are relative to the larger topic(s) as brought up by commentary noted in the WEW regarding Lindell Condominiums and the opposition it's facing. For the most part, we are still discussing height restriction laws and their broader impact on societies - particularly St. Louis.
282

PostOct 22, 2005#162

Arch City wrote:^Actually, I feel the mini-topics we are discussing are relative to the larger topic(s) as brought up by commentary noted in the WEW regarding Lindell Condominiums and the opposition it's facing. For the most part, we are still discussing height restriction laws and their broader impact on societies - particularly St. Louis.


I agree! And for the record I'm not opposed to the 4643 Lindell project. I think the height should not be a concern. My only concern with the project is how it addresses both Lindell and Euclid. I hope Euclid will be more than just a parking garage entrance.
399
Full MemberFull Member
399

PostOct 22, 2005#163

If you feel that way, that's cool, it seemed to get personal and more about one-up manship than anything, but if not, hey, good. Anyway, here is my take. I think that having an abundance of green space/parkland/whatever you want to call it does not neccisarily mean that you are increasing quality of life for the people that live in the city. This can be for two primary reasons that I see, and probably more that are less obvious.



1. The green space is isolated. Example - Bicentenial Park in downtown Miami. The park is seperated from the rest of Miami by I-755 and Biscayne Blvd. It is underutilized and seen as dangerous. There have been many proposals in past to redesign it or even open it up for construction. So even though it adds to the total acrage of green space in Miami, it does very little to add to quality of life in the city.



2. The design of the greenspace is not user friendly. (Former) Example - Bryant Park in New York. Bryant park sits in Mid-town Manhattan and is roughly half the size of Benton park in St Louis. It was with-in walking distance of thousands of workers and right next to New York Central Public Library. Yet almost no one stopped to have lunch there or walk their dog there at night. Why the design of the park, while accessible made anyone who entered feel unsafe. It was surrounded by a tall barrier on all sides. Now that the park has been opened up to the outside it is packed at lunchtime and seen as a community asset.



So in short in a totally cop-out answer I think what you both are saying is true. Parks must be accessible to the population, and they must be a quality funtional design not just random open space. I think you two are looking at oppocite ends of the same equation on this one. and in the end it may come down to the individual. Some people like a park near that they can go for a jog every evening. Some like a large park where they can go play a game of softball or soccer.



As far as height restrictions impeding park availability. In theory the a height restriction could impede park availabilty because land would become more valuable and more scarce, but that assumes that demand will continue to increase and that it cannot be filled elsewhere. With Paris' height restrictions you would guess then that its lack of green space was due to parks being developed over. But this is not the case. Development has just moved outside the city to an area called La Defence. Even though there was demand, it just moved elsewhere. Paris did not even have a restriction until 1974, long after taller buildings were being built all over the world. My guess as to why Paris scores so low on the green space index is that it is an ancient city, and in it's current form was built up during Napoleonic times when the civic planing meant making the city look astetically pleasing and uniform. It didn't really take into account what the people needed. If parks aren't there today, they probably never were. I guess that's my take. How about those Lindell Condominiums.
835
Super MemberSuper Member
835

PostOct 22, 2005#164

As I recall, the Euclid side of the new tower will have retail space at street level. The front of the building will face Lindell, with parking on the ground floor. Opus has a track record of building commercial space beneath several levels of parking.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostOct 29, 2005#165

Several letters in this week's West End Word about "The Behemoth". I guess it went to press before Mills' 30 story proposal went public, so just wait untill next week!
188
Junior MemberJunior Member
188

PostNov 06, 2005#166

park east construction is getting me pumped about this.



People are gonna think I'm weird if I keep talking about these projects 8)
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostNov 06, 2005#167

Steve Patterson of Urban Review STL has an op/ed piece published in the West End Word this week discussing the relative merits of building height verses quality of design. The Word says he will have occasional pieces published on the general topics of architecture and urban design. Should be good stuff.

PostNov 06, 2005#168

Forgot to mention: The West End Word has announced a new monthly contest for the best "Letter to the Editor". Each monthly winner gets 50 bucks. For all of you who like to vent, here's your chance!
1,282
AdministratorAdministrator
1,282

PostNov 11, 2005#169

"Opus will present its plan for the corner to the community at the Nov. 12 Central West End Planning and Development Committee meeting"

Source
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostNov 11, 2005#170

I hope this means a rendering is coming soon. I keep checking to see how the meeting went and hoping to get more details of the project -- on pins & needles.
2,427
Life MemberLife Member
2,427

PostNov 13, 2005#171

I went to the public meeting this morning and saw the renderings!!! It looks GREAT. Somewhat similar to the Park East in its use of glass, but not quite as sleek. It's definitely a handsome building that respects the existing streetscape of Euclid.



Many residents expressed concerns about the height of the building. They are worried about shadows and "dwarfing" the other buildings on the street. Others, like me, spoke in favor of the project, and welcome it with open arms. I couldn't resist-- I stood up and spoke my mind and got a resounding applause.



I believe this development will become a reality, because even those most opposed to it recognize that the corner of Lindell & Euclid is sorely underutilized. I hope the renderings will appear in the papers soon!
1,054
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,054

PostNov 13, 2005#172

May the resounding applause continue!
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostNov 13, 2005#173

STLgasm wrote:


Many residents expressed concerns about the height of the building. They are worried about shadows and "dwarfing" the other buildings on the street. Others, like me, spoke in favor of the project, and welcome it with open arms. I couldn't resist-- I stood up and spoke my mind and got a resounding applause.


I'm glad that you were applauded. Thanks for defending a welcome improvement to the already healthy and vital Central West End!
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostNov 13, 2005#174

Woohooo!! Gasm, way to represent progression!
4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostNov 17, 2005#175

Found this information.



TIF panel approves U. City boutique hotel, Central West End condos (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

By Tavia Evans,

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News



Nov. 10--A city commission recommended approval Wednesday for $18.3 million in tax increment financing for new commercial and residential projects, including a boutique hotel east of the University City Loop and a new condominium high-rise building in the Central West End.



So, a project like Saaman Development's proposal for condominiums near Delmar Boulevard and Goodfellow Avenue needs more than 50 percent to kickstart the market for housing in that area, Geisman said. So, the commission recommended $1.25 million in TIF funds for the three-story project, which would include 36 condominiums units with prices starting around $222,000.



Also recommended: $7.5 million for the Lindell Condominiums at 4643 Lindell Boulevard. Opus Development plans to build the 28-story high-rise at the corner of Lindell and Euclid Avenue. The high-rise would include 200 units and 8,000 square feet of street-level retail; units could range from $190,000 to $500,000.
Read more posts (346 remaining)
Share