Just take away a 2-3 parking spaces to add a little 400sf retail bay on the corner and this project would be so much more appealing.
- 2,053
That's a good sign for this one making it through right? Was there any commentary or just a vote?quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 13, 2025The Planning Commission voted 5-4 to consider again at the next meeting while staff explores with AHM, street interaction, height, parking, retail, zoning variances.
The first post in this thread is from February 2023. The fact that this project still hasn't made it through the city process is not great. I feel like our city isn't growing because we won't let it grow.
I have to imagine that if it weren't for the fact that the developer used to lived in TGS and is committed to the city, this project would've been dead long ago.
I have to imagine that if it weren't for the fact that the developer used to lived in TGS and is committed to the city, this project would've been dead long ago.
And Delmar and Skinker is still empty. It'd have over 300 people living there now but for NIMBYs.
And the Fanning school saga started over three years ago. No demo there. There the problem is our zoning code has parking minimums and housing maximums. How long is the zoning code overhaul that the Planning Commission is working on going to take? And will we have courage or water it down so NIMBYs don't get big mad?
And the Fanning school saga started over three years ago. No demo there. There the problem is our zoning code has parking minimums and housing maximums. How long is the zoning code overhaul that the Planning Commission is working on going to take? And will we have courage or water it down so NIMBYs don't get big mad?
- 915
Imagine being a NIMBY in St. Louis. Like, don’t you want more people to contribute and grow our community? Lost more population percentage than pretty much every other major city. We need more people to support our infrastructure, the opposite problem in many sun belter boomtowns right now.
- 3,762
it's only been a few months since the PRB denial, and the result is that AHM and the Planning Commission are (presumably) now discussing how to improve the proposal's sh*t relationship to the street. I don't see how that's a bad thing. It's not like the situation at 4101 Manchester or at Delmar and Skinker. It's actually a good thing to demand better urban form and preservation where possible, and it will ultimately make the City more liveable/less car dependent.Sarah K wrote: ↑Mar 14, 2025The first post in this thread is from February 2023. The fact that this project still hasn't made it through the city process is not great. I feel like our city isn't growing because we won't let it grow.
I have to imagine that if it weren't for the fact that the developer used to lived in TGS and is committed to the city, this project would've been dead long ago.
The Preservation Board denied demolition of existing structures last year, which essentially paused any progress that could be made.Sarah K wrote: ↑Mar 14, 2025The first post in this thread is from February 2023. The fact that this project still hasn't made it through the city process is not great. I feel like our city isn't growing because we won't let it grow.
I have to imagine that if it weren't for the fact that the developer used to lived in TGS and is committed to the city, this project would've been dead long ago.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think we may just need to agree to disagree. I like the current proposal from AHM and think it will be a beneficial addition. TGS desperately needs more housing. They can add retail space on the first floor but they'll struggle to find a tenant and the zoning code will require that they add *more* parking. The Planning Commission also asked that they explore reducing the height of the building by one story, but I imagine that the reduction in units would kill the project completely.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Mar 14, 2025it's only been a few months since the PRB denial, and the result is that AHM and the Planning Commission are (presumably) now discussing how to improve the proposal's sh*t relationship to the street. I don't see how that's a bad thing. It's not like the situation at 4101 Manchester or at Delmar and Skinker. It's actually a good thing to demand better urban form and preservation where possible, and it will ultimately make the City more liveable/less car dependent.Sarah K wrote: ↑Mar 14, 2025The first post in this thread is from February 2023. The fact that this project still hasn't made it through the city process is not great. I feel like our city isn't growing because we won't let it grow.
I have to imagine that if it weren't for the fact that the developer used to lived in TGS and is committed to the city, this project would've been dead long ago.
I also thought they should've built the project at Delmar and Skinker and don't have a problem with the soccer pitch at 4101 Manchester. While not as ideal as the previously proposed building, I want site activation. I'm willing to live with a different use until building becomes more feasible. I'm tired of the dirt pit and the falling fencing that blocks visibility and makes navigating that corner a headache.
People are opposed to projects when something has to be demolished, people are opposed to projects built on vacant land, people are opposed to projects that don't use brick or look historic, people are opposed to market rate projects, people are opposed to low-income projects, people are opposed to residential projects and also commercial projects, people are opposed to projects that need tax abatement; in general, people are just opposed to any projects. St. Louis is just not welcoming to development.
- 3,762
Sarah do you want to explain to us why your reasoning sounds so similar to Alderman Browning's recent TV interview?Sarah K wrote: ↑Mar 14, 2025You're entitled to your opinion. I think we may just need to agree to disagree. I like the current proposal from AHM and think it will be a beneficial addition. TGS desperately needs more housing. They can add retail space on the first floor but they'll struggle to find a tenant and the zoning code will require that they add *more* parking. The Planning Commission also asked that they explore reducing the height of the building by one story, but I imagine that the reduction in units would kill the project completely.
I also thought they should've built the project at Delmar and Skinker and don't have a problem with the soccer pitch at 4101 Manchester. While not as ideal as the previously proposed building, I want site activation. I'm willing to live with a different use until building becomes more feasible. I'm tired of the dirt pit and the falling fencing that blocks visibility and makes navigating that corner a headache.
People are opposed to projects when something has to be demolished, people are opposed to projects built on vacant land, people are opposed to projects that don't use brick or look historic, people are opposed to market rate projects, people are opposed to low-income projects, people are opposed to residential projects and also commercial projects, people are opposed to projects that need tax abatement; in general, people are just opposed to any projects. St. Louis is just not welcoming to development.
Correct views often tend to sound similar since there's only one correct view of any debate.
Incorrect.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025there's only one correct view of any debate.
This is a really tough call for me, because I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In a city that is literally half empty, I usually advocate for preservation of the built environment because it's the thing that sets St. Louis apart from other cities (and let's be real, it's pretty much the only thing). On the other hand, I am also pro-development and very much pro-density, so I also see the value in adding a multifamily building to the streetscape as well.
At the end of the day, though, I just think it's lame to tear down stable historic buildings that unquestionably contribute to the neighborhood's appeal, in favor of a replacement that could just as easily be found in Minneapolis or Charlotte or Austin or Nashville or Denver or Houston or Columbus or Kansas City. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of unremarkable. St. Louis needs to be focused on filling in the gaps, because we have way too many of them. Admittedly, the corner building in question doesn't do much for me, but I do love the mixed use buildings that are in the footprint of the proposed redevelopment, and it would be a real shame to lose them.
Imagine what a first-time visitor to St. Louis would observe walking down Morganford, and there's little question that the existing buildings create a unique sense of place, while the proposed apartment building really doesn't. That's not to say it isn't an acceptable urban building, because it is. But it should be built on an empty lot or in place of the 7-11, not at the expense of solid handsome buildings that have stood there for over a century. With every demolition, we come one step closer to becoming Indianapolis. God forbid!
At the end of the day, though, I just think it's lame to tear down stable historic buildings that unquestionably contribute to the neighborhood's appeal, in favor of a replacement that could just as easily be found in Minneapolis or Charlotte or Austin or Nashville or Denver or Houston or Columbus or Kansas City. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of unremarkable. St. Louis needs to be focused on filling in the gaps, because we have way too many of them. Admittedly, the corner building in question doesn't do much for me, but I do love the mixed use buildings that are in the footprint of the proposed redevelopment, and it would be a real shame to lose them.
Imagine what a first-time visitor to St. Louis would observe walking down Morganford, and there's little question that the existing buildings create a unique sense of place, while the proposed apartment building really doesn't. That's not to say it isn't an acceptable urban building, because it is. But it should be built on an empty lot or in place of the 7-11, not at the expense of solid handsome buildings that have stood there for over a century. With every demolition, we come one step closer to becoming Indianapolis. God forbid!
They currently observe three repulsive, vacant, dilapidated buildings that make you question why these buildings haven't been redeveloped yet.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025This is a really tough call for me, because I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In a city that is literally half empty, I usually advocate for preservation of the built environment because it's the thing that sets St. Louis apart from other cities (and let's be real, it's pretty much the only thing). On the other hand, I am also pro-development and very much pro-density, so I also see the value in adding a multifamily building to the streetscape as well.
At the end of the day, though, I just think it's lame to tear down stable historic buildings that unquestionably contribute to the neighborhood's appeal, in favor of a replacement that could just as easily be found in Minneapolis or Charlotte or Austin or Nashville or Denver or Houston or Columbus or Kansas City. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of unremarkable. St. Louis needs to be focused on filling in the gaps, because we have way too many of them. Admittedly, the corner building in question doesn't do much for me, but I do love the mixed use buildings that are in the footprint of the proposed redevelopment, and it would be a real shame to lose them.
Imagine what a first-time visitor to St. Louis would observe walking down Morganford, and there's little question that the existing buildings create a unique sense of place, while the proposed apartment building really doesn't. That's not to say it isn't an acceptable urban building, because it is. But it should be built on an empty lot or in place of the 7-11, not at the expense of solid handsome buildings that have stood there for over a century. With every demolition, we come one step closer to becoming Indianapolis. God forbid!
By that logic, we wouldn't even have a city left to argue about now. Yeah, vacant, dilapidated buildings are repulsive, until they aren't. Continental building, Gateway/Statler, City Hospital, and literally countless others languished for decades. Aren't we glad they're still around now?Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025They currently observe three repulsive, vacant, dilapidated buildings that make you question why these buildings haven't been redeveloped yet.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025This is a really tough call for me, because I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In a city that is literally half empty, I usually advocate for preservation of the built environment because it's the thing that sets St. Louis apart from other cities (and let's be real, it's pretty much the only thing). On the other hand, I am also pro-development and very much pro-density, so I also see the value in adding a multifamily building to the streetscape as well.
At the end of the day, though, I just think it's lame to tear down stable historic buildings that unquestionably contribute to the neighborhood's appeal, in favor of a replacement that could just as easily be found in Minneapolis or Charlotte or Austin or Nashville or Denver or Houston or Columbus or Kansas City. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of unremarkable. St. Louis needs to be focused on filling in the gaps, because we have way too many of them. Admittedly, the corner building in question doesn't do much for me, but I do love the mixed use buildings that are in the footprint of the proposed redevelopment, and it would be a real shame to lose them.
Imagine what a first-time visitor to St. Louis would observe walking down Morganford, and there's little question that the existing buildings create a unique sense of place, while the proposed apartment building really doesn't. That's not to say it isn't an acceptable urban building, because it is. But it should be built on an empty lot or in place of the 7-11, not at the expense of solid handsome buildings that have stood there for over a century. With every demolition, we come one step closer to becoming Indianapolis. God forbid!
Look, I'm not going to chain myself to these buildings, and I can live with the new one. I just wish it didn't have to be either/or- we have plenty of room in this city (and this street!) for both to co-exist.
Totally agree. Even at the acquisition cost of the 7-11 that was rumored in the past, it'd be a quicker demo and dev than this. In one sense, making it a pain in the ass to tear down granular unique buildings.. time is money.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 17, 2025By that logic, we wouldn't even have a city left to argue about now. Yeah, vacant, dilapidated buildings are repulsive, until they aren't. Continental building, Gateway/Statler, City Hospital, and literally countless others languished for decades. Aren't we glad they're still around now?Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025They currently observe three repulsive, vacant, dilapidated buildings that make you question why these buildings haven't been redeveloped yet.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025This is a really tough call for me, because I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In a city that is literally half empty, I usually advocate for preservation of the built environment because it's the thing that sets St. Louis apart from other cities (and let's be real, it's pretty much the only thing). On the other hand, I am also pro-development and very much pro-density, so I also see the value in adding a multifamily building to the streetscape as well.
At the end of the day, though, I just think it's lame to tear down stable historic buildings that unquestionably contribute to the neighborhood's appeal, in favor of a replacement that could just as easily be found in Minneapolis or Charlotte or Austin or Nashville or Denver or Houston or Columbus or Kansas City. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of unremarkable. St. Louis needs to be focused on filling in the gaps, because we have way too many of them. Admittedly, the corner building in question doesn't do much for me, but I do love the mixed use buildings that are in the footprint of the proposed redevelopment, and it would be a real shame to lose them.
Imagine what a first-time visitor to St. Louis would observe walking down Morganford, and there's little question that the existing buildings create a unique sense of place, while the proposed apartment building really doesn't. That's not to say it isn't an acceptable urban building, because it is. But it should be built on an empty lot or in place of the 7-11, not at the expense of solid handsome buildings that have stood there for over a century. With every demolition, we come one step closer to becoming Indianapolis. God forbid!
Look, I'm not going to chain myself to these buildings, and I can live with the new one. I just wish it didn't have to be either/or- we have plenty of room in this city (and this street!) for both to co-exist.
With all of the developments AHM has proposed, I'm surprised they're really still fighting over this and move on to the next vacant or underproducing parcel.
Putting these three buildings in the same category as the Continiental Life Building is insane lol.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 17, 2025By that logic, we wouldn't even have a city left to argue about now. Yeah, vacant, dilapidated buildings are repulsive, until they aren't. Continental building, Gateway/Statler, City Hospital, and literally countless others languished for decades. Aren't we glad they're still around now?Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025They currently observe three repulsive, vacant, dilapidated buildings that make you question why these buildings haven't been redeveloped yet.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025This is a really tough call for me, because I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In a city that is literally half empty, I usually advocate for preservation of the built environment because it's the thing that sets St. Louis apart from other cities (and let's be real, it's pretty much the only thing). On the other hand, I am also pro-development and very much pro-density, so I also see the value in adding a multifamily building to the streetscape as well.
At the end of the day, though, I just think it's lame to tear down stable historic buildings that unquestionably contribute to the neighborhood's appeal, in favor of a replacement that could just as easily be found in Minneapolis or Charlotte or Austin or Nashville or Denver or Houston or Columbus or Kansas City. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of unremarkable. St. Louis needs to be focused on filling in the gaps, because we have way too many of them. Admittedly, the corner building in question doesn't do much for me, but I do love the mixed use buildings that are in the footprint of the proposed redevelopment, and it would be a real shame to lose them.
Imagine what a first-time visitor to St. Louis would observe walking down Morganford, and there's little question that the existing buildings create a unique sense of place, while the proposed apartment building really doesn't. That's not to say it isn't an acceptable urban building, because it is. But it should be built on an empty lot or in place of the 7-11, not at the expense of solid handsome buildings that have stood there for over a century. With every demolition, we come one step closer to becoming Indianapolis. God forbid!
Look, I'm not going to chain myself to these buildings, and I can live with the new one. I just wish it didn't have to be either/or- we have plenty of room in this city (and this street!) for both to co-exist.
- 2,053
I tend to agree with you - if there is anything that push a project over the hump for me when this is the case... increased density, not asking for incentives... and I'd like to say, neighborhood approval, but that doesn't always run parallel with my bias, lol...stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 16, 2025This is a really tough call for me, because I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In a city that is literally half empty, I usually advocate for preservation of the built environment because it's the thing that sets St. Louis apart from other cities (and let's be real, it's pretty much the only thing). On the other hand, I am also pro-development and very much pro-density, so I also see the value in adding a multifamily building to the streetscape as well.
At the end of the day, though, I just think it's lame to tear down stable historic buildings that unquestionably contribute to the neighborhood's appeal, in favor of a replacement that could just as easily be found in Minneapolis or Charlotte or Austin or Nashville or Denver or Houston or Columbus or Kansas City. Not that it's bad, it's just kind of unremarkable. St. Louis needs to be focused on filling in the gaps, because we have way too many of them. Admittedly, the corner building in question doesn't do much for me, but I do love the mixed use buildings that are in the footprint of the proposed redevelopment, and it would be a real shame to lose them.
Imagine what a first-time visitor to St. Louis would observe walking down Morganford, and there's little question that the existing buildings create a unique sense of place, while the proposed apartment building really doesn't. That's not to say it isn't an acceptable urban building, because it is. But it should be built on an empty lot or in place of the 7-11, not at the expense of solid handsome buildings that have stood there for over a century. With every demolition, we come one step closer to becoming Indianapolis. God forbid!
I'm sure there are a few more if I were to sit and think on it a bit longer
My other bias is that we've had some restaurants/shops open and leave... and I'm hoping more bodies on the street will help keep these business alive on MOFO.
Listened to most of the meeting... sounds like there are some momentum to approve this with adjustments... or overturn the disapproval.
Planning Commission wants to "continue until April to explore with the appellant options" to:
- reducing the height of the building (only one person wanted this)
- Building materials, how product meets the street (walkability)
- Explore the addition of ground floor retail while removing the parking requirement to do so
- Reviewing additional issues as presented from neighborhood feedback
- Confirming variances all approved prior to demo
Planning Commission wants to "continue until April to explore with the appellant options" to:
- reducing the height of the building (only one person wanted this)
- Building materials, how product meets the street (walkability)
- Explore the addition of ground floor retail while removing the parking requirement to do so
- Reviewing additional issues as presented from neighborhood feedback
- Confirming variances all approved prior to demo
- 6,118
This makes me hopeful that sticking to our guns on this will result in a better project. I'm with stlgasm that the existing buildings are much more of an asset than some would portray them to be, and the original design was . . . meh. Nothing worth writing home about. So as it stood, no seems like the better answer to me. Making demolition of historic structures slower and more expensive is pretty much a win in my book. Move the needle towards preservation, towards developing low value lots instead. That said, if the new design interacts with the street better, has some real retail, and isn't so placeless, then I'm okay with development moving forward in place of historic structures of somewhat middling importance. This is all a scale. Historic structures have value, but they don't all have the same value. New development has value, but it doesn't all have the same value. This was a marginal case. Maybe after another round of redesign it will be less marginal and more clear. (Or maybe they'll give up and spring for the 7-11.)
7-11 was sold for over $1.4M in 2020 and 7-11 signed a very long term lease. Let's stop acting like that's a real option and let's stop acting like 3 vacant and dilapidated buildings are preferable to 36 apartments.