PostSep 23, 2020#151
First floor parking with a small retail space and 20 total units (all 1 bedroom) over 2 floors.
+3
I like it. Debating whether or not it should get it's own thread since it's pretty significant.
Wow. That's awesome. I was convinced that parcel was going to be wasted on surface parking (I lamented the loss of Macklind Deli). How far along in the process is this proposal?
Mmm.. brick and corrugated metal. When are we going to switch off this fad again?
The twitter replies are entertaining. But I also don't get the need to build that weird arm and take out of a home. Just make it a rectangle. Overall, something mixed use at this corner is a huge win. It's just another sloppy matchstick building wearing really gaudy lipstick though.
The twitter replies are entertaining. But I also don't get the need to build that weird arm and take out of a home. Just make it a rectangle. Overall, something mixed use at this corner is a huge win. It's just another sloppy matchstick building wearing really gaudy lipstick though.
- 9,545
I don’t think the arm is taking out a house, maybe the garage. I think they would lose 8 of the 20 units without that house lot
This is good news to see. As was already stated, I was sure that this lot would end up as a parking lot forever for the church conversion across the street.
Even though the project isn't in her ward, Carol Howard said neighbors are opposed to this. Her Ward is just across Macklind and she's hearing it from residents. Many of the comments revolve around the size of the project and usage, but more take issue with 3-stories and the demolition of a house.
I'd just disregard the concerns since these are the same concerns people had with MOFO in Tower Grove South and that project has been good for that neighborhood. It didn't cause the hell people were expecting. This one won't either.
I'd just disregard the concerns since these are the same concerns people had with MOFO in Tower Grove South and that project has been good for that neighborhood. It didn't cause the hell people were expecting. This one won't either.
- 9,545
This will be the developers 3rd project in the area including the Nottingham church to apartments he did last year (in carols ward). Oldenburg appears to be in support and it’s in his ward. Matt Salviccio is from the neighborhood and people there trust him so it’s not like this is some out of town developer.
Developer said its Custom Brick and Indiana limestonebwcrow1s wrote: ↑Sep 23, 2020Mmm.. brick and corrugated metal. When are we going to switch off this fad again?
The twitter replies are entertaining. But I also don't get the need to build that weird arm and take out of a home. Just make it a rectangle. Overall, something mixed use at this corner is a huge win. It's just another sloppy matchstick building wearing really gaudy lipstick though.
I think it's good that he's bringing different housing types to the neighborhood.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 23, 2020This will be the developers 3rd project in the area including the Nottingham church to apartments he did last year (in carols ward). Oldenburg appears to be in support and it’s in his ward. Matt Salviccio is from the neighborhood and people there trust him so it’s not like this is some out of town developer.
Looks good to me. I don't understand people living in the city that are opposed to things like this in their neighborhood...I'd kill for development like this around me.
- 592
To clarify something someone said up further, the demolition is the whole property at 5407 Nottingham.
I emailed Oldenburg and the neighborhood association about it to support the plan. They have an online meeting scheduled for Sept. 30, you can get into the Zoom if you email the neighborhood association. The association opposes the development... sigh.
The concerns are:
1) Demolition of single-family home is a bad precedent; I disagree, and I don't think the house has architectural merit. We demolish commercial and single-family homes all the time for dumber reasons than a new building.
2) The commercial fronts Nottingham instead of Macklind; I agree this is a problem and said I'd support the proposal if they re-orient.
3) The height is quite tall on the west side as Nottingham slopes down; I think it's a meh issue, but they could cut a few units on that side on the third floor and it'd be fine.
4) Parking, parking, parking, parking... Give me a break. If you buy a house within 100 feet of Macklind, you need to be prepared to use your garage or parking pad, that's the price of living in a walkable neighborhood.
I emailed Oldenburg and the neighborhood association about it to support the plan. They have an online meeting scheduled for Sept. 30, you can get into the Zoom if you email the neighborhood association. The association opposes the development... sigh.
The concerns are:
1) Demolition of single-family home is a bad precedent; I disagree, and I don't think the house has architectural merit. We demolish commercial and single-family homes all the time for dumber reasons than a new building.
2) The commercial fronts Nottingham instead of Macklind; I agree this is a problem and said I'd support the proposal if they re-orient.
3) The height is quite tall on the west side as Nottingham slopes down; I think it's a meh issue, but they could cut a few units on that side on the third floor and it'd be fine.
4) Parking, parking, parking, parking... Give me a break. If you buy a house within 100 feet of Macklind, you need to be prepared to use your garage or parking pad, that's the price of living in a walkable neighborhood.
Urban Candle now open at 5844 Macklind. It's a nice little shop.
https://www.cityscene-stl.com/post/urba ... s-district
https://www.cityscene-stl.com/post/urba ... s-district
New renderings for this. Might never happen, but here we go anyway.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 23, 2020
I've heard the neighborhood was not supportive given the expected additional street parking needed. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I also don't live on the immediate block of this proposal.
I've reached out to the alderman about this lot to talk about potential alternatives. Sounds like the owner doesn't have any immediate plans and might not be interested in selling either.
I've reached out to the alderman about this lot to talk about potential alternatives. Sounds like the owner doesn't have any immediate plans and might not be interested in selling either.
- 289
^What a waste if this stays undeveloped for a long time. It’s literally a patch of vacant grass on an otherwise productive little business district. I lived over there for years and still go over there all the time. Parking is not an issue. Even on the day of the Macklind Mile when a huge crowd shows up you can still find parking.
Well, you see, we need to be able to park our privately owned vehicles, on public streets, within earshot of our bedroom windows, so we can call the cops when someone checks our door handles, and then post on NextDoor about it when they don't show up. C.R.E.A.M.
Looks like most people have a garage or parking pad in their yards. What's the problem?
- 340
For some reason, most south St. Louisans don't use their garages for cars. Bugs the bejeezus out of this person whose landlord refuses to invest in bringing the four-car garage up to code.quincunx wrote:Looks like most people have a garage or parking pad in their yards. What's the problem?
Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk