urbanSTL

damn, those are ugly

^ How can you say that? They're nowhere near finished.



It really irks me how people are so quick to jump to judgement around here.

While the actual design of the fronts of the houses aren't the worst I've ever seen, it's the old vinyll on the side ruining the look. If you are going to put siding, at least put the houses close enough together to not make the cheapness obvious, and use a dark colored siding and one of the new concrete boards or real siding. And in this particular case, all siding homes would have fit within the context of the immediate neighborhood.



But I'm just beating a dead horse within this thread.

MattnSTL wrote:While the actual design of the fronts of the houses aren't the worst I've ever seen, it's the old vinyll on the side ruining the look.

These are also being placed very close to each other... so you won't see that much along the side as you are seeing here on this one. The ones I am mainly concerned about are those facing their backs to Arsenal Street. I think those are townhomes, which I don't think allows for the owner to choose the material.. so hopefully they will have a brick treatment on all sides. Other than that, I think the houses fit in with what has been built on either side of this development... and probably looks a little better.

No doubt the look better than the houses to the east, and hopefully the townhomes will be done right, and they should block most of the view. My biggest gripe overall is that it was not connected to the street to the south. There was even the start of a street from way back when. Oh well.

Regarding the design of the homes themselves, the model in the first two pictures seems awfully tall with a very steep roof. I can't tell from the photos if they're using the higher quality vinyl siding or the cheap stuff.

new-to-STL wrote:^ How can you say that? They're nowhere near finished.



It really irks me how people are so quick to jump to judgement around here.

It is very easy for me to say that. I am an architect, I don't have to wait to see them finished to know what they will look like. I have seen the drawings -- including the site plan -- and the construction, even at this early phase, bears out my negative opinion already. If we reserve judgement on something until is finished we will get nothing but that kind of crap.



I have MANY problems with this particular development from the incredibly suburban site plan, to the front-loading garages, to the contrived "olde-timey" design and poor material choices. My strong reaction though is primarily based on the relationship of the wallpaper of brick on the front to the cheesey vinyl siding on the side. Most developers at least return the brick some distance to give some appearance of substance. This is not my favorite device but it is marginally acceptable when the houses are close enough together and the siding is closer in color to the brick. My own particular house (built in 1924) uses this same device much more successfully. There is a more decorative and presumably more expensive brick on the street side while a "lesser" brick is used on the other walls. This works particularly well because there is only 4 feet between me and my neighbors, and, well, it's still brick.



I prefer to use materials in a more honest way. If the budget only allows for so much brick on a house then there are sensitive ways to express pieces that do not involve one wythe of brick on the front with vinyl three ways 'round. As a matter fact, I would rather see ALL vinyl or preferabley some other siding material that is used in a better manner than PRETEND these are brick houses.



What is unfortunate is they sell these houses using the front elevations in their sales materials as if that is how you see them in real life -- but you don't. You see them from a multitude of angles that are not being accounted for. Yes, these types of developments look a little better when the lanscaping matures, covering some of the sins mentioned above, but when a better designed house costs no more than this schlock why accept it?

Agreed, the mullet house must go!

^Was someone here that said "Downtown in front, Affton in the back?"



That cracks me up!

^LOL, thats awesome.



I'd be really interested in seeing what the increase in cost would be if the house was entirely made of brick. Could it really be that significant that it would deter potential buyers?

^ or perhaps just the pre-cast brick panels like on the new Busch. I feel it's important to keep costs within reason for a middle-class family on projects like this, since that's what the city needs to attract...so I can cut them a little slack.

ArchMadness wrote:I'd be really interested in seeing what the increase in cost would be if the house was entirely made of brick.

I checked out the options pricing on their website. The all-brick siding upgrade is listed at $30,000. That's a lot of marbles! I guess now we know why siding is so popular on the sides of new homes.

Framer wrote:

ArchMadness wrote:I'd be really interested in seeing what the increase in cost would be if the house was entirely made of brick.

I checked out the options pricing on their website. The all-brick siding upgrade is listed at $30,000. That's a lot of marbles! I guess now we know why siding is so popular on the sides of new homes.

Then let's stop tearing down the all-brick ones that we already have (he says, preaching to the choir). There are still a few left in North St. Louis. But at least the current adminstration has stopped measuring and publicizing its success on how many buildings it has demolished... 'bout time.

so sad. The brick layers union is it's own worst enemy.

We toured the displays after going on the loft tour, and all I can say is that they struck me as being very cheap. On one of the homes, a chunk of siding had blown off during the storm the night before. The cabinets, fixtures, etc. all seemed to be of poor quality, and many of the homes under construction are incorporating that cheap "plastic shell"-looking siding.

DeBaliviere wrote: a chunk of siding had blown off during the storm the night before.

I hate it when that happens!

Haven't these developers been to Chicago lately? Chicago is full of new construction -- most of it still ugly, though -- that utilizes various types of concrete and cinder blocks for side and rear elevations with brick on the front. While many of these buildings are using the cheapest, largest blocks, quite a few have made use of small blocks in pleasant tones.



Of course, buildings with brick fronts and block sides are masonry buildings. Balloon frames and speedy construction can't be used with those materials. The result is a sturdier, more attractiv and honest house. The brick front isn't a lie on one of these because the building is still masonry.

^Excellent point, eco. I wonder why Mayor Slay isn't aware of this point, and why developers are allowed to construct these horribly cheap looking "mullet" homes. In ten years, they'll likely be trash.

There's a rather large building on the north side of Delmar not far from the Union Ave intersection that is constructed of terra cotta colored concrete block on all sides. I think the use of these blocks is well done, although I have mixed feelings about the architecture of the structure itself. Anyone interested in the use of concrete blocks should go by and check out this building. Very interesting and inspiring as to what can be done with concrete blocks, IMO.

a lot of buildings anymore use pre cast concrete that looks like Brick (see Busch Stadium) because brick is so cost prohibitive. The blame for this lays solely on the shoulders of the brick layers unions

mophipsi wrote:a lot of buildings anymore use pre cast concrete that looks like Brick (see Busch Stadium) because brick is so cost prohibitive. The blame for this lays solely on the shoulders of the brick layers unions

The remark about the brick layers union has been posted in just about every thread where the discussion has turned to the use of brick veneer or brick facades. It is even posted by JCity on this same page just a few posts above. Let's please stay on topic an not turn this into another "brick layers union" thread. Thanks.

ecoabsence wrote:Haven't these developers been to Chicago lately? Chicago is full of new construction -- most of it still ugly, though -- that utilizes various types of concrete and cinder blocks for side and rear elevations with brick on the front. While many of these buildings are using the cheapest, largest blocks, quite a few have made use of small blocks in pleasant tones.



Of course, buildings with brick fronts and block sides are masonry buildings. Balloon frames and speedy construction can't be used with those materials. The result is a sturdier, more attractiv and honest house. The brick front isn't a lie on one of these because the building is still masonry.

Great point, and I don't understand why the city doesn't insist on this method of construction for new and infill housing.

^Yes, it's an excellent point...and it makes me wonder if the city "powers that be" have even figured out yet that it's our architecture that makes the city desireable. I wonder how many of them even have a clue as to what good architecture is? Where, or who is, or do they even have, competant city planners? My opinion...it seems they don't, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these crappy cheap mullet homes being built. Our city deserves better than this and we should demand it.

But if infill development is supposed to mirror its surroundings, then these homes do just that. For the vast majority of housing stock surrounding this site is frame construction in all directions, while a good amount of surrounding homes built just in the last 30 years, if looking just east and west.

southslider wrote:But if infill development is supposed to mirror its surroundings, then these homes do just that. For the vast majority of housing stock surrounding this site is frame construction in all directions, while a good amount of surrounding homes built just in the last 30 years, if looking just east and west.

Very true.



I'm not against siding - all I ask is that builders use siding with overlapping slats like this:







Instead of cheap crap like this:







That cheapo siding really drives me nuts.