urbanSTL

I should add the public shut down of a Hudson resident who spoke of his approval for the project and was then, by a Board member, claimed without evidence to be "incentivized" by the developer in his opening remarks. 

Anyway, the meeting lacked professionalism and was not objective. I apologize to my friends on the Board for my frankness, but this was not run in an unbiased or fair way. And, that's of critical importance if suddenly the Board has sway in the process of approval.

I know there are different perspectives on whether this public meeting was done in a fair manner or not.  I've heard through a separate site that this did not receive neighborhood approval, but I've never seen specifics of what the vote count was from this meeting, or what the main issues were that were raised and ultimately killed the project.  If there are specific concerns, are they documented and does the developer have an opportunity to address those?  If this proposal wasn't a fit, what does the neighborhood want?  No one wants the boarded up buildings that have existed on this site for as long as I can recall.

Given the visibility of this site and interest from this forum, it would be great to know more.  Hoping too that regardless of opinions, posts can stay civilized and professional.

Thanks!

Here is the letter the Forest Park  Southeast Neighborhood Association Board wrote using the community feedback we received from the three engagement meetings about this development. We encourage those interested in understanding our thinking to read it. It should answer most of your questions.

https://www.forestparksoutheast.com/wp- ... Y-BLVD.pdf

Given the neighborhood feedback and other information we received, the Board voted unanimously not to support this project. That doesn't mean it won't go forward, the city process is more complicated than that. The letter is just our statement on it from the feedback we received. 

The Nimbyism in this city is infuriating.

I've learned that community input is honestly pointless. 

Time and time again, it's proved that the community doesn't know what's best for itself. 

It is pointless, regressive, and poorly representative of an entire community when fewer than 1% show up and 6 “votes” make the difference.

I mean, come on. No city or development related decision should operate that way. I’m frustrating that the Board and Alderwoman are enabling this and extra frustrated from what I perceive as particularly poor conduct having just served on that Board one year ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we have this anonymous Lux Living employee share that information with the police?  If its true, they should be prosecuted and not allowed to develop anything.  If its not, they should be allowed to build their apartment developments.

Its a bad move by the NA to hear those comments and decide the best course of action is to stop this one building. Any rational group would say threats of fire & collapse need to be taken to the police. The employees comments mixed in with "They use cheap materials" just serves to make me believe they were looking for reasons to oppose and some unsubstantiated rumors were just what they needed. 

The people opposing this will also complain about how rents going up are pushing people out of the neighborhood.   

I'm guessing you guys didn't read the neighborhood association letter? The developers contemplating burning down the existing buildings as well as suing Green Street is pretty damning stuff. The juicy stuff starts in the middle of the second page. 

framer wrote:The Nimbyism in this city is infuriating.

Honestly I’d disagree. Most of the complaints are about Lux and their reputation. I bet if it was a different developer it would get past. Therefore not full on nimbyism. Now I’m still upset it didn’t get passed but I am satisfied their complaints were more about the owners not so much about design or parking. It’s a well written letter that I can agree with…even if I wish something would get built for tax purposes.

Although the he said she said section (the alleged arson or brick removing threat) if it’s not on record it is a bit garbage to include as it’s just anonymous fuel to a fire with no merit.

wuphys wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2022

I'm guessing you guys didn't read the neighborhood association letter? The developers contemplating burning down the existing buildings as well as suing Green Street is pretty damning stuff. The juicy stuff starts in the middle of the second page. 

I read it and mentioned it.  The fact that FPNA or the alderwoman didn't take that info to the police is outrageous and they should do that now.  IF what is said is true - LUX Living should be stopped from developing and operating everywhere in the city.

But thats not FPNA/Alderwoman did.  They used that rumor to stop one development.  To me it just raises my flag that FPNA/Alderwoman aren't trying to solve a problem, they're trying to stop the one development.  If they actually cared about Lux Living's development practices, they'd have gone to the police, not write it in a random letter. 

Neighbor feedback is good for some things, but not all things. Sometimes when neighbors don't want change, they become the NIMBYs we know and they speak the loudest of the group. The best neighbor feedback, I've learned, is quiet, one-on-one feedback. When you can sit down with people, address concerns, answer questions, and work out solutions to issues, that person appreciates it.

Having big public forums where people can comment and debate just moves the process into a bit of a mudslinging match. It's not ideal. We've seen it before. And when meeting rules aren't adhered to, it just descends even further into madness.

The contents of the letter are interesting. Too bad I'm not there anymore to try and address this.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2022

mjbais1489 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2022

wuphys wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2022

I'm guessing you guys didn't read the neighborhood association letter? The developers contemplating burning down the existing buildings as well as suing Green Street is pretty damning stuff. The juicy stuff starts in the middle of the second page. 

I read it and mentioned it.  The fact that FPNA or the alderwoman didn't take that info to the police is outrageous and they should do that now.  IF what is said is true - LUX Living should be stopped from developing and operating everywhere in the city.

But thats not FPNA/Alderwoman did.  They used that rumor to stop one development.  To me it just raises my flag that FPNA/Alderwoman aren't trying to solve a problem, they're trying to stop the one development.  If they actually cared about Lux Living's development practices, they'd have gone to the police, not write it in a random letter. 

You can't take claims to the police when it's hear-say. Especially in a city like St. Louis where there's other, much more important crimes going on, you'd be laughed out of the office when trying to report these. 

I won't defend whatever the plan of attack was, but it's clear to me that these were ideas kicked around with no real substance to them. You can try and make police reports based on words but if hard evidence wasn't provided, they're just words. And if what was said was just words in the office, then evidence technically wouldn't exist. That's probably why these weren't reported on the NA and Tina's end.

I think the alderwoman and FPNA found it very convenient to put accusations out there, but not pursue them in any real sense. They get to deny the building, they also don't have to do anymore work. 

Community input is often bad because of examples like this, the optimist building, the Imo's on delmar, etc. 

Criminal that FPSNA is doing their best to block the third reversion.  Net positive for the neighborhood and the region.  At some point, neighborhood and residents should not have so much influence if city building and zoning requirements allow it.  Get these people out of their own way !

STLAPTS wrote:Criminal that FPSNA is doing their best to block the third reversion.  Net positive for the neighborhood and the region.  At some point, neighborhood and residents should not have so much influence if city building and zoning requirements allow it.  Get these people out of their own way !

Couldn’t agree more. What makes it more silly even is that it met the form based code until neighbors requested changes that required a variance. Developer comes back for another meeting and says hey we did what you asked. And then rejected by the association.

It’s nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2022

mjbais1489 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2022

wuphys wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2022

I'm guessing you guys didn't read the neighborhood association letter? The developers contemplating burning down the existing buildings as well as suing Green Street is pretty damning stuff. The juicy stuff starts in the middle of the second page. 

I read it and mentioned it.  The fact that FPNA or the alderwoman didn't take that info to the police is outrageous and they should do that now.  IF what is said is true - LUX Living should be stopped from developing and operating everywhere in the city.

But thats not FPNA/Alderwoman did.  They used that rumor to stop one development.  To me it just raises my flag that FPNA/Alderwoman aren't trying to solve a problem, they're trying to stop the one development.  If they actually cared about Lux Living's development practices, they'd have gone to the police, not write it in a random letter. 

You can't take claims to the police when it's hear-say. Especially in a city like St. Louis where there's other, much more important crimes going on, you'd be laughed out of the office when trying to report these. 

I won't defend whatever the plan of attack was, but it's clear to me that these were ideas kicked around with no real substance to them. You can try and make police reports based on words but if hard evidence wasn't provided, they're just words. And if what was said was just words in the office, then evidence technically wouldn't exist. That's probably why these weren't reported on the NA and Tina's end.

If it's hearsay and can't be substantiated, then wouldn't putting this in writing on an official document and using it to justify a denial of a build permit potentially expose FPSENA to a libel lawsuit?

Publishing hearsay - whether likely to be true or not - to cause reputational and financial harm is the legal definition of libel, no? And yes I know Lux Living has legit reputation issues overall, but this would speak specifically to the claims of using extralegal means to push this development through.

-RBB

I've heard of homeowner's associations being sued and issuing lawsuits, but never neighborhood associations. I doubt that ends up being the case here. I understand the question being asked, just I don't think publishing hearsay would result in a libel lawsuit.

The NA can't deny a building permit. The city can ignore the NA.

In my experiences the City won't issue without a letter of support from neighborhood and alderman.

The city was right in that instance and they'd be right in this instance, too.

They should basically just disregard Pihl.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

Lux has absolutely nobody to blame but themselves. Run absolutely roughshod over residents, engage in bullsh*t lawfare on tenants and competing projects, build with trash quality. Little to no maintenance on buildings leading to unsanitary conditions for residents and even partial building collapses. Do this for years and act shocked and hurt when people finally wise up to it.

The only disappointing thing here is "urbanists" willing to shove it, all of it, under the rug just to get something - anything built on a stretch of Kingshighway.

Good for the Neighborhood Association and residents for absolutely nailing it. Urbanist desires to see a cookie cutter plywood box on Kingshighway do not trump the physical safety and peace of mind of Lux's residents. Both KC and STL officials have now gotten firsthand touring of Lux's properties and interviews with Lux residents. The result - overwhelming negative reviews and warnings to stay away.

Aesir wrote:Lux has absolutely nobody to blame but themselves. Run absolutely roughshod over residents, engage in bullsh*t lawfare on tenants and competing projects, build with trash quality. Little to no maintenance on buildings leading to unsanitary conditions for residents and even partial building collapses. Do this for years and act shocked and hurt when people finally wise up to it.

The only disappointing thing here is "urbanists" willing to shove it, all of it, under the rug just to get something - anything built on a stretch of Kingshighway.

Good for the Neighborhood Association and residents for absolutely nailing it. Urbanist desires to see a cookie cutter plywood box on Kingshighway do not trump the physical safety and peace of mind of Lux's residents. Both KC and STL officials have now gotten firsthand touring of Lux's properties and interviews with Lux residents. The result - overwhelming negative reviews and warnings to stay away.

Yeah I think it’s a problem when people take an obviously sh*tty company and then take something obviously bad and exaggerate it through the roof like this. Just don’t see how that helps.

You talk about structural collapses in the plural, but so far as I know, that was an isolated incident with no injuries that was resolved.

I have lived in one of their old buildings and toured a couple of new ones. Frankly, our neighbors were totally fine with our building and I’ve seen and spoken with happy residents at other ones. I also know from experience that when something breaks, like a microwave, you might not get prompt responses. I’m also not a shill for the a**holes who own the place - I wrote a lengthy article detailing their sh*tty business practices.

But your framing exists seemingly to justify further behavior on the part of neighborhood associations that probably goes way past what their duties should be, based on a premise of some extraordinarily evil company. But that’s not the role of these orgs. If the company is doing something illegal, that’s a matter for ordinance and for law enforcement.

You are calling for orgs to deny otherwise completely compliant buildings, like the first edition of this project that would call for no variances. The only reason it ended up asking for variances was to satisfy neighborhood concerns.

There was also another resident of one of their buildings at the meeting who spoke quite a bit about how he enjoyed the amenities and likes his apartment. He was then called a shill by Michael.

But we have to stop being so crazy as to assume that nearly fully occupied buildings probably summing thousands of tenants don’t have any happy residents.

And at some point, there has to be some agency for the renters too. They are entering a contract on their own free will. You are advocating for an organization that has a handful of votes at best to choose it’s leaders to deny people of their choices in housing.

That’s a bad precedent, I think. If you think they have shoddy practices, then call for the accountability elsewhere, with orgs and individuals that are more accountable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

curious regarding security at these 'luxury' projects.  We have seen the violence e.g. city view
Numerous persons at times run rampant in these buildings What about Lux and similar projects?  They have tempting candies pool sauna rooms entertainment rooms etc how is the security at these places?  I can imagine persons are already eyeing/setting up mass entry into the 'fun' rooms of these places.

mikenewell48 wrote: ↑

Jul 14, 2022

curious regarding security at these 'luxury' projects.  We have seen the violence e.g. city view
Numerous persons at times run rampant in these buildings What about Lux and similar projects?  They have tempting candies pool sauna rooms entertainment rooms etc how is the security at these places?  I can imagine persons are already eyeing/setting up mass entry into the 'fun' rooms of these places.

I hardly consider City View a luxury complex.

As for general safety, it probably applies anywhere that individuals have to make sure the door closes behind them before moving on. Overtime, I think, you get to know who lives in your building, so you know who belongs there or not. So, if you're coming in and someone say, "hold the door", at first you might say "on" but overtime, you might realize that person lives there, and you let them in. Building security might also be susceptible to power outages and automatic lock malfunctions.

In the case of a Lux property, like Hudson, since construction is finished, all doors in the building require you to have an app on your phone to unlock or the master code. That includes all amenity spaces.  If you manage to get into the lobby of the building, it's unlikely you'll be able to go far without the codes. And even if you manage to get into an elevator, you still need the codes. I haven't been in any other complexes recently, so I don't know if that's the case everywhere, but it was at Hudson. It was not the case at One Hundred though when I worked there. 

You needed your fob to get into the lobby and unit, but 7th floor amenities were just open to the residents without the need for a fob. Elevators were also readily open for all 36 floors with no fob access required. It's been almost 2 years, so maybe things have changed.