Share
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostSep 08, 2008#51

^

My apologies if I took that comment out of context. I can't help but have pride for my hood.





That house at Dalton and Colombia is beautiful.
339
Full MemberFull Member
339

PostSep 08, 2008#52

Doug wrote:...all Irish wear green, eat potatoes, and drink Guinness for breakfast...


I resemble that comment. ;)
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostSep 09, 2008#53

The southern fringe of The Hill seems to be booming. There's quite a lot of scattered-site infill going up between Arsenal and Southwest. Lots of the smaller, older, wood-frame houses are being replaced.
5
New MemberNew Member
5

PostSep 16, 2008#54

On Sept 5th Magnatron asked about the industrial complex between Bischoff and Daggett. If my memory of St. Louis serves me correctly, then that was the old Carondelet Iron Foundry. My Dad worked there for 40 years before retiring in the early 1960s. I believe that it may have closed down somewhere in the 1980s.
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostOct 20, 2008#55

I met Bob Flynn and his two sisters last week. What great people. They showed Amy and I the proposed design plan for the Magic Chef redevelopment project for the Hill. This design was presented to the board of Alderman last week and has been approved by Hill 2000, Monsignor Bommarito, and Alderman Vollmer. The project has been in development for over three years as the Flynn family worked very closely with Hill 2000 and out of state architects to ensure the project would properly integrate into and update the Hill neighborhood.



My wife and I were the only "civilians" to view the proposed plan and it looks very, very urban and neat; no surface parking and plenty of retail space directly on the street - very similar to current make-up of the Hill. More to come as this plan is presented to Hill residents at the end of October.



-Tom Tricamo
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostOct 20, 2008#56

^You probably won't say, but are they going to save anything of the old buildings?



I think it would be really interesting to save the exterior walls of the warehouse and build new retail and residential behind it.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostOct 21, 2008#57

I'm not sure how I feel about the name "Magic Chef Redevelopment". It just rubs salt into the wound of what was done to the Magic Chef HQ building on Kingshighway.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostOct 21, 2008#58

ttricamo wrote:I met Bob Flynn and his two sisters last week. What great people. They showed Amy and I the proposed design plan for the Magic Chef redevelopment project for the Hill. This design was presented to the board of Alderman last week and has been approved by Hill 2000, Monsignor Bommarito, and Alderman Vollmer. The project has been in development for over three years as the Flynn family worked very closely with Hill 2000 and out of state architects to ensure the project would properly integrate into and update the Hill neighborhood.



My wife and I were the only "civilians" to view the proposed plan and it looks very, very urban and neat; no surface parking and plenty of retail space directly on the street - very similar to current make-up of the Hill. More to come as this plan is presented to Hill residents at the end of October.



-Tom Tricamo


So is this the former Magic Chef HQ site you're referring to, just north of I-44 on Kingshighway?
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostOct 21, 2008#59

^



Nope. Based on the model shown to my wife and I, this redevelopment is focused mainly within the area previously identified within the thread. It does include a parking garage south of the main redevelopment, as well as residential construction north of Daggett and west of Rigazzi's.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostOct 22, 2008#60

ttricamo wrote:^



Nope. Based on the model shown to my wife and I, this redevelopment is focused mainly within the area previously identified within the thread. It does include a parking garage south of the main redevelopment, as well as residential construction north of Daggett and west of Rigazzi's.


I have a lot of doubt that any new development would be more iconic and urban than those warehouses. Why hasn't the rest of the Hill's civilian population been shown a plan that the powers-that-be approve of?



Industrial re-use is quite common and often very doable, especially when the warehouses are deemed historic. The current buildings seem, from the exterior, that they'd make great retail spaces as is.



Why demolish?
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostOct 22, 2008#61

I live directly across the street from the development and was pouring some concrete when Bob Flynn stopped by and showed us the schematics for the site plan. This was a totally random event. The following day he stopped by on his way to the Hill 2000 meeting and introduced his sisters and talked more about the project. It was announced at Hill 2000 that a meeting is scheduled for the end of the month in which all of the Hill is welcome to view and ask questions about the plan.



Also, I find it totally laughable that you've already began blowing the "Rehab Trumpet" without knowing anything about the site or the proposed plan save for what the exterior of the existing building looks like.



You, and everyone else that is interested, should plan to attend the upcoming month-end meeting that discusses the project. I plan to ask questions regarding funding and integration of a future Metrolink stop. I will post the finalized info on the meeting when it becomes available.



Special Note: It was stated at the Hill 2000 meeting that the Kingshighway overpass at Daggett will be reconstructed pending the completion of the I-64 project.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostOct 22, 2008#62

^



I find it awful that a large swath of St. Louis leadership doesn't even know how to play the rehab trumpet.



So don't laugh when citizens who value St. Louis's present built environment attempt to blow that dust-clogged trumpet.



Seeing as how Washington Avenue's lofts were once used for similarly industrial purposes, I doubt that the interior is any less workable than your average industrial building. But you're right. I've not take a tour.



Sometimes "urbanism" is not enough. Demolishing irreplaceable structures should be a last resort. And whatever replaces such structures should be of demonstrable quality of design and craftsmanship.



I wish I could attend, but I will likely not be back in St. Louis until December.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostOct 22, 2008#63

^You don't need to save the interior of the building. It is not that difficult to shore a 2-story facade and build new behind it, unless you are planning on building a strip mall.
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostOct 22, 2008#64

Matt Drops The H wrote:Seeing as how Washington Avenue's lofts were once used for similarly industrial purposes, I doubt that the interior is any less workable than your average industrial building.


Unless you have specific knowledge of the manufacturing history of the complex in question vs. the manufacturing history of Wash Ave lofts, it is illogical to make this statement.


Matt Drops The H wrote:Sometimes "urbanism" is not enough. Demolishing irreplaceable structures should be a last resort.


I agree with this statement but find it non-applicable to the building in question, especially considering the proposed plan.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostOct 22, 2008#65

jlblues wrote:^You don't need to save the interior of the building. It is not that difficult to shore a 2-story facade and build new behind it, unless you are planning on building a strip mall.


I agree. Facade preservation should be the minimum standard.





ttricamo: Then forget that previous statement and accept this much more broad one. There are few buildings that cannot be adaptively reused. Assuming we're not dealing with some massively contaminated site (that would likely not be located adjacent to a residential area), I am almost sure that the facade, at minimum, could be saved. Now, the developer may not value saving the facade. But that's a different question.



My fear is that saving the facade won't even be discussed. When has it been done in St. Louis?
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostOct 22, 2008#66

Matt Drops The H wrote:Assuming we're not dealing with some massively contaminated site (that would likely not be located adjacent to a residential area)


Hu?



You must not have seen much in the way of contaminated sites then. Plenty of heavily contaminated sites are adjacent to (or in the midst of) residential areas.
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostOct 22, 2008#67

I agree if the facade is worth saving. Do you even know what set of buildings we're discussing?
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostOct 23, 2008#68

You agree "if" that facade should be saved or "that"?



These buildings?







And 1950s era zoning largely helped to segregate heavy industry from residential areas, especially in urban areas.



Rural areas continue to suffer from adjacent massively contaminated sites. I'm in Louisiana--the seeming capital of this.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostOct 23, 2008#69

I think ttricamo meant that, he agrees, if the facade is worth saving. Punctuation helps.



He clearly does not believe the facade is worth saving. I guess he thinks it is icky, you know, its like all old and stuff, with it's faded, peeling white paint and filled-in windows... There is clearly no way you could fix any of that. :)
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostOct 23, 2008#70

Pardon my lack of punctuation.



jlblues - thanks for putting words in my mouth. Tact helps.



Here's a view of the western "facade" of the complex, and the southern facade.



I think saving the facade of a building truly depends on the specific redevelopment project. I also believe that saving the facade of a building isn't always conducive to beneficial urban rehab/redeveloment. That said, I think both of you are going to be very pleased by this particular rehabilitation.



For the record, my own home is older than this particular property.
2,093
Life MemberLife Member
2,093

PostOct 23, 2008#71

when I lived on Shaw I loved walking under Kingshighway and along Daggett to get to the Hill. I really hope that facade is saved in some way.
941
Super MemberSuper Member
941

PostOct 23, 2008#72

Matt Drops The H wrote:And 1950s era zoning largely helped to segregate heavy industry from residential areas, especially in urban areas.


Yet another blanket statement. The building in question was an active industrial manufacturing facility as recently as three years ago.



Here's some more real, local examples of industrial/residential cohabitation.



Tower Grove South



The Grove



Mcree Town
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostOct 23, 2008#73

ttricamo wrote:Here's a view of the western "facade" of the complex, and the southern facade.



I think saving the facade of a building truly depends on the specific redevelopment project. I also believe that saving the facade of a building isn't always conducive to beneficial urban rehab/redeveloment. That said, I think both of you are going to be very pleased by this particular rehabilitation.
You know damn well that when we talk about "saving the facade", noone is talking about the western or southern elevations. The original facade and streetscape along Daggett is what we are talking about. I would like to see them reuse and restore the entire string of historic 2-story buildings between the AlfaPet complex and Hereford, and there is no good reason why they can't - they only take up about 20% of the site - but at the very, very least, they should shore and restore the facade along Daggett. If they do anything else, I will not be "very pleased", it doesn't matter what new building they put there.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostOct 23, 2008#74

Matt Drops The H wrote:And 1950s era zoning largely helped to segregate heavy industry from residential areas, especially in urban areas.


Sure, for industrial uses constructed post 1950, but we both know that cities were developed prior to 1950 and the industrial uses that populated them did not fit within strict euclidean zoning. Heck, many older zoning codes were "stacked," so the zones permitting the least desirable uses (such as factories and heavy industry) were catch-all zones with all uses (including residential) permitted in the zone.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostOct 24, 2008#75

ttricamo wrote:
Matt Drops The H wrote:And 1950s era zoning largely helped to segregate heavy industry from residential areas, especially in urban areas.


Yet another blanket statement. The building in question was an active industrial manufacturing facility as recently as three years ago.



Here's some more real, local examples of industrial/residential cohabitation.



Tower Grove South



The Grove



Mcree Town


No need to get so snippy.



I couldn't mash the nuances of zoning into a couple sentences I typed while at work.



So those sites you listed are contaminated to the point of endangering the health of the nearby residents?
Read more posts (7 remaining)
Share