^If you go to the Facebook Tower Grove Neighborhood Association page they have the meeting on there you can *like and it will throw it on your calendar. DM me if you go - I'd love to meet up!
The site is only slightly smaller than this one. I think you'd need something close to 40 units (if not a few more) for a reasonable cost per unit at $800,000. So something similar to what is proposed, but slightly denser (smaller units and/or smaller deck) might work. Probably can't add a floor.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 06, 2023What could work with an $800k acquisition cost?billikens&bricks wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2023The car dealership at Morganford and Arsenal is also for sale. Will be interested to see who buys it. The strip could see quite a few changes in the coming years.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2023I haven't seen the renderings yet, but I'm confident I will be okay with this project.
I walk past these buildings almost every morning and night with my dog, and I've been waiting for something like this to come and help take the strip to the next level.
South to Fyler Morgan Ford is zoned F, so max three stories. More would require a variance.
Eh count me out on this one, I hope it gets rejected. No matter who is to blame (neighbors and developer) I think it's bad to have a parking lot take up the full first floor. I'd rather walk by the existing hair salon in a historic storefront than some blank wall with cars parked behind it. It'll be a bad pedestrian experience, AHM's other two projects on Morgan Ford are nice but this isn't.
Not sure how the demolition of these buildings would be allowed while denying Lux Living demo and building permits. A consistent process is needed for development in St. Louis.
- 6,119
^I think it boils down to what jurisdictions have regulations. Some do, some don't. Some might even overlap. I think it's all special districts blocking projects of that sort. That said . . . amen. We absolutely need citywide standards.
The buildings on Morgan Ford are in a historic district too. What plays a big role is neighborhood and alder support. Lux doesn't have it. It remains to be seen if AHM has it here.
TGSNA Development Cmte is seeking feedback from TGS residents on this.
https://mailchi.mp/03855f3aa770/development-mofosurvey
https://mailchi.mp/03855f3aa770/development-mofosurvey
- 20
Thanks for sharing. My hope is that they modify it to include retail, but more housing stock and more density is good for the neighborhood in my opinion.quincunx wrote: ↑Apr 06, 2023TGSNA Development Cmte is seeking feedback from TGS residents on this.
https://mailchi.mp/03855f3aa770/development-mofosurvey
- 32
I wish we didn’t have to litigate every single multifamily development like this, particularly when no incentives are on the table. Just set the design requirements upfront and automatically approve whatever complies—that’s the fair, healthy, and efficient way to regulate. You certainly don’t see this level of scrutiny when someone builds or rehabs a single-family home.quincunx wrote: ↑Apr 06, 2023TGSNA Development Cmte is seeking feedback from TGS residents on this.
https://mailchi.mp/03855f3aa770/development-mofosurvey
- 1,794
No one demolishes half a city block when rehabbing a single family home.
- 32
The city needs to evolve, and more critically it needs the additional residents and tax revenue this project will bring. I’m sympathetic to the loss of granular retail buildings, but the drawn-out process we go through with every new apartment building bogs down and disincentivizes badly-needed densification.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023No one demolishes half a city block when rehabbing a single family home.
I just want a short, consistent, automated process—if you own the land and satisfy regulations and code, you should be able to move ahead with your project without layers of unpredictable community and political interference.
But how will Karen and Chad have their concerns voiced? How will they survive needing to walk half a block to their favorite neighborhood business? This isn't progress! Think about the people instead of the "transients" who will live in this building and ruin the neighborhood! /sLithiumAneurysm wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023The city needs to evolve, and more critically it needs the additional residents and tax revenue this project will bring. I’m sympathetic to the loss of granular retail buildings, but the drawn-out process we go through with every new apartment building bogs down and disincentivizes badly-needed densification.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023No one demolishes half a city block when rehabbing a single family home.
I just want a short, consistent, automated process—if you own the land and satisfy regulations and code, you should be able to move ahead with your project without layers of unpredictable community and political interference.
I generally agree with this, but in a very real sense the built environment belongs to everyone. Community input should always be considered.LithiumAneurysm wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023
I just want a short, consistent, automated process—if you own the land and satisfy regulations and code, you should be able to move ahead with your project without layers of unpredictable community and political interference.
I actually do agree with this, but the process I would want wouldn't allow this building. I don't think having a blank wall with parking behind it is a good urban use of the first floor on a retail strip like Morgan Ford.LithiumAneurysm wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023The city needs to evolve, and more critically it needs the additional residents and tax revenue this project will bring. I’m sympathetic to the loss of granular retail buildings, but the drawn-out process we go through with every new apartment building bogs down and disincentivizes badly-needed densification.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023No one demolishes half a city block when rehabbing a single family home.
I just want a short, consistent, automated process—if you own the land and satisfy regulations and code, you should be able to move ahead with your project without layers of unpredictable community and political interference.
- 32
Yes, but I think the appropriate way to represent community input is through preset regulation, not ad hoc commentary. Our current method of inviting commentary on every individual project is extremely prone to bias and rent-seeking.framer wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023I generally agree with this, but in a very real sense the built environment belongs to everyone. Community input should always be considered.
This is exactly the type of obfuscation that’s the problem, though - it wouldn’t be reasonable for the community to pressure the developer into including additional parking and then reject their project because, as a result, it doesn’t have retail.PeterXCV wrote:I actually do agree with this, but the process I would want wouldn't allow this building. I don't think having a blank wall with parking behind it is a good urban use of the first floor on a retail strip like Morgan Ford.
It should be clear from the beginning of the process what is and isn’t acceptable. In this case, the bias should be against parking and for retail; that should be reflected in the relevant city code, and neighborhood pushback on the topic should be ignored.
- 2,430
The issue here is they own the land but the proposal doesn't satisfy regulations and code; that's why it's going through the variance process and the developer is seeking neighborhood support.LithiumAneurysm wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023I just want a short, consistent, automated process—if you own the land and satisfy regulations and code, you should be able to move ahead with your project without layers of unpredictable community and political interference.
Also, in regard to your comment about single-fams, these issues do apply as well. Under the form-based code in FPSE, e.g., single-family proposals typically require mutliple variances. FPSE & CWE with Form-Based Codes and Preservation Review also are interesting with respect to Lux Living's proposals, where developer reputation has become an issue... I think a lot of neighborhood residents that generally are quite sympathetic to the idea of limited review would be up in arms e.g. if the current review process did not check LL on its S. Kingshighway proposal and it was allowed to proceed under an "automatic" process.
Anyway, it's difficult to strike the right balance both in the first instance of what the regulations should be, and then what the review process should be when those regulations are not met.
- 32
My thought there is that we rely too heavily on variances in the first placeSTLrainbow wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2023The issue here is they own the land but the proposal doesn't satisfy regulations and code; that's why it's going through the variance process and the developer is seeking neighborhood support.
Also, in regard to your comment about single-fams, these issues do apply as well. Under the form-based code in FPSE, e.g., single-family proposals typically require mutliple variances. FPSE & CWE with Form-Based Codes and Preservation Review also are interesting with respect to Lux Living's proposals, where developer reputation has become an issue... I think a lot of neighborhood residents that generally are quite sympathetic to the idea of limited review would be up in arms e.g. if the current review process did not check LL on its S. Kingshighway proposal and it was allowed to proceed under an "automatic" process.
Anyway, it's difficult to strike the right balance both in the first instance of what the regulations should be, and then what the review process should be when those regulations are not met.
I do remember reading that development under the FPSE FBC hasn’t been as streamlined as expected, which suggests the code is out of sync with what’s feasible to build on most lots. I’d think we could reach some equilibrium where most development doesn’t require variances and the code as written encompasses a wider array of situations.As for Lux, I don’t love the idea of the review process being used as a cudgel to achieve unrelated goals, but I also won’t defend that company’s behavior. I suppose you could have some sort of “good behavior” policy to punish developers that fail to act neighborly, but inevitably you run into the right of Sid & Vic to purchase and own property and, to some extent, do as they see fit with it.
- 2,430
^ I definitely agree trying to get the right regulations in place at the front end is critical.
E.g. gas stations should have been an expressly prohibited use in the SLU Chapter 353 area; it's unfathomable to me that SLU attempted to put a QT in, but fortunately the review process so far has thwarted that. And parking requirements of course are a big issue. FPSE's FBC is great in this respect by eliminating parking requirements and I think CWE should change its code as well to follow suit, or at least drastically reduce the requirements... I think a variance should be required for proposals that exceed a 1:1 ratio. I'm also glad to hear that parking requirement reform will be looked at in the new Board session.
E.g. gas stations should have been an expressly prohibited use in the SLU Chapter 353 area; it's unfathomable to me that SLU attempted to put a QT in, but fortunately the review process so far has thwarted that. And parking requirements of course are a big issue. FPSE's FBC is great in this respect by eliminating parking requirements and I think CWE should change its code as well to follow suit, or at least drastically reduce the requirements... I think a variance should be required for proposals that exceed a 1:1 ratio. I'm also glad to hear that parking requirement reform will be looked at in the new Board session.
^ At the same time there is a not insignificant number of residents and business owners that are not happy with the 0 parking requirement in The Grove FBC. Could you imagine the uproar if all of the apartment projects in the Grove were approved with no dedicated parking. I remember a post about the student apartments proposed at Skinker and Delmar and someone commented "How much parking will there be?" and my response was "Too much and not enough". Sure enough the urbanists said there was too much parking, and the residents shot the project down largely because there wasn't enough parking.
Its just hard to tell what the public comment like this accomplishes... I guarantee there will be comments that say there should be absolutely no new building under any circumstances, some will say there should be more parking, some will say there should be no parking, and some will say there needs to be retail, some will say it needs to be all affordable housing even without any incentives. Which comments should the developer actually respond to? Who and how do we decide which ones are relevant and actionable, and which ones should be ignored. What does the city, alderman, developer gain from this process?
Its just hard to tell what the public comment like this accomplishes... I guarantee there will be comments that say there should be absolutely no new building under any circumstances, some will say there should be more parking, some will say there should be no parking, and some will say there needs to be retail, some will say it needs to be all affordable housing even without any incentives. Which comments should the developer actually respond to? Who and how do we decide which ones are relevant and actionable, and which ones should be ignored. What does the city, alderman, developer gain from this process?
- 2,430
^ Developers can go before the necessary bodies (whether Board of Adjustment, Cultural Resources/Preservation Board, Planning Commission, etc. etc.) without seeking neighborhood support, but it's much more diffcult to secure approvals without it. In this particular case, the biggest hurdle from the city may be approval for demolition of the existing buildings as all three are contributing resources to the National Historc District and two of them are currently occupied.
And, yeah, I'm sure there'll be a range of comments from the survey and at required public hearings; some surely will be ridiculous while others reasoned and insightful. That's normal and expected.
And, yeah, I'm sure there'll be a range of comments from the survey and at required public hearings; some surely will be ridiculous while others reasoned and insightful. That's normal and expected.
- 2,430
^ I'm not sure where it is in the process (perhaps its still working with Cultural Resources on demo review, e.g.) but I think a larger question is what is the order of business for this group with a very busy plate? They've got this proposal, the downtown proposal, the one in the Grove, the one in TGE, the one in Benton Park, and perhaps others I'm missing.
I assume they'll get started with another project after wrapping up the Bavarian Inn and/or Wyo projects, but who knows which one(s).
I assume they'll get started with another project after wrapping up the Bavarian Inn and/or Wyo projects, but who knows which one(s).