urbanSTL

southslider wrote:I'm not thrilled about the new development being gated either, but the old mansion was essentially gated. So, it's a denser new development of multiple townhomes, albeit gated, but bascially replacing a single gated house.

Well not really. The mansion occupies about 20% of the total site (1.7acres of 8.2 total acres). The Good Samaritan home, when built, replaced other similar mansions along the bluffs -- it just happens that this one didn't get razed decades ago like so many others.

Some nice looking garages.

^ Yeh, after seeing the rest of the renderings, I'm much less enthusiastic about the design than I was at first.

It should be noted that the elevation with garage openings would not be visible from Broadway, only the internal street between the two rows of townhouses.

Steve Patterson on Urban Review St. Louis has posted a site section that illustrates the detrimental effect that this project will have on the bluffs, the street, and the neighbors.



http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000348.php





I am all for dense development that takes advantage of this amazing natural resource (the bluffs, the river, the view) but I think this project is ill-conceived and they need to start over. While the unnecessary loss of the mansion is unfortunate, the alterations to the bluff are unexceptable.

Their ad in the Sunday Post says that this development is 50% sold.

Framer wrote:Their ad in the Sunday Post says that this development is 50% sold.

Well, I love the comment someone left on Steve Patterson's www.urbanreviewstl.com ( http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000348.php ):



"And the proposed development is already about 50% presold..."



and millions of americans shop at wal-mart, too. popularity is no trump card -- but it's a great way to undercut a serious argument against a project's flaws.



[REPLY - Exactly!!!



Posted by: seller on December 7, 2005 01:31 PM

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:Breaking news!



I've heard from multiple sources that the project has problems and the second row of units will be going away, no more uppper bluff. No real details just yet. Stay tuned.

update?

Does this mean that more of the bluff is preserved?

NO. It means the Mansion was demolished in vain. Shame on Mississippi Bluffs LLC and the consultants!















The website has a funky soundtrack playing in the background...and not funky good.

Framer wrote:^ Yeh, after seeing the rest of the renderings, I'm much less enthusiastic about the design than I was at first.

The firm of Johannes-Cohen Collaborative is the architect for this project. If memory serves me they are also responsible for a new large suburban home overlooking the bluffs just a few blocks north. Needless to say it is an unnattractive design that doesn't fit the context of the site.



I'm just throwing it out there, but what are your thoughts regarding this building overlooking a river: http://www.rgross.com/projects/project.asp?projectID=24



I'm assuming JCC was the architect of record, in other words they were the drafter and not the main designer. This type of architecture doesn't fit within JCCs' portfolio of work.



My point / question is - would the bluff project have been better served with an architecture that respected the site and also included "modern" materials and massing? In my opinion the referenced project reflects that. (edit- I'm not sure 50 something condos can achieve the look I'm after but it was just a thought)



I am excited that there will be new residences on the south side but the work is so uninspiring just look at the website ........

I like the design you posted very much. But I'm not sure how well it would fit into this site. It's beautiful, but not at all contextual. Just my two cents.

Framer wrote:I like the design you posted very much. But I'm not sure how well it would fit into this site. It's beautiful, but not at all contextual. Just my two cents.

Framer.



Well. I had a few cocktails tonight........



The posted design is very contextual. Many of the trees are saved and thus integrated into the design. Why is this design contextual???



The home addresses the water!



I can't explain it right now. but it is so very contextual. Just look at the mississippi bluffs and the posted design and you will see it.

Yes, the posted design does relate to its site, the trees and the river, etc. My point is that such a design might not relate quite as well to an urban setting, namely the location of the Mississippi Bluffs project.

Update:

Townhouses cut from 56 to 34 in development

Jim Merkel

Of the Suburban Journals

South Side Journal

09/06/2006



A developer who planned a luxury townhouse development along the Mississippi River bluffs with 56 units has reduced the size of his project to 34 units.



Michael Curran said it's too expensive to have 56 townhouses in the 8.2-acre site at 5100 S. Broadway that formerly housed the Good Samaritan Home and the historic Doering Mansion.



"The site got to be very expensive and very complicated," Curran said. Among the items needed would be a new 20-foot retaining wall along the bluff, he said. "When I really looked at all of those things, it didn't make much sense" to have the higher amount, he said.

Article

So the demolition of the Doering Mansion proves to be unncessary even on the development side...

^

Would have been nice if they would have figured it out BEFORE demolishing it!