Jeff,
The garage is two floors underground, plus two floors (equaling one story basically) above the retail.
The garage is two floors underground, plus two floors (equaling one story basically) above the retail.
- 10K
ecoabsence wrote:At a Preservation Board meeting, he stated that he wanted a "tower" on each of the four corners of the intersection of Euclid and Lindell
While it may not be the highest and best use of the property, I like the historic mansion/dental office at the southeast corner of Euclid and Lindell. With a new high-rise going in on the site of the Doctors Building at Euclid and West Pine, do we really need another high-rise immediately to the north of it?
Citylover, can you post the pics of the computerized renderings? I think those make the new design look even more impressive.
It was great to see so many forumers taking an active role in shaping the future of our city!
The most absurd comment against the building was from one woman who said, "I don't want to see the building from my front porch."
Oh, how could Opus be so insensitive?! God forbid you "see" a new building!
Also, one woman commented on the "slippery slope" of offering variances for new developments. My rebuttal to her is: If the slippery slope refers to replacing obsolete, vacant, suburban, architecturally appalling structures with attractive, high-density buildings, then it's time to add grease to that slippery slope.
Opus painstakingly addressed all the concerns about the tower and altered the proposal significantly to appease residents. We now have a handsome design that repsects its surroundings and will add a lot of vitality to a currently dead corner. I honestly believe that anyone against it at this point is a whiny obstructionist. We couldn't ask for a better development on this parcel gand still make the numbers work.
Finally, the residents who accuse Opus as "robbing" tax dollars to line their pockets sound completely ignorant. Residential development is a BUSINESS. They have the balls to take on a major project in what many developers would consider to be a stagnant market. They have already invested time and $$$ in preparing for this project.
I am proud of Opus for presenting such a complete and open proposal. They covered their bases and answered questions honestly, and it was clear that a good number of those opposed are now pleased and excited with the new renderings.
sorry for the long post!
It was great to see so many forumers taking an active role in shaping the future of our city!
The most absurd comment against the building was from one woman who said, "I don't want to see the building from my front porch."
Oh, how could Opus be so insensitive?! God forbid you "see" a new building!
Also, one woman commented on the "slippery slope" of offering variances for new developments. My rebuttal to her is: If the slippery slope refers to replacing obsolete, vacant, suburban, architecturally appalling structures with attractive, high-density buildings, then it's time to add grease to that slippery slope.
Opus painstakingly addressed all the concerns about the tower and altered the proposal significantly to appease residents. We now have a handsome design that repsects its surroundings and will add a lot of vitality to a currently dead corner. I honestly believe that anyone against it at this point is a whiny obstructionist. We couldn't ask for a better development on this parcel gand still make the numbers work.
Finally, the residents who accuse Opus as "robbing" tax dollars to line their pockets sound completely ignorant. Residential development is a BUSINESS. They have the balls to take on a major project in what many developers would consider to be a stagnant market. They have already invested time and $$$ in preparing for this project.
I am proud of Opus for presenting such a complete and open proposal. They covered their bases and answered questions honestly, and it was clear that a good number of those opposed are now pleased and excited with the new renderings.
sorry for the long post!
DeBaliviere wrote:While it may not be the highest and best use of the property, I like the historic mansion/dental office at the southeast corner of Euclid and Lindell. With a new high-rise going in on the site of the Doctors Building at Euclid and West Pine, do we really need another high-rise immediately to the north of it?
While it is a nice building to look at, it is a horrible use of the lot, and the landscaping leaves so much to be desired. It's just not a good fit for the spot it is in. I agree with Rollin that there should be high-rises on every corner there, and west along Lindell to Kingshighway, and then south down Kingshighway.
Incredible. The more I look at it, the more I like it. 10 X better than the original. I hope they stick with this plan. If a new developent came along tha combined the dental office/house with the Best Western, I wouldn't be opposed to leveling both structures. I'm a preservationist to a certain degree, but that house isn't that impressive for being in the CWE.
also not opposed to the circle drive.
No one is proposing we knock down the dental building or library to build this project. What Rollin Stanley mentioned at some meeting has nothing to do with this building. We need to be clear about that. No need to give the slippery-slope crowd any ammunition or fuel their fears.
The additional computerized renderings are wonderful. It seems that OPUS has addressed the concerns that we had after seeing the original rendering. I am not concerned about "robbing" tax dollars. It will be made up by the new, affluent, taxpayers that will be "robbed" from the County.
The additional computerized renderings are wonderful. It seems that OPUS has addressed the concerns that we had after seeing the original rendering. I am not concerned about "robbing" tax dollars. It will be made up by the new, affluent, taxpayers that will be "robbed" from the County.
Are they getting a subsidy or a tax break? Tax break means that they get to keep more of their own money. Nobody gets "robbed" by people paying less taxes. St. Louis definetly needs less taxes.
I honestly think most intentions against this building, are nothing more than personal, selfish, needs- rather than what is best for the city, and the central west end. From the woman's front porch view, to another person's greenhouse, none of these issues affect any of us, or anyone else.
I like the dentist office too. I think it's the mix of buildings that really make the CWE interesting. I'd love to see the Best Western go though. Also anyone know who owns that lot across from the new library? The Kindred Hospital? Koplar Properties?
I actually like the Doctors Building! It's definitely dated, but it works at street level. The Subway is one of the last vestiges of an ordinary business along Euclid, which has long since become trendy and and upscale. The yellow booths are totally '80s, and I think the CWE needs to hold on to some of that!
Anyway, I'm not crazy and I welcome the new tower in its place, I just wish it could be built on one of the massive parking lots instead.
Anyway, I'm not crazy and I welcome the new tower in its place, I just wish it could be built on one of the massive parking lots instead.
I always sort of liked the Doctors Building also.
I'm excited about this new tower. I think Opus did a lot of what the citizens asked them to do, and it really looks nice. I wish I could see it from MY front porch.
I'm excited about this new tower. I think Opus did a lot of what the citizens asked them to do, and it really looks nice. I wish I could see it from MY front porch.
- 479
There aren't many buildings left in the city like the mansion housing the dentist's office. I would hate to see it torn down for some bland condo tower while many parking lots escape unscathed.
- 835
^I agree. There are bigger fish to fry than the Plaza Dental building. The parking lot across Euclid from it would be a great start. That thing is massive and offensive. I would like to see a better use for the old mansion though. A bed & breakfast would be kind of cool.
Awesome new rendering. I like it much better. The greenish hue was okay, I feel this design is a much better fit for the area.
- 1,282
OPUS? redesign of Lindell condos delights some, dismays others
By Kara Krekeler
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006
In a public meeting earlier this month, OPUS Northwest unveiled design changes for the Lindell Condominiums, a high-rise building the developer plans on constructing on the northeast corner of the intersection of Lindell Boulevard and Euclid Avenue.
Among the changes are the placement below grade of two of four levels of parking and moving the residential tower 100 feet back from Euclid. In previous plans, the tower was set back 60 feet and all four parking levels were above ground.
?I think that what we?ve got is a much better project,? said 28th Ward Alderman Lyda Krewson.
Krewson said that by putting two levels of parking underground, the view from the sidewalk would be more pedestrian-friendly. With two parking levels underground, the three-story base of the building would be 42 feet high, approximately the same height as the Schlafly Library and Argyle Garage across Euclid. Prior to the changes the base would have been six stories and more than 60 feet tall.
Many of the changes resulted from comments made by CWE residents at forums during the past five months. During those meetings, residents asked for several changes, including placing parking underground and making the base of the building similar in height to other buildings on Euclid.
?I think it shows incredible class and grace that OPUS didn?t just shoo away criticism and that they brought back a brand new design,? said Randy Vines, a CWE resident and vocal supporter of the high-rise.
Earlier this year, Vines helped form St. Louisans for Urban Progress, a group dedicated to supporting high-density, pedestrian-friendly developments in the city and spurred on by the Lindell Condominium project. Vines said that STLUP got what it was looking for with the changes in the Lindell Condominium design and is now focusing its attention on other development issues throughout the city.
Vines called the changes to the design ?outstanding,? adding that he believes they exceeded the expectations of those both in favor of and against the project. Vines said that he supported the original plan for the building because it would bring vitality to the currently unused property, although he admitted that the new design is much better than the original plan.
Not everyone is happy with the redesign, however.
Read More
By Kara Krekeler
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006
In a public meeting earlier this month, OPUS Northwest unveiled design changes for the Lindell Condominiums, a high-rise building the developer plans on constructing on the northeast corner of the intersection of Lindell Boulevard and Euclid Avenue.
Among the changes are the placement below grade of two of four levels of parking and moving the residential tower 100 feet back from Euclid. In previous plans, the tower was set back 60 feet and all four parking levels were above ground.
?I think that what we?ve got is a much better project,? said 28th Ward Alderman Lyda Krewson.
Krewson said that by putting two levels of parking underground, the view from the sidewalk would be more pedestrian-friendly. With two parking levels underground, the three-story base of the building would be 42 feet high, approximately the same height as the Schlafly Library and Argyle Garage across Euclid. Prior to the changes the base would have been six stories and more than 60 feet tall.
Many of the changes resulted from comments made by CWE residents at forums during the past five months. During those meetings, residents asked for several changes, including placing parking underground and making the base of the building similar in height to other buildings on Euclid.
?I think it shows incredible class and grace that OPUS didn?t just shoo away criticism and that they brought back a brand new design,? said Randy Vines, a CWE resident and vocal supporter of the high-rise.
Earlier this year, Vines helped form St. Louisans for Urban Progress, a group dedicated to supporting high-density, pedestrian-friendly developments in the city and spurred on by the Lindell Condominium project. Vines said that STLUP got what it was looking for with the changes in the Lindell Condominium design and is now focusing its attention on other development issues throughout the city.
Vines called the changes to the design ?outstanding,? adding that he believes they exceeded the expectations of those both in favor of and against the project. Vines said that he supported the original plan for the building because it would bring vitality to the currently unused property, although he admitted that the new design is much better than the original plan.
Not everyone is happy with the redesign, however.
Read More
- 2,005
Nice, so now these so called 'Citizens for Responsible Development' plan on sueing OPUS on the tower height. The City just needs to strike the height restriction from the historic district guidelines for this area to stem any futher controversy. Hopefully any lawsuit against this new residential building will be tossed out by a judge rather quickly.
- 1,026
A lawsuit? This is absurd. The guidleines allow for a variance. A cvariance was granted.
You have to love their argument: "everything at the meetings was so one sided." Maybe thats because the vast majority of people interested in this topic do not agree with you.
we should seriuous consider starting our own petition. I can just see it now - they'll circulate a petition with a question like "do you support enforvcing historical architectural standards for the Central West End?" - and of course everyone will sign. .. I just hope the mayor's office doesn;t take this people seriously.
You have to love their argument: "everything at the meetings was so one sided." Maybe thats because the vast majority of people interested in this topic do not agree with you.
we should seriuous consider starting our own petition. I can just see it now - they'll circulate a petition with a question like "do you support enforvcing historical architectural standards for the Central West End?" - and of course everyone will sign. .. I just hope the mayor's office doesn;t take this people seriously.
- 835
I respect their right to sue for what they think is right. It is very important in any community to fight for what you believe in, no matter what. That is a lesson learned from people like the late and legendary Jane Jacobs.
Just like the brave preservationists who sued to stop the beautiful Century Building from being leveled for a parking garage (sadly, they lost), I respect CRD's efforts. I hope CRD loses this particular battle (it's almost certain they will), but I respect them for standing up for their cause nonetheless.
I enjoyed this piece in the West End Word as well:
http://www.westendword.com/moxie/opinio ... -fro.shtml[/url]
Just like the brave preservationists who sued to stop the beautiful Century Building from being leveled for a parking garage (sadly, they lost), I respect CRD's efforts. I hope CRD loses this particular battle (it's almost certain they will), but I respect them for standing up for their cause nonetheless.
I enjoyed this piece in the West End Word as well:
http://www.westendword.com/moxie/opinio ... -fro.shtml[/url]
markofucity wrote:A lawsuit? This is absurd. The guidleines allow for a variance. A variance was granted.
^Exactly. I was thinking the same thing when I read this line:
"Eisen said that she was puzzled by the city?s ?consistent disregard? for the historic district?s standards, which limit the height of new buildings unless a variance is permitted."
Uhhh...**NEWSFLASH** a variance was permitted.
And this is just classic:
"?OPUS, as a developer, did many of the changes that the preservation board and others discussed, but the key issue ? the height of the building ? was ignored,? said Marion Eisen, a CWE resident and member of Citizens for Responsible Development, a citizens? group opposed to the high-rise."
So I guess we were right, the Citizens for Conservative Development don't believe in compromise.
Thanks for the link, Jive, it was very persuasive--even though I didn't need any persuasion. 
Still, I know it won't convince the most die-hard opponents. For all their rhetoric about height restrictions, this is really a lame attepmt at preserving the status quo. I think that for a lot of the older St. Louisans, towers=low income housing projects.
Still, I know it won't convince the most die-hard opponents. For all their rhetoric about height restrictions, this is really a lame attepmt at preserving the status quo. I think that for a lot of the older St. Louisans, towers=low income housing projects.
JivecitySTL wrote:And this is just classic:
"?OPUS, as a developer, did many of the changes that the preservation board and others discussed, but the key issue ? the height of the building ? was ignored,? said Marion Eisen, a CWE resident and member of Citizens for Responsible Development, a citizens? group opposed to the high-rise."
So I guess we were right, the Citizens for Conservative Development don't believe in compromise.
I love the, "the key issue was ignored" part. Really? The key issue ACCORDING TO WHOM? Your tiny little provincial-minded group that doesn't want any progress or new development? Oh, okay.
steve wrote:For all their rhetoric about height restrictions, this is really a lame attepmt at preserving the status quo. I think that for a lot of the older St. Louisans, towers=low income housing projects.
Exactly, Steve! Some people don't want any new development, and they'll use any excuse to block it. Height restrictions are one way, in that this group thinks the developer won't go ahead unless they can have a tall enough building to maximize profit. I don't have a problem with people caring about their neighborhoods and what happens to them. But why are they dishonest about their motives? Call a spade a spade and say, "hey, we think CWE is built up enough."
As for highrise towers=low income: Have these people NOT looked at rents and/or who lives in Park Royal, Lindell Terrace, Towne House, etc.?
- 835
Hey, I went to an open forum at the Scottish Arms last night hosted by Ald. Joe Roddy (17th Ward) and Vince Schoemehl about Midtown/CWE development. I was talking with several longtime CWE residents about the proposed Lindell condo tower and they all said it's the same people who oppose everything, every time. One person in particular said, "There are about five to seven individuals who make it their life's mission to whine about anything that might change their Central West End. They've been doing it for years and they'll never stop."
And I still say if I were going to move to the CWE, one of the key things I'd ask myself is "would it bother me if they built a highrise nearby?". (If it did...which it wouldn't...but if it did, I'd buy elswhere.) Didn't these people ask themselves this when they bought here...in the city's premier high rise neighborhood??? Strange, indeed.