Also, I found it interesting enough ton put it in my story, so I'll repeat it here. This could be the tallest building in FPSE depending on final height. The Chouteau Building has held that title for 100 years (it was built in 1921). 4101 Manchester would've tied it, or have been slightly taller but that didn't go the way we wanted it to go. So of all the projects proposed and built this boom, nothing exceeded 5 floors. That's not a big problem but it seems that since land in the Grove is becoming more scare for large-scale projects, developers will start going taller (or at least up to what Form Based Code allows).
Already demolished by neglect.wabash wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2021I'd particularly hate to see 4559 Oakland go,
https://nextstl.com/2019/03/drurys-demo ... t-in-fpse/
- 285
This is something I'm very happy to see. I live on the 4500 block of Oakland and am just a handful of doors down from the blighted buildings along Kingshighway.
While the project isn't perfect, it is such an incredible, almost inconceivable improvement over what we have today. I know we have some folks wary of any and all development for various reasons (I'm the vice president of our fpse neighborhood association) but I truly hope people don't line up against this.
The crime, broken glass, falling bricks, and street racers who meet at those buildings has been the worst aspect of being where we are. Granted, we adore the neighborhood. Love it. Do not want to move anywhere else.
This will help - so, so, so much.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
While the project isn't perfect, it is such an incredible, almost inconceivable improvement over what we have today. I know we have some folks wary of any and all development for various reasons (I'm the vice president of our fpse neighborhood association) but I truly hope people don't line up against this.
The crime, broken glass, falling bricks, and street racers who meet at those buildings has been the worst aspect of being where we are. Granted, we adore the neighborhood. Love it. Do not want to move anywhere else.
This will help - so, so, so much.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
At least they are being creative with scale facing the neighborhood.
The curb cuts are not ideal but that privilege-driven street gate on Oakland blocks alley access. ( Thank you fragmented city planning)
It’s still wasteful to not incorporate or reuse existing architecture and at some point people will start rolling their eyes at these ‘dated’ podium-based wooden residential warehouses.
For now though they are all the rage.
The curb cuts are not ideal but that privilege-driven street gate on Oakland blocks alley access. ( Thank you fragmented city planning)
It’s still wasteful to not incorporate or reuse existing architecture and at some point people will start rolling their eyes at these ‘dated’ podium-based wooden residential warehouses.
For now though they are all the rage.
- 3,762
and, ugh, that façade... looks like it's cobbled together from left-over cladding samples.
TWO ACCESS POINTS ACROSS SIDEWALKS ON KINGSHIGHWAY! A ***** RIGHT TURN ONLY SLIP LANE… 0/10 until that’s resolved.
It’s like asking “please accelerate as you pull into this sidewalk”
Why not consolidate into a single access point at the light?
Awful.
It’s like asking “please accelerate as you pull into this sidewalk”
Why not consolidate into a single access point at the light?
Awful.
- 3,762
^ but look at all those pedestrians and cyclists in the rendering!
totally agree, though. Arco should be reopened and all parking access should be from the side or the alley. but why inconvenience drivers when you can just murder a few pesky pedestrians instead.
totally agree, though. Arco should be reopened and all parking access should be from the side or the alley. but why inconvenience drivers when you can just murder a few pesky pedestrians instead.
The garage entrance and exit issue will most likely be brought up by neighbors and others once public hearings are held for this. I encourage people to show up to those meetings because if the issue isn't raised, most likely it wont be viewed as an issue much. The garage entrance and exits have been the main concern raised by people so far. Most likely this issue can be dealt with by condensing the "right out" exit with the one at the stoplight, but we'll see exactly what other options come about.
If that main access is lining up with the signalized 3-way intersection at ( west side) Oakland? That would make sense- to piggy back on the existing stop light.
- 3,762
if you look closer at this image:
![]()
the row houses aren't really row houses. they look like big open amenity spaces. (maybe that was already stated somewhere.) i'm not confident these will even get built, but i'm sure all the existing historic homes will be demo'd before the ink dries.
the row houses aren't really row houses. they look like big open amenity spaces. (maybe that was already stated somewhere.) i'm not confident these will even get built, but i'm sure all the existing historic homes will be demo'd before the ink dries.
The rendering is false though. Even though you can see through the buildings, these will have 14 total apartments, one on the first floor and one on the second. Amenity spaces would be built on the back.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jul 01, 2021if you look closer at this image:
the row houses aren't really row houses. they look like big open amenity spaces. (maybe that was already stated somewhere.) i'm not confident these will even get built, but i'm sure all the existing historic homes will be demo'd before the ink dries.
- 3,762
^ okay. thanks for clarifying. i hope the apartments don't get dropped.
According to the developer, that's unlikely since the extra 14 units and amenity spaces help tie the project together, both in design and in revenue.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jul 01, 2021^ okay. thanks for clarifying. i hope the apartments don't get dropped.
Looking at the public's reaction to my story, most people are in support. Only real opposition, and it isn't really opposition as much as it is just curious, are the smaller buildings along Oakland and Arco. Many comments have been made that all fall along the lines of people making it clear that they'll be happy to see the old buildings along Kingshighway go.
On another note, this project will definitely be before the Preservation Board in the coming months. Supposedly Jan Cameron denied the developer's request to demolish the buildings along Kingshighway the moment she saw the plans. So to the Preservation Board it goes.
On another note, this project will definitely be before the Preservation Board in the coming months. Supposedly Jan Cameron denied the developer's request to demolish the buildings along Kingshighway the moment she saw the plans. So to the Preservation Board it goes.
This project will do more to improve the image of St. Louis than pretty much anything else going on right now. Thousands of people get off at the Kingshighway exit every day, only to be greeted by a wall of vacant, decaying buildings - a perfect metaphor for so many people's perception of the City. Soon it will be replaced by a large, bright, modern building displaying signs of life at all times of day and night.
I'll leave it to the rest of you to debate curb cuts and such, but as far as I'm concerned, this can't happen soon enough.
I'll leave it to the rest of you to debate curb cuts and such, but as far as I'm concerned, this can't happen soon enough.
Pretty sure we are already there...imran wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2021At least they are being creative with scale facing the neighborhood.
The curb cuts are not ideal but that privilege-driven street gate on Oakland blocks alley access. ( Thank you fragmented city planning)
It’s still wasteful to not incorporate or reuse existing architecture and at some point people will start rolling their eyes at these ‘dated’ podium-based wooden residential warehouses.
For now though they are all the rage.
<- See?It's still a relatively new phenomenon here, but everywhere else I go where they've been sprouting for decades, people mock them.
- 2,631
I’m happy with anything that increases density and this project certainly accomplished that.
The buildings it replaces aren’t particularly significant and would be a tough sell anyways on such a busy and loud stretch of Kingshighway. Plus this project will likely be denser than what those rehabbed buildings would have ended up with anyways.
I am far more inclined to support these density trades along our major corridors because as these neighborhoods gentrify their population tends to shrink. Dense transit corridors along the borders of these neighborhoods is how we can maintain some affordability and density.
The buildings it replaces aren’t particularly significant and would be a tough sell anyways on such a busy and loud stretch of Kingshighway. Plus this project will likely be denser than what those rehabbed buildings would have ended up with anyways.
I am far more inclined to support these density trades along our major corridors because as these neighborhoods gentrify their population tends to shrink. Dense transit corridors along the borders of these neighborhoods is how we can maintain some affordability and density.
I live within a couple blocks of this development and am pretty happy with it overall, it's better than I expected. I thought the first proposal here was going to involve a large access road or be an island totally cut off from the rest of the neighborhood, and this proposal seems to avoid both of those traps. A few other thoughts:
1. I agree with the other comments about eliminating the extra curb cut for the right turn, if that is feasible with the garage layout.
2. I am surprised at the unit mix. From Chris's story: "70 studio, 85 one-bedroom, and 22 two-bedroom units." Seems like a higher mix of studios than some other recent proposals. I wonder if that is because they are aiming at med students/grad students at the WUSM/BJC campus, or if they need to get the unit count higher to make the numbers work. I don't have a preference one way or the other, it just stood out to me.
3. Related, I wonder if they are restricting themselves to two-story units along Arco and Oakland due to anticipated neighborhood resistance. According to the from-based code, these are zoned "Neighborhood General Type 2, "which does allow up to 3 stories/40 feet without needing a variance. I think a 3 story building would not provoke a fight, would let them have more units/add a little bit more density, and would have a nice step down approach from the 7 story building to the 2 story existing housing.
4. There is a lot of modern infill in the neighborhood, though not as much in that quadrant, and I think people might be receptive to a modern design for the Arco/Oakland buildings rather than faux historic.
5. One question I have, how much harder does this proposal make it to access the remaining land further north, including the wedge owned by Wash U left over from the interstate ramp rebuild? I had assumed that there would be some sort of access road built from the Oakland/Kingshighway intersection connecting with the street fragment that runs parallel to Kingshighway that would be used to access that land. This proposal seems to kill that idea. Is it feasible to access that land from Kingshighway another way, or would access have to be from Arco/Gibson/Chouteau? Is there a regulation about how close an intersection can be to the I-64 on/off ramps?
6. My impression is that the first floor is all garage, with no wrapping units, is that correct? It's hard for me to tell from the rendering and site plan.
7. I think some retail, gym, restaurant, or similar, could definitely work here, especially if there was shared garage space, but it's not essential to me since there is plenty of retail vacancy elsewhere in the neighborhood.
1. I agree with the other comments about eliminating the extra curb cut for the right turn, if that is feasible with the garage layout.
2. I am surprised at the unit mix. From Chris's story: "70 studio, 85 one-bedroom, and 22 two-bedroom units." Seems like a higher mix of studios than some other recent proposals. I wonder if that is because they are aiming at med students/grad students at the WUSM/BJC campus, or if they need to get the unit count higher to make the numbers work. I don't have a preference one way or the other, it just stood out to me.
3. Related, I wonder if they are restricting themselves to two-story units along Arco and Oakland due to anticipated neighborhood resistance. According to the from-based code, these are zoned "Neighborhood General Type 2, "which does allow up to 3 stories/40 feet without needing a variance. I think a 3 story building would not provoke a fight, would let them have more units/add a little bit more density, and would have a nice step down approach from the 7 story building to the 2 story existing housing.
4. There is a lot of modern infill in the neighborhood, though not as much in that quadrant, and I think people might be receptive to a modern design for the Arco/Oakland buildings rather than faux historic.
5. One question I have, how much harder does this proposal make it to access the remaining land further north, including the wedge owned by Wash U left over from the interstate ramp rebuild? I had assumed that there would be some sort of access road built from the Oakland/Kingshighway intersection connecting with the street fragment that runs parallel to Kingshighway that would be used to access that land. This proposal seems to kill that idea. Is it feasible to access that land from Kingshighway another way, or would access have to be from Arco/Gibson/Chouteau? Is there a regulation about how close an intersection can be to the I-64 on/off ramps?
6. My impression is that the first floor is all garage, with no wrapping units, is that correct? It's hard for me to tell from the rendering and site plan.
7. I think some retail, gym, restaurant, or similar, could definitely work here, especially if there was shared garage space, but it's not essential to me since there is plenty of retail vacancy elsewhere in the neighborhood.
The garage design doesn't appear to be bothered if the "right only" exit is removed. All vehicle traffic would just move to the main entrance and exit.rbeedee wrote: ↑Jul 07, 2021I live within a couple blocks of this development and am pretty happy with it overall, it's better than I expected. I thought the first proposal here was going to involve a large access road or be an island totally cut off from the rest of the neighborhood, and this proposal seems to avoid both of those traps. A few other thoughts:
1. I agree with the other comments about eliminating the extra curb cut for the right turn, if that is feasible with the garage layout.
That's exactly what they're doing. Going after med students at the BJC campus, but also having these units gives college aged people, like me, the ability to live in these buildings and commute to school. Studios are generally cheaper, so it gives some of us the path to living off campus without needing to share an apartment with a roommate.2. I am surprised at the unit mix. From Chris's story: "70 studio, 85 one-bedroom, and 22 two-bedroom units." Seems like a higher mix of studios than some other recent proposals. I wonder if that is because they are aiming at med students/grad students at the WUSM/BJC campus, or if they need to get the unit count higher to make the numbers work. I don't have a preference one way or the other, it just stood out to me.
I think that's the reason as well, to better match the neighborhood massing and design with the smaller buildings. They could've gone modern, but this seems like a better way to step down into the neighborhood. As for going bigger, it may not be worth it too much to go bigger considering there are 14 units among those smaller buildings. Adding another floor would get them 7 more units depending on the layout that they go with for those.3. Related, I wonder if they are restricting themselves to two-story units along Arco and Oakland due to anticipated neighborhood resistance. According to the from-based code, these are zoned "Neighborhood General Type 2, "which does allow up to 3 stories/40 feet without needing a variance. I think a 3 story building would not provoke a fight, would let them have more units/add a little bit more density, and would have a nice step down approach from the 7 story building to the 2 story existing housing.
4. There is a lot of modern infill in the neighborhood, though not as much in that quadrant, and I think people might be receptive to a modern design for the Arco/Oakland buildings rather than faux historic.
You're correct, there is no ground floor retail space or activation planned. Even the lobby is set back from the street. The developer told me that they didn't include retail space or any other type of activation at the street level/sidewalk there because of how little foot traffic there is and how little opportunity for visitor parking there is.6. My impression is that the first floor is all garage, with no wrapping units, is that correct? It's hard for me to tell from the rendering and site plan.
7. I think some retail, gym, restaurant, or similar, could definitely work here, especially if there was shared garage space, but it's not essential to me since there is plenty of retail vacancy elsewhere in the neighborhood.
- 285
My take on everything and some of Lux's history as a current resident of the block in question: https://missouri-metro.com/2021/08/02/l ... gshighway/
^ Thanks Brian for your article and link.
I'm pretty much assuming that any large landlord or property manager at this point will pursue short term Airbnb rentals for their respective properties. The reality is that renters won't have a lot of say and will need to do their due diligence when looking for places. As homeowner don't really have much of an opinion expect indifferent. As someone/family who has done a few airbnb rentals as of late I would say that we were pleasantly surprised when my wife did a 3 day rental in CWE this summer in order to close to the daughter while in town. However, it was obvious it was one of a number of apartments under one group. Not sure how much renters notice but my wife works remotely and having a full kitchen and extra space for work all within a couple blocks to Forest Park was nice.
I'm pretty much assuming that any large landlord or property manager at this point will pursue short term Airbnb rentals for their respective properties. The reality is that renters won't have a lot of say and will need to do their due diligence when looking for places. As homeowner don't really have much of an opinion expect indifferent. As someone/family who has done a few airbnb rentals as of late I would say that we were pleasantly surprised when my wife did a 3 day rental in CWE this summer in order to close to the daughter while in town. However, it was obvious it was one of a number of apartments under one group. Not sure how much renters notice but my wife works remotely and having a full kitchen and extra space for work all within a couple blocks to Forest Park was nice.
- 285
Thank you! I honestly agree and like Airbnb, but I also have only used it from the perspective of a vacationer in a small building. I haven't experienced the frustration some report of having these in bigger buildings, but I can imagine there are some grounds for it.dredger wrote:^ Thanks Brian for your article and link.
I'm pretty much assuming that any large landlord or property manager at this point will pursue short term Airbnb rentals for their respective properties. The reality is that renters won't have a lot of say and will need to do their due diligence when looking for places. As homeowner don't really have much of an opinion expect indifferent. As someone/family who has done a few airbnb rentals as of late I would say that we were pleasantly surprised when my wife did a 3 day rental in CWE this summer in order to close to the daughter while in town. However, it was obvious it was one of a number of apartments under one group. Not sure how much renters notice but my wife works remotely and having a full kitchen and extra space for work all within a couple blocks to Forest Park was nice.
Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk
- 285
Thanks for the correction!quincunx wrote:They're trying to get a tax abatement, not a TIF for Hudson.
Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk