North Sarah Development (Sarah / Finney)

malbrite10 · PostJul 13, 2011#12011-07-13T16:10+00:00

An exciting new mixed-income community is rising in North City - the North Sarah development.

120 new mixed-income rental units
7,000 square feet of retail/commercial space
Designs to reflect the historic African American business district that was once there.

Read a project description here.

Read an article about minority inclusion on the construction contract here.

The first link contains two renderings of the commercial streetscape on Sarah Street.

framer · PostJul 14, 2011#22011-07-14T04:20+00:00

Looks good, as far as can be seen in the two tiny renderings.

rbb · PostJul 15, 2011#32011-07-15T15:37+00:00

There are larger versions of those renders on their Flickr page:

I *think* I see vinyl siding on the building next to the corner shop here - I do hope that's something more substantial on the side of the 2nd building behind the brick facade:

This looks terrific:

On the whole, this looks quite nice, and it's certainly far, far better than what's there now.

-RBB

Roger Wyoming · PostJul 15, 2011#42011-07-15T17:54+00:00

excellent project! btw, google maps shows the street just north of Enright (and a few blocks south of Finney) as Suburban Trak. Anyone know what the heck that might be about?

Mark Groth · PostJul 15, 2011#52011-07-15T18:12+00:00

Roger Wyoming wrote:excellent project! btw, google maps shows the street just north of Enright (and a few blocks south of Finney) as Suburban Trak. Anyone know what the heck that might be about?

I believe the name Suburban Track refers to the former street car line. But the ultimate source on STL street names: http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/libsrc/s-street.htm only lists Suburban Avenue:

SUBURBAN AVENUE (E-W). In Phillip E. Green's subdivision of 1892, it was so named for its then suburban location. (Cabanne)

Roger Wyoming · PostJul 15, 2011#62011-07-15T18:45+00:00

^ thanks for sharing. Good reminder of our history!

PostJul 15, 2011#72011-07-15T18:50+00:00

I guess the land went from nature to field to suburban division to urban neighborhood to urban decay to vacant brownfield to mixed-use/ mixed-income development.

framer · PostAug 16, 2012#82012-08-16T03:53+00:00

Drove by this the other day, and I gotta say it looks great; much larger project than I realized. Let's hope they can fill the commercial space.

stldotage · PostAug 16, 2012#92012-08-16T13:45+00:00

The word is that a grocery store has already been secured for one of the commercial buildings. Another space is for leasing. And most of the remaining commercial bays are live-work units.

I believe Phase II has already been funded and is substantially larger. It will add commercial buildings in similar style to Vandeventer and Whittier.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 16, 2012#102012-08-16T22:36+00:00

I need to get up there and write something up - or better yet, find a contributor to do so!

johndavis · PostOct 31, 2012#112012-10-31T12:56+00:00

Two stories recently about this development.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 80b54.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... to-be.html

onecity · PostOct 31, 2012#122012-10-31T13:44+00:00

59 units are public housing? Of 120? That seems awfully high. I'd have aimed for 30-40 max, if the goal is to diffuse poverty.

Alex Ihnen · PostOct 31, 2012#132012-10-31T14:15+00:00

^ Just curious, how'd you come up with 30-40 max?

stlhistory · PostOct 31, 2012#142012-10-31T14:17+00:00

^Might have had difficulty filling more than 60 market rate units, and at least they're getting some income on the 60 public units. Maybe tax credits, too. Just a guess, though.

Alex Ihnen · PostOct 31, 2012#152012-10-31T14:20+00:00

^They're getting income from the public housing as well, of course.

onecity · PostOct 31, 2012#162012-10-31T15:17+00:00

Alex - here's my thinking. Just a ballpark number based on roughly 25% poverty rate. Assuming that in order to qualify for housing $$$, you must be in or near some poverty classification. Nationwide is about 15%, statewide is about 20%, STL is about 32%. Star cities like Denver, Portland, MPLS, all in the 21-27% range. Basically using STL's overall poverty level as the top limit, and star cities' approx. 25% as the lower limit. Thus 30-40. But not 59, as that is worse than STL overall at about 50%.

Alex Ihnen · PostOct 31, 2012#172012-10-31T15:37+00:00

^ I get the numbers, but that reasoning isn't based on anything objective, such as - what's the right mixture of subsidized/market housing? What's the mix for similar housing projects elsewhere? What about previous projects here? What does the market say - is it instructive? Is this an improvement towards market rate for the area? McCormack-Baron has completed dozens of similar and much larger projects all across the country. I don't know their formula, but their history speaks well.

onecity · PostOct 31, 2012#182012-10-31T16:06+00:00

It's not based on effectiveness measures or housing mix at all - to be honest I can't answer any of those questions.

My view is based on the idea that STL bears too large of a burden for the region's poverty. When the poverty rate in STL county is only 10%, and St. Charles County's is only 5%, that tells me the region isn't doing its part in matters of poverty or low income housing options. Which tells me, when you build public housing in the city of STL, regardless of whether higher concentrations of poverty may be workable, if those concentrations are greater than the city at large, those projects perpetuate the problem of STL being a warehouse for the region's poor. Our goal should be a relatively even distribution of the region's poor throughout the entire surrounding metro. Supporting that goal, I think STL needs to pursue policies that support a lower poverty line than at present, thus forcing the suburbs to step up.

That is where I am coming from.

That said, I think this is a cool project in an area that needs it, and I hope it is an effective anchor for the surrounding neighborhood.

Kevin B · PostOct 31, 2012#192012-10-31T16:11+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Just curious, how'd you come up with 30-40 max?

Looking at it from a purely man-on-the-street social aspect, I'd say 25% is a sturdy middle ground. It respects the market-raters' investment and provides ample opportunity for struggling (yet deserving) families to make a life for themselves.

For whatever reason, experimental housing tactics aren't nearly as effective in St. Louis as in other cities (not that other cities have had raucous success). In a mixed-income development, a market-rate renter needs to be in the overwhelming majority (60%-75%) of tenant-types to justify his/her family's decision. With too much reduced-rate tenants (read: poor), the development is less likely to fill up and more likely to revert into a low-income development -- making the whole project a long-term loss for the developer and less likely to see business investment or duplicated efforts elsewhere.

As an example, some wards in Chicago have a 20% low/mixed-income requirement for developments over a certain size. While of course it's a different city, it's much more palatable for the market-rate tenants because this "social" inclusion is just a part of the project, rather than the main function of it. Most people wouldn't be too keen being part of any grander a social or charitable experiment/effort.

onecity · PostOct 31, 2012#202012-10-31T16:21+00:00

I think Kevin's comments re perception are very interesting, and probably on the mark. I can't remember details offhand, but there was a study once on the subject of race or ethnicity and the idea of otherness and personal comfort with majority/minority populations. It's an old study (60s?), so the numbers might be different these days. But in that study, if I recall correctly, majority group was comfortable if the minority group was up to 15% or so of the population, and began to feel threatened at higher concentrations. Extrapolating this to economics, is there a magic number at which market raters feel threatened by subsidized renters?

I'd also argue that mixed income should include mixed occupancy - rental and owner. It wasn't clear to me if there are owner units in Sarah.

newstl2020 · PostNov 01, 2012#212012-11-01T02:46+00:00

^I don't think that is applicable at all.

You are talking about social preferences and relating that to people making economic decisions about their investments and money. Isn't applicable.

onecity · PostNov 01, 2012#222012-11-01T02:57+00:00

Haven't recent politics taught us there is no rational distinction between the social and the economic?

gone corporate · PostNov 01, 2012#232012-11-01T18:50+00:00

^That's not a license to perpetuate. Whether it's 25%, 50%, 85%, those extraneous factors still don't matter. Success in real estate speculative development is not and will not be subjective based solely upon top-down social engineering.

And, that is a very dangerous and very slippery slope there, sir. Watch out.

leeharveyawesome · PostNov 01, 2012#242012-11-01T18:54+00:00

Weirdly, I imagine this discussion about ratio's as being similar to the one the USDA has about how much feces is allowed in the hamburger. Sorta like, how much can your system handle before it's not good for you?

I guess you sort of have to figure it out though if you're developing something that is non-organic in nature.

johndavis · PostNov 19, 2012#252012-11-19T14:34+00:00

Are there any renderings for phase 2?