urbanSTL

Good grief.



From their web site:

VISIT the first Opus Development project at Laclede and Euclid to

obseve problems similar to those of the now proposed project at Lindell and Euclid.

What are the problems with the Park East project?

My rebuttal to the text on their site.

We are in favor of responsible development that adds value to our CWE neighborhood, our city, and our region.

Than why are you not in favor of this project. Some minor things need to be reworked, but overall it is a high quality development. This 28 floor building will add more value to the neighborhood than a ten floor building on that corner. A two story building with no interaction to the street on a high profile corner will be replaced with 200 condos and retail.

The second Opus Development project, now proposed for the northeast corner of Lindell and Euclid, has been given special treatment by the City of St. Louis: its site has been blighted, it received a TIF, and it violates the Historic District ordinance previously established for all buildings within the neighborhood.



This special treatment sets a harmful precedent for the entire City.

I don't think this is any more special than any other large development project receives. O yeah, the historic district. What about all those other buildings over 15 floors on the same block. Talk about a slippery slope. Isn't this what variances are for. Nothing wrong with a 28 floor building with a modern design. 4545 Lindell has a very modern design, why weren't you against that building. That's right, It''s not right in your backyard. you weren't being selfish like you are with this project.

SIGN the Petition against the proposed project by request to:

stlouiscitizens@aol.com



With these Petitions we will TELL Alderwoman Lyda Krewson to support a building that conforms to the Historic District ordinance for the area.

Don't sign it, and I don't think it's going to make a big difference anyway.

VISIT the first Opus Development project at Laclede and Euclid to

obseve problems similar to those of the now proposed project at Lindell and Euclid.

I can't quite figure out what they are referring too. Is it because the Park East took a surface parking lot, and gasp, is right up to the sidewalk.

GET INVOLVED, STAY INVOLVED!

I agree, but but don't be against a project because you are selfish. Like you said, think about the betterment of the neighborhood and the city and region as a whole.

Please see the the thread I'm about to start in this forum entitled "RALLY THE TROOPS" pertaining to this very subject.



Administrator wrote: "RALLY THE TROOPS" thread was moved to the <A HREF="http://www.urbanstl.com/viewforum.php?f=1">Urban Living</A> forum

Patti Teper= St. Louis Small Thinker Mentality at its worst. That kind of mentality has cost St. Louis half its residents and its prosperity over the last 50 years. I say the hell with that kind of thinking.



God Bless Opus.

^I second that.

G-d bless Opus?



Opus is a private company making money off of these projects. Maybe the architect, city planner or Preservation Board members should be blessed for their urban thinking, but I really don't think that the owners of Opus are building their buildings to advance ideas.

ecoabsence wrote:G-d bless Opus?

Absolutely. DESCO is a private business concern too, and I am generally displeased with their developments. Opus' projects seem genuinely urban at heart--DESCO's do not.



While I'm no "Wealth of Nations"-thumping free marketeer, I think that people can make money and still have ideals, still care about the world in which they live.

ecoabsence wrote:G-d bless Opus?



Opus is a private company making money off of these projects. Maybe the architect, city planner or Preservation Board members should be blessed for their urban thinking, but I really don't think that the owners of Opus are building their buildings to advance ideas.

i think that's a point some urban cheerleaders on here seem to forget.....

Opus e-mailed me back earlier this week and appreciates any support they can get from those of us who are interested in seeing this project move forward. So.... if there is a meetin about this tower let me know, I'll show up. If there is a petition for this tower, I'll sign it.

In regards to this group started by Teper...



As far as I'm concerned, St. Louis population has been rapidly declining for the last 5 decades. Now it's on the rise and, yes, there are areas that should be rehabbed but those areas can be rehabbed by people who want to rehab. In order for the city to develop it needs a mixture of new development and redevelopment and it has to BEGIN in areas people are willing to live and spread out from there.



When people who live in suburbs and in other cities (or people who are thinking about leaving the city) see these kind of large scale new developments it starts to change people's perceptions of the city. We are living in a decade of redevelopment and new development of the kind that St. Louis hasn't seen for a generation and people are noticing.



As far as I'm concerned as long as their building connects well with the street and has ground level retail (if not more), then that's good for the city. While I personally am vehemently opposed to suburban living, not everyone gets excited about leaving their comfortable home in the county or another city for a rehabbed home in the city of St. Louis.



Right now St. Louis city needs to be concerned with four things: population growth, unrelenting URBAN development, new employment opportunities and new businesses in the CITY, and changing the highly segregated climate in the city. And all four of those things work in each others favor and in the favor of the city.



It seems that the towers proposed by Opus meet those requirements.

"Why would you want to squash a project like this?"



Who in this discussion is trying to squash the project?



Does enforcing historic district ordinances "squash" development, or promote better design that encourages more development?



One can welcome the project without finding one thing to like about the design.

How does this project not comply with historic design standards other than height? And how can the Park Plaza tower conform to such district height standards, but not this proposed tower?



But realistically, this corner should be excluded from the district when surrounded to the east (bank) and west (library/garage) by non-historic structures also within the district. Thus, the line for the historic district should ideally start at the alley north of Lindell and south of Maryland Plaza, not Lindell.

Sorry eco, I wasn't directing my comments towards you. I read too fast and accidentally saw your post as part of the stuff from the Teper group site, so everything I said there was towards the Teper group and not your comment. I mistook the comment about advancing ideas as part of the argument against the tower.



Sorry aobut that. I guess it makes more sense why I would think an argument against tower on the principle of not advancing ideas to be pointless.

Just checked the City's historic districts on-line map, and it appears that the southern boundary of this local certified historic district is the alley south of Lindell (between Lindell and West Pine), not Lindell itself.



First thing I thought when I saw the new map was concern that we don't go through all this district standards junk again when the southwest corner of Lindell-Euclid (current parking lot) has plans for a high-rise.



I'm sure the provisions of this district were put in place to protect existing historic structures than prevent non-conforming buildings (like American Heart Association) and surface parking from seeing new infill development.

southslider wrote:Just checked the City's historic districts on-line map, and it appears that the southern boundary of this local certified historic district is the alley south of Lindell (between Lindell and West Pine), not Lindell itself.

This makes sense, considering the number of prominent and attractive old mansions that line the south side of Lindell between Euclid and Boyle. Too bad something like this wasn't in place when the (relatively) unattractive 23-floor solid-beige-block Towne House was plopped right in front of the Basilica!

I'm sure the provisions of this district were put in place to protect existing historic structures than prevent non-conforming buildings (like American Heart Association) and surface parking from seeing new infill development.

Exactly what I would hope for these regulations/guidelines, as well. Although who knows if the regulations are used for good motives? In the case of Lindell, my only preference would be that (a) sound historic buildings are preserved, and (b) the street setback is observed. (That setback combined with the mid- and high-rise buildings really gives Lindell a magical feel unmatched by any other street in St. Louis).

The thing I don't get..

4545 ZLindell tower is going up just a few buildings down, same side of street - lodged into two historic stately highrises and ... no problem there?



I think this is a "shadows" and "population" boom issue with these people. So sad.

I e-mailed Opus telling them about the support they have in this community for the project. They returned this e-mail:







?thanks for your support and the others that believe in the project. We?ll be having a meeting soon in front of the Central West End Association to show some modified architectural detail and your presence at the meeting would be a help. Thanks again.

I also think the 'God Bless Opus' comment is a little strong. I think I've stated before my distaste for throwing blessings upon a corporation that it looking to make tons of money. I think in this case, our ideals and Opus desire to make money just happen to align.



Is Opus good for urbanism? Sure, at least with this project. I definitely support this project, but I'm not going to go heap praise on Opus. I'm just more skeptical about them than most, I guess. I am happy that they have chosen St. Louis for these two projects, and I look forward to seeing the new renderings.

trent wrote:I also think the 'God Bless Opus' comment is a little strong. I think I've stated before my distaste for throwing blessings upon a corporation that it looking to make tons of money. I think in this case, our ideals and Opus desire to make money just happen to align.

Trent, that's a little cynical, but I tend to agree. I have a lot of respect for corporations who take risks and they should be rewarded for that risk when they execute. Is Opus one of these? Probably, given the lack of similar development in STL in the recent past. Nonetheless, they should be held to a high standard.

Why would anyone want to cancel this project? For almost any reason its gonna help revitalize the CWE and more importantly the city.

^Oh NO!



Cool map, though.