^Hey, that Engineer's proposal was a great example of the system working the way it's supposed to, I think. And maybe the developers here will come back with a better proposal. I was just talking about malls in the UK, which are regularly sandwiched into historic streetscapes in a way you rarely see over here. (From the outside they often don't look like a mall at all, but more like a historic high street.) Imagine a structure that incorporated some or all of the three existing buildings into it, filling the gaps between them, joining them together, building out to the alley. Done correctly it could be a remarkable thing. Everyone was in favor of the project a couple of blocks south at Wyoming. It's been a while since I was through, but I'm assuming that's about done by now, right? Could be a great model for how to make this a better project.
I have never found an applicant who got approved to complain that the system is broken.
It's been over a year since the last Preservation Board hearing, so you can try again. Hopefully the Preservation Board has smartened up a bit and approves this project instead of shooting progress in the foot again.
I wouldn't be surprised if they come back with a better design.
And while I'm somewhat ambivalent about this project versus rehab, imo this would be the least impactful project among their many new build plans. As I doubt they'll take on multiple new construction projects at the same time, tackling their TGE, Benton Park West/Jefferson Ave and Downtown West proposals before the Morgan Ford/TGS and Manchester Ave/FPSE ones would be my preference.
Impactful would be acquiring the 7-11 and redeveloping that.
While 'progress', this would also quash some of the vibe of the neighborhood. I like the facade with the pointy top. If it's going to happen though as others have spoken on, it needs retail.
Yeah AHM would have to propose a very high quality design with retail for me to approve tearing these down, they're good high quality historic buildings that we should preserve in my view, there's plenty of other ugly buildings on Morgan Ford and I don't think replacing these with a grey box would be an improvement even if some more apartments are added to the neighborhood.
The NIMBYism on this "urbanSTL" board is wild. But TGS has lost 2,000 people in the last 20 years, that's obviously good for the retail district right?
Is it really "building less" if already viable buildings are being demolished for construction rather than the 5 parking lots on the same strip? It's not like South St. Louis is Midtown Manhattan. IMO a far more viable solution for affordability and density in South City would try to slow down the conversion of 4 or 2 fams into single families for wealthier people to buy. Obviously, new development plays a critical role in a healthy housing market, but blindly worshipping any shiny new building in the name of "new neighbors" is a little shortsighted.
Is it really "building less" if already viable buildings are being demolished for construction rather than the 5 parking lots on the same strip? It's not like South St. Louis is Midtown Manhattan. IMO a far more viable solution for affordability and density in South City would try to slow down the conversion of 4 or 2 fams into single families for wealthier people to buy. Obviously, new development plays a critical role in a healthy housing market, but blindly worshipping any shiny new building in the name of "new neighbors" is a little shortsighted.
Can't think of something more short sighted than rejecting 36 new housing units in a modern apartment building in favor of a handful of mostly vacant buildings.
I'm also very interested to see what the plans are going to be for Morgan Ford and Arsenal, where we should be seeing another proposal for a residential building.
Personally, I would like to see retail in the building we're discussing. I believe the developers were told the last time they approached this that the neighborhood wanted retail, so hopefully that's what they'll come back to the table with.
If they don't, though, I think I might still just approve it.
I'm of the philosophy that nearly any building can/should be replaced if the building replacing it is a clear upgrade to the urban fabric. Getting rid of two granular storefronts in the heart of a thriving retail strip such as Morganford to be replaced with a blank wall is not acceptable IMO. I have no problem with replacing these buildings with apartments, hell, throw another five stories of housing on there but it needs a retail element. This is basic Jane Jacobs stuff
I've said this before, and ftr this project will be my neighbor. If someone wants to do a project with zero incentives, and is increasing lot density a good deal in the neighborhood, I think we have to do whatever we can to get it over the finish line.
I just wish the boards and the developers could redline the plans in the meeting and come to agreements in the same meetings, so these projects don't have to be pushed back so far... tough to do though I realize...
I believe the developers were told the last time they approached this that the neighborhood wanted retail, so hopefully that's what they'll come back to the table with.
I thought it was somewhat the opposite...that nearby residents were worried about parking, so AHM used more space for parking as opposed to retail. I could be misremembering though.
I believe the developers were told the last time they approached this that the neighborhood wanted retail, so hopefully that's what they'll come back to the table with.
I thought it was somewhat the opposite...that nearby residents were worried about parking, so AHM used more space for parking as opposed to retail. I could be misremembering though.
That's how I remember it too. AHM said they would be interested in adding a small retail bay, but it would mean less parking which was a bigger priority for the neighborhood.
Can't think of something more short sighted than rejecting 36 new housing units in a modern apartment building in favor of a handful of mostly vacant buildings.
Aren't they vacant because AHM owns them and wants to tear them down rather than rehabilitating them?
Can't think of something more short sighted than rejecting 36 new housing units in a modern apartment building in favor of a handful of mostly vacant buildings.
Aren't they vacant because AHM owns them and wants to tear them down rather than rehabilitating them?
They're vacant because they want to build 36 housing units not rehabilitate old, dilapidated buildings.
Can't think of something more short sighted than rejecting 36 new housing units in a modern apartment building in favor of a handful of mostly vacant buildings.
Aren't they vacant because AHM owns them and wants to tear them down rather than rehabilitating them?
They're vacant because they want to build 36 housing units not rehabilitate old, dilapidated buildings.
old =/= dilapidated. these buildings are not dilapidated. Peter's assessment is correct. they are vacant because the developer does not want to be bothered with preservation. they could be incorporated into new construction—at least partially—if the developer cared, as is done in many other cities.
The developer doesn't care. They wanted 36 new housing units in a neighborhood that's lost 2,000 residents since 2000. Pardon me if I could care less about old, dilapidated buildings that are vacant because no other buyer wanted anything to do with them. Retail can't survive without residents, something TGS has been shedding. NIMBYism at its finest.
They are vacant because the developer is keeping them vacant. And again, not dilapidated. Repeating "dilapidated" doesn't make it so. You don't appreciate them; congrats. You're not the first. That's why half the city was razed for urban renewal. And spare me the NIMBY/YIMBY buzzword nonsense. Five hundred thousand vacant lots in the city and we tear down irreplaceable, habitable buildings. As if there's nowhere else to build, and no options other than total demolition. Also, it's "couldn't care less", as in "I could not possibly care any less about your opinion."
Then why don't you go build a house on one of those vacant lots? Once you do, then you will have earned the right to criticize a developer who's trying to add 36 new housing units in a neighborhood that's lost 2,000 residents since 2000.
Then why don't you go build a house on one of those vacant lots? Once you do, then you will have earned the right to criticize a developer who's trying to add 36 new housing units in a neighborhood that's lost 2,000 residents since 2000.
Love an argument that's like if you're not a millionaire investor you have no right to an opinion, amazing defense of your position.
