urbanSTL

I drove by yesterday and these homes stick out like sore thumbs. I know the market dictates...blah, blah... but these homes look like they belong in West County. They totally don't fit into the context of the area. Perhaps some fast growing shrubery should be planted to hide these monstrocities from Arsenal.

If going for more urban looking homes as in the Chicago pics, the developer could also increased his return by having more homes in the development.



Last I heard from touring the models, the lots at the back are now going to be custom homes, but since surrounded by McMansions, I don't have much faith in these future custom homes being urban-looking.



Believe it or not, the single-family home lots are more than half sold out, with only a couple of the townhomes sold. Then again, there is no display for the townhomes, but two single-family displays. And if I were buying a townhome, I'd rather be closer to more shops and a more walkable street than the cul-de-sac roads in this development lined by garage-faced McMansions.



The sad thing is, given the fast sales of Botanical Heights and Parc Ridge Estates, developers will likely think more of these large-site, suburban-looking developments should be built in the City.

Botanical Heights is not a suburban-looking development. But I guess we've already had that arguement over on that thread.



Aside from the unfortunate cul-de-sac of Parc Ridge, I just don't see why so many of you are upset with this development. It actually fits in pretty well with other housing in this neighborhood. And as has been pointed out, these developments are selling well, and bringing people back into the city. Isn't that what we all want? Can't we give the newcomers a choice of housing styles? Not everyone wants to live in a wall of brick rowhouses. Since when did backyards and trees become evil?

But there's no backyards on these homes. Have you taken a look at the siting of the homes? They are very tight for what they claim to be. In a sense, I'll give them a little credit for putting more density than a typical suburban development.

Regarding recycled brick: Most salvagers don't separate out the face and inner wythes of brick when they pallateize. Most brick dealers don't do so either. The orange-toned inner brick found in many St. Louis buildings built between 1870 and, say, 1915 is too soft to be exposed to our weather. The face brick was baked at higher temperatures for longer periods, often with clay additives to give it superior resistance to moisture.



Most local recycled brick gets shipped to the Sun Belt where the inner brick can survive exterior use.

They've started building the houses that back to Arsenal, and I have to say, they look awful, especially when compared to the much nicer brick-fronted townhomes that Highland is building right across the street. The Parc Ridge homes should be facing Arsenal, not turning their backs to it.

Awful is an understatement.

I frequently patronize Mr. B's on Dalton and Southwest. When I leave I often wonder how much I drank because my eyes must be deceiving me.



The worst part is that people I speak to actually believe they are quality.

DeBaliviere wrote:They've started building the houses that back to Arsenal, and I have to say, they look awful, especially when compared to the much nicer brick-fronted townhomes that Highland is building right across the street. The Parc Ridge homes should be facing Arsenal, not turning their backs to it.

Agreed. Its going to look a lot worse when someone puts up a six foot fence and it starts to collect litter.

that house pisses me off every time I see it, sticking its ass in my face...

What does everyone think of the new "suburb" buildings that are being put up all over the place? I was happy to see the price that the newly built building are being sold for (starting at 400's!!), but I just don't understand why brick is not being used. The reason I chose to live in my house and the neighborhood is because it is an all brick-home. I don't understand why the aldermen are not enforcing the new builders to use brick as well.



From what I see, the rules are that as long as the wall facing the street is brick, everything else does not have to be.

Welcome to the forum. Be sure to do a search before starting a new thread.



In answer to your brick question, there is no requirement at all unless a building is in a historic district that has rules governing appearances.

MattnSTL wrote:Welcome to the forum. Be sure to do a search before starting a new thread.



In answer to your brick question, there is no requirement at all unless a building is in a historic district that has rules governing appearances.

Sorry, I did not realize 5700 was the block I was referring to. The only reason I took that to be some kind of ordinance because a lot of the newly built Hill houses always seem to have the wall facing the street be brick...

Nope, that's just how cheap developers try to fool people.

drunkrusski wrote: I just don't understand why brick is not being used. The reason I chose to live in my house and the neighborhood is because it is an all brick-home.

Actually, Parc Ridge Estates originally offered all-brick as an option (for some reason, it's not listed on their website anymore). The extra cost was around $30,000. You're just not going to find many people willing or able to pay that much extra. So it's not just the developer's fault; the fact is, all-brick is really, really expensive.

Framer wrote:

drunkrusski wrote: I just don't understand why brick is not being used. The reason I chose to live in my house and the neighborhood is because it is an all brick-home.

Actually, Parc Ridge Estates originally offered all-brick as an option (for some reason, it's not listed on their website anymore). The extra cost was around $30,000. You're just not going to find many people willing or able to pay that much extra. So it's not just the developer's fault; the fact is, all-brick is really, really expensive.

Wow, didn't realize that was an option and people actually refused.

And 30,000?? That's it?? It's a lot, and personally, I think those homes are overpriced, but if people are willing to pay 400K for them, they might as well shell out 8% more percent and make it brick, I would think.

Oh well, guess there are people that just don't have the same fondness for brick that I do.

Go back 50 years ago. People shelled out for all brick houses. But, they only had one bathroom, three feet of counter space in the kitchen, a clothesline in the back, and one-car garage if lucky. Nowadays, people are choosing oversized garages, oversized kitchens full of granite and stainless steel, plenty of rooms that are never used, and multiple bathrooms drenched in marble. And with vinyl, they still have a house that doesn't need painting.



I like brick, too. But, people are choosing other luxuries first.

^ And don't forget that brick was rediculously cheap in the past (relatively) and other amenities weren't available (multiple bathrooms, garages - for cars people didn't have, etc.). Not only were the materials cheap, labor was extremely cheap as well.

AND don't forget the bricklayers union that drives up the price.