Except if you read what the developer said, you'd see that it actually does need parking because not only is it required 1:1 but the demographic they're targeting to be tenants demands parking and the neighborhood prefers parking.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024Good thing adding retail wouldn’t limit the number of unitsAuggie wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024Commercial districts need people. Something TGS has been losing for decades.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024It needs more retail. This a commercial district. Don’t care what “stakeholders” have to say. The only stakeholders with time to actually attend and comment on these things are the pearl clutching weirdos.
You mean the demographic shifted??? Shocker. Normal cities would be building new 36 unit apartment buildings to appeal to apartment demand but St. Louis prefers old, dilapidated, vacant buildings.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024Are you aware that "actual developers" played a part in the declining population in TGS? The zillion conversions of two/four family flats to single family for sale homes had an impact.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024Then how about you pony of the cost to buy the land and the cost to rejuvenate your precious dilapidated buildings yourself? If you think you know so much more than the actual developers who have done great stuff for this city.
If you go read what the developer said, you'd see that "the community" agrees with me and the developer. They want parking, they want the building, they don't care for the old dilapidated vacant buildings.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024The community can and should provide feedback. It is an important part of the process. Even if the feedback differs from yours.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024Then how about you pony of the cost to buy the land and the cost to rejuvenate your precious dilapidated buildings yourself? If you think you know so much more than the actual developers who have done great stuff for this city.
And even then, 90% of "community feedback" is regressive, useless, NIMBY talking points because people are far more likely to complain about something they don't like than praise something they do like.
I'm not opposed to the Preservation Board, I'm opposed to horrible rulings that make no sense, such as rejecting a 36 unit apartment building in favor of vacant, dilapidated buildings that are cost prohibitive to fix up of which none of them have actual historical significance beyond being "St. Louis brick".STLrainbow wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2024^ I mean, that's so basic. And to be fair AHM has engaged the community.
As for the Auggie's comment about "dilapidated" structures, that's extremely dangerous if that kind of attitude would take hold. The interest in, and renovation of, such structures have formed the basis of renewed investments in our city's neighborhoods over the past several decades, including TGS, and giving developers carte blanche ok to demo properties simply because they are "dilapidated" would be outrageous. There's legitimate reasons for supporting or opposing demo in this particular case, but I am very glad that the demo review and Preservation Board process is in place, I don't think AHM disagrees.
- 1,793
As a member of this community, F their parking insecurityAuggie wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024Except if you read what the developer said, you'd see that it actually does need parking because not only is it required 1:1 but the demographic they're targeting to be tenants demands parking and the neighborhood prefers parking.
Well, out in the real world, TGS is not a transit connected neighborhood and it's not easy to live there without a car. You're not the one who's taking a risk and you don't own the property.
- 2,430
ln reality, CRO staff and the Preservation Board followed the ordinance and made a completely sensible decision. If you don't like the ordinances then change them. The owner now is exercising their right to appeal and provide evidence of building conditions, cost prohibitiveness, etc. that it did not sufficiently demonstrate at the first preliminary review. If they are to have any meaning, the bar for demolishing contributing buildings to National Historic Districts has to be high.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024I'm not opposed to the Preservation Board, I'm opposed to horrible rulings that make no sense, such as rejecting a 36 unit apartment building in favor of vacant, dilapidated buildings that are cost prohibitive to fix up of which none of them have actual historical significance beyond being "St. Louis brick".
The apartment buildings at Boyle/Maryland in the central west end started off as ground level parking visible from Boyle.
It was because of pushback that it was reoriented and now there are townhome entrances there instead and parking is accessed from the alley. Go by and see if you could deny how much better that is for livability and walkability.
Car-brained people cannot be allowed to ruin the walkability, safety and livability of our historic neighborhoods.
And this is why cities have the protections of preservation review and historic districts.
Having said all that, there’s always the argument that we don’t need to demolish perfectly adaptable historic stock when there is vacant land where new infill can be situated.
It was because of pushback that it was reoriented and now there are townhome entrances there instead and parking is accessed from the alley. Go by and see if you could deny how much better that is for livability and walkability.
Car-brained people cannot be allowed to ruin the walkability, safety and livability of our historic neighborhoods.
And this is why cities have the protections of preservation review and historic districts.
Having said all that, there’s always the argument that we don’t need to demolish perfectly adaptable historic stock when there is vacant land where new infill can be situated.
Very well said. As a resident, landlord, and developer in the city, I couldn't agree more.imran wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024The apartment buildings at Boyle/Maryland in the central west end started off as ground level parking visible from Boyle.
It was because of pushback that it was reoriented and now there are townhome entrances there instead and parking is accessed from the alley. Go by and see if you could deny how much better that is for livability and walkability.
Car-brained people cannot be allowed to ruin the walkability, safety and livability of our historic neighborhoods.
And this is why cities have the protections of preservation review and historic districts.
Having said all that, there’s always the argument that we don’t need to demolish perfectly adaptable historic stock when there is vacant land where new infill can be situated.
NIMBYism runs strong. So depressing to see in "urban" STL. May as well rename "we're no better than San Francisco" STL.
- 502
That’s not really the case happening here. What I get from this conversation is that there are people who see the value in the project, but wish it were just a little bit better. The biggest thing I see are people wanting a retail space, but I understand from the developer’s post that a retail bay can be added in later (which is good).Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024NIMBYism runs strong. So depressing to see in "urban" STL. May as well rename "we're no better than San Francisco" STL.
I also think it’s important to note that it’s likely the properties were bought at an elevated price and that hurt the ability to restore them for a reasonable price and return. Lenders won’t lend if there’s no solid return. Same goes for investors. Price is everything.
Everyone knows I’m supportive of this project anyways, and am critical of the Preservation Board, but I won’t broad stroke everyone as being a NIMBY on here when there seems to be a desire to improve. Monday we’ll have an answer for whether or not increased neighborhood support is enough to win approval.
The Preservation Board specifically used terms like "character of the neighborhood" and "historical significance". Those are both NIMBY dog whistles. Their ruling had nothing to do with retail bays.
Also, anyone complaining about "historical significance" or rehabilitating the old vacant buildings aren't talking about retail bays. Granted, most of the opposition from last year on here was more worried about retail bays, but not recently.
Also, anyone complaining about "historical significance" or rehabilitating the old vacant buildings aren't talking about retail bays. Granted, most of the opposition from last year on here was more worried about retail bays, but not recently.
- 2,419
I don't think the recent news about retail down this strip is particularly encouraging.
I'm skeptical that the strip can support retail all that well in its current state and without more residents.
For Three Little Monkeys, it may just be that Headless Bat Pizza beat them for customers.
In any case, we now have somewhat significant vacancy up and down that strip, and also residents that want to kill a 36-unit project because it doesn't include a retail bay.
I'm skeptical that the strip can support retail all that well in its current state and without more residents.
For Three Little Monkeys, it may just be that Headless Bat Pizza beat them for customers.
In any case, we now have somewhat significant vacancy up and down that strip, and also residents that want to kill a 36-unit project because it doesn't include a retail bay.
It seems like there's several people in this discussion who are supportive of this development but are a lot less extreme than you. YIMBYism =/= support for all actions by developers no matter what they do with 0 government oversight, as far as I'm concerned.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024The Preservation Board specifically used terms like "character of the neighborhood" and "historical significance". Those are both NIMBY dog whistles. Their ruling had nothing to do with retail bays.
Also, anyone complaining about "historical significance" or rehabilitating the old vacant buildings aren't talking about retail bays. Granted, most of the opposition from last year on here was more worried about retail bays, but not recently.
Except:
This project is not in my backyard. I believe the entire city deserves to be defended against poor choices..it’s more nuanced than simply the number of units on the block. Sidewalk treatment can make or break the urban environment.
I'm failing to see the problem here, and truthfully please tell me where I am wrong as I'm not very well-versed on any of this. The surrounding area supposedly voted that 1:1 parking was required, there is very recent/strong evidence that retail might be struggling in this area a bit more than years past, and they've left the door open for future retail additions to the building. It's, in my opinion, a good looking building using high quality materials and AHM seems to be forthcoming with their current predicament and appreciation for the concerns of those in the neighborhood.
Retail is not the only way to activate the sidewalk face of the ground floor of an apartment building.( put the mail room, leasing office or amenities like fitness or flex office space there and make it visible/accessible from the sidewalk - not terribly difficult)legendrey wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024I'm failing to see the problem here, and truthfully please tell me where I am wrong as I'm not very well-versed on any of this. The surrounding area supposedly voted that 1:1 parking was required, there is very recent/strong evidence that retail might be struggling in this area a bit more than years past, and they've left the door open for future retail additions to the building. It's, in my opinion, a good looking building using high quality materials and AHM seems to be forthcoming with their current predicament and appreciation for the concerns of those in the neighborhood.
The 1:1 parking can and should be hidden behind or under the building.
Does this help any?
- 43
As the Preservation Board member who made the motion to deny the previous application, I know that I did not "dog whistle." I don't think that my fellow commissioners did, either, and one even voted in favor of the project. (I was not living in Tower Grove South -- Dutchtown, although I no longer live in St. Louis -- and if you have paid attention to the Board, often have been critical of neighborhood organizations' trying to impose an interpretation on applicants.) I took an oath to uphold the laws of the City, which extend protection to the three buildings on the corner. The Board can decide that the new project warrants waiving the protections, but the design that we saw was generic, out of scale with Morganford and came across as "plop" architecture. The applicant's testimony did not address the ordinance or the concerns of the majority of Board members, and in fact, he spoke more about what kinds of buildings people want in other cities than the particular facets of the preservation ordinance that may have swayed our opinion. Street-level retail was not the crux of the matter for me, especially as the corner historically has never had a retail building. We'll see what a second turn looks like, but people need to remember that the Preservation Board is bound by laws, and arguments need to address the actual powers of the Board.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024The Preservation Board specifically used terms like "character of the neighborhood" and "historical significance". Those are both NIMBY dog whistles. Their ruling had nothing to do with retail bays.
Also, anyone complaining about "historical significance" or rehabilitating the old vacant buildings aren't talking about retail bays. Granted, most of the opposition from last year on here was more worried about retail bays, but not recently.
- 3,762
Another recent proposal from AHM which, to my knowledge, encountered much less opposition despite involving the demolition of a historic building and storied LGBTQ establishment. Note the key design difference(s).
![]()
https://nextstl.com/2022/08/ahm-plans-new-build-at-4100-manchester-in-the-grove/
https://nextstl.com/2022/08/ahm-plans-new-build-at-4100-manchester-in-the-grove/
Curious as to what you mean by "historically" as there are currently two storefronts. I believe both of them were occupied prior to acquisition by AHM. Are they both additions?preservation.research.office wrote:Street-level retail was not the crux of the matter for me, especially as the corner historically has never had a retail building. We'll see what a second turn looks like, but people need to remember that the Preservation Board is bound by laws, and arguments need to address the actual powers of the Board.
(And, as is evident from the street view, these are not diLApidATeD!!! properties—or at least they weren't in 2022. When did AHM acquire them?)
Most obvious partial preservation approach: Retain the two sidewalk-fronting buildings (or at least facades) and replace the two setback buildings with slender, taller multifamily built to the sidewalk (as is happening all over the place in Philly, for example).
Correction: the plan doesn't include the leftmost storefront. So even easier for AHM—they would only have to retain one building. I'm guessing that would assuage a lot of this opposition.
- 488
This to me suggests we should give the preservation board less power. I'm not sure why we should have people deciding that a project is too "generic, out of scale and "plop" architecture". How is that even defined in the preservation board laws?preservation.research.office wrote: ↑Sep 20, 2024As the Preservation Board member who made the motion to deny the previous application, I know that I did not "dog whistle." I don't think that my fellow commissioners did, either, and one even voted in favor of the project. (I was not living in Tower Grove South -- Dutchtown, although I no longer live in St. Louis -- and if you have paid attention to the Board, often have been critical of neighborhood organizations' trying to impose an interpretation on applicants.) I took an oath to uphold the laws of the City, which extend protection to the three buildings on the corner. The Board can decide that the new project warrants waiving the protections, but the design that we saw was generic, out of scale with Morganford and came across as "plop" architecture. The applicant's testimony did not address the ordinance or the concerns of the majority of Board members, and in fact, he spoke more about what kinds of buildings people want in other cities than the particular facets of the preservation ordinance that may have swayed our opinion. Street-level retail was not the crux of the matter for me, especially as the corner historically has never had a retail building. We'll see what a second turn looks like, but people need to remember that the Preservation Board is bound by laws, and arguments need to address the actual powers of the Board.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024The Preservation Board specifically used terms like "character of the neighborhood" and "historical significance". Those are both NIMBY dog whistles. Their ruling had nothing to do with retail bays.
Also, anyone complaining about "historical significance" or rehabilitating the old vacant buildings aren't talking about retail bays. Granted, most of the opposition from last year on here was more worried about retail bays, but not recently.
Were not an architecture museum - we're a city with people that grows, changes and evolves.
@font-face { font-family: Tiempos Headline; font-weight: 300 400; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/1QUeEUkw.woff2); } @font-face { font-family: Apercu; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/BUXqczCf.woff2); } @font-face { font-family: Apercu; font-weight: 500 700; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/D2PxWqOF.woff2); }
I genuinely appreciate Kyle Howerton's contribution to this thread - whether or not you agree with what he posted (and I don't agree with every point listed) it seems to me to be a good faith engagement and explanation of the proposal,
![]()
And parking is already hidden under the building - currently the entire first floor is tenant parking:
![]()
Unless you mean burying it underground. That would raise costs significantly and the ramp down would eat into available space for parking spots. It's far from ideal that 1:1 parking is necessary for this project, but I get that it's the reality of the day and appreciate that they're potentially open to converting part of the garage into retail if/when feasible. I'd love to see more about how that might be possible.
I too would like to see more street-level engagement. But it there is some - it seems they did what they could with the plot they bought. As much as I personally appreciate the buildings there (especially 3148 Morgan Ford, which is kinda amazing), I think this proposal would bring more density (and more residents = more potential business to the other retail establishments nearby) to the area. To me, the benefits outweigh the negatives, and for that I'd be okay with demo in this instance.
I also appreciate the feedback in this thread from @preservation.research.office - and sounds like they're open to another look, which is good. I will say that I disagree with this bit:
I do also appreciate that the Preservation Board is bound by laws, and arguments need to address the actual powers of the Board. Sounds like the developers haven't done a good enough job there yet. I'm hopeful that the actual meeting will help them to see what they can do to address any deficiencies in their proposal and come to an agreeable solution.
-RBB
From the renderings posted in the Preservation Board agenda there is a street-facing entrance at the corner of Morgan Ford and Juniata:imran wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024imran:Retail is not the only way to activate the sidewalk face of the ground floor of an apartment building.( put the mail room, leasing office or amenities like fitness or flex office space there and make it visible/accessible from the sidewalk - not terribly difficult)legendrey wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024I'm failing to see the problem here, and truthfully please tell me where I am wrong as I'm not very well-versed on any of this. The surrounding area supposedly voted that 1:1 parking was required, there is very recent/strong evidence that retail might be struggling in this area a bit more than years past, and they've left the door open for future retail additions to the building. It's, in my opinion, a good looking building using high quality materials and AHM seems to be forthcoming with their current predicament and appreciation for the concerns of those in the neighborhood.
The 1:1 parking can and should be hidden behind or under the building.
Does this help any?
And parking is already hidden under the building - currently the entire first floor is tenant parking:
Unless you mean burying it underground. That would raise costs significantly and the ramp down would eat into available space for parking spots. It's far from ideal that 1:1 parking is necessary for this project, but I get that it's the reality of the day and appreciate that they're potentially open to converting part of the garage into retail if/when feasible. I'd love to see more about how that might be possible.
I too would like to see more street-level engagement. But it there is some - it seems they did what they could with the plot they bought. As much as I personally appreciate the buildings there (especially 3148 Morgan Ford, which is kinda amazing), I think this proposal would bring more density (and more residents = more potential business to the other retail establishments nearby) to the area. To me, the benefits outweigh the negatives, and for that I'd be okay with demo in this instance.
I also appreciate the feedback in this thread from @preservation.research.office - and sounds like they're open to another look, which is good. I will say that I disagree with this bit:
It's not a shockingly wrong or indefensible position to take. and I do get that replacing two single-family homes and a small shop/apartment building with a much larger multi-unit dwelling materially alters the neighborhood. But assuming quality materials used, I think an apartment building with quality modern design and materials would add to the neighborhood just fine here. Yes it's bigger than what it's replacing, but it's not a monster, and there's another one just over a block away (yes, with retail bays) to provide context.The new construction would not exceed the contribution of the existing historic buildings to the neighborhood and historic district. Furthermore, the new construction would detract from the small-scale, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood along this section of Morgan Ford.
I do also appreciate that the Preservation Board is bound by laws, and arguments need to address the actual powers of the Board. Sounds like the developers haven't done a good enough job there yet. I'm hopeful that the actual meeting will help them to see what they can do to address any deficiencies in their proposal and come to an agreeable solution.
-RBB
Oh and are those two curb cuts on Morganford? Yeeesh. How much urban insult/injury can one proposal pack?
SMH
SMH
- 3,762
^ holy crap. somehow i missed the curb cuts. even worse than a blank wall.
i think a single glass door facing Morganford is not quite the level of activation that imran was suggesting.rbb wrote: ↑Sep 20, 2024From the renderings posted in the Preservation Board agenda there is a street-facing entrance at the corner of Morgan Ford and Juniata: