urbanSTL

I probably didn't make it clear in my post- I'm not against the use of siding where it's appropriate given the context of surrounding homes.



Like DeBaliviere, it isn't the siding that I dislike- it's the cheap crap that most city developers seem to use, especially on mullet homes. In an area where most structures are brick, I think cinder blocks or concrete should be used for sides where brick is not feasible. In areas where there is more frame construction, like this particular development or Dogtown, then I have no problem with siding as long as it is of decent quality.



I think the recently constructed homes on Fairmount Avenue in Dogtown are a good example of how frame homes can fit into the city's built environment tastefully and appropriately. The siding used is similar to that used at New Town St. Charles, and to me it makes a great difference.



Frankly, in a development like this where there isn't an abundance of densely-packed brick homes nearby, I wish the developers would've shelled out the extra dough for higher-quality siding instead of using cheaper siding and brick front elevations.



And I think the same approach would've worked at Magnolia Square, the site of the former Saint Aloysius Gonzaga parish, where the new homes will face a hodgepodge of housing stock.



In a development like Botanical Heights, the concrete/cinder block sides and back would've been more ideal, but IMHO the other potential issues such as the spacing and setback of certain structures makes the overall development less appealing anyway.

Honestly, I don't care if they never build another brick house. Old St. Louis brick is a treasure. New brick looks lame. And that is true all over the country, not just St. Louis. The new brick being used looks like stained concrete pavers from Home Depot. A well designed, high-quality non-brick veneer would suit me just fine.



Good brick has become too expensive and from the thousands of posts on the subject, labor has become too expensive. Fine, lets stop holding ourselves hostage to the past. Brick is not wise in an earthquake zone anyway. Let's move on to something smart and well designed that is the best of this century.



In places like Georgetown, Alexandria, & Annapolis, I see beautiful frame houses side by side with brick houses. It is wonderful. The builders in St. Louis think we MUST have brick, so they try to satisfy the market with a lame product. Better to give it up and shoot for quality over nostalgia. And if everyone would accept today's reality, maybe we wouldn't have to have this conversation over and over and over.

Let's not put the blame for siding entirely on the developers. As has been mentioned, all-brick construction IS available in this development. But how many homebuyers are really going to anti-up the $30,000 that the all-brick option will add?

Who says it has to be brick? Brick would be better, IMO, but for crying out loud, white or pastel vinyl siding??? There are alternatives which were discussed earlier. If they MUST use vinyl, at least make it a color to match the brick.

And Expat, please remember that the old brick you see on older structures has a patina from days of coal burning furnaces and other various dirty air polutants common in large industrial cities of the time. Those polutants producing the patinas will never be produced again for obvious (and good) reasons.

But, I disagree with you on new brick construction. St. Louis is known for it's brick, and my feeling is it should remain true to that. It's true that in days gone by, much more detail in masonry was employed, but does all new construction need be infill (Second Empire/Victorian)? I've seen some rather impressive new urban brick structures.

That said, IMO brick has a sturdy/urban look, whereas frame structures look small town/suburban and don't look near as sturdy.

Variety in architecture is a good thing. But anytime you build something on the cheap, it's going to look like crap. Quality construction materials are just as important as quality design.

Not all people can afford to have brick designed housing. As much as people like it, there has to be an alternative for people that can't afford it.

In trying to restore a city like St. Louis, do we concentrate on people who can't afford those things that make it great?

Are you saying that their is no place for middle class people in the city?

While arguably built with cheap materials, PRE's detached homes are selling for over $300k, hardly cheap or that affordable.

Which is exactly why I am not opposed to people moving out to the suburbs.

Yikes...

as of yesterday...

^Was that taken in the City, or in Chesterfield?

^That's the 5700 block of Arsenal Street in South St. Louis City, looking southwest.

If I had tons of money - which I don't - I would try to develope a new St. Louis style. I'd still use red brick .... but I would mix it up with a lot of steel and glass .... in an homage to the new busch, eads and cupples. I think a talented designer could create new, modern looking buildings that stil remain true to the neighborhood. I've seen it done in Lincoln park ... I think those guys designing "st. louis style loft homes" are on this track ....

when you think about it we're in a good spot to play against our old, fantastic architecure .... we could develope a really unique style.

markofucity wrote:If I had tons of money - which I don't - I would try to develope a new St. Louis style. I'd still use red brick .... but I would mix it up with a lot of steel and glass .... in an homage to the new busch, eads and cupples. I think a talented designer could create new, modern looking buildings that stil remain true to the neighborhood. I've seen it done in Lincoln park ... I think those guys designing "st. louis style loft homes" are on this track ....

when you think about it we're in a good spot to play against our old, fantastic architecure .... we could develope a really unique style.

Have you see this? It seems to be what you are talking about.



http://www.mrdcorp.com/val.html

yeah - I like that. I would get rid of the "setback" though - push everythin up to the street and add some black steel "eads arches" - but those buildigns seem to be pretty much aiming at what I'm talking about ....



I supose I have somethign more ornate in mind. I don't liek the fact that modern architecture eschews all the little details that made older architecture so interesting. The terra cotta - the florentine iron work ... i wonder if it woudl be possibel to mix iintricate iron work into a red brick - loft like modern style building ...

Urban Elitist wrote:^Was that taken in the City, or in Chesterfield?

I know you're being sarcastic, but come on, now! Look how close those houses are to each other. This is obviously a city development. Just wait until all the other homes are built, and the block fills in.



I really don't see what's so bad about this project. Keep in mind, this neighborhood is far from the urban core. What they're building is pretty much what already exists in the area. And as far as the siding goes, The Hill is full of frame houses. Nothing new there. The one thing I don't like about the development is that it's built with a cul-de-sac, rather than a through-street.

^Could have had a through street.



My problem is the same old let's try to act like we built a brick house, but slap vinyll on the sides. Who are all these people trying to fool. Step an inch off center and you can see the vinyll. Let's make it all or nothing. All siding (not vinyll) looks just fine.

MattnSTL wrote:^Could have had a through street.



My problem is the same old let's try to act like we built a brick house, but slap vinyll on the sides. Who are all these people trying to fool. Step an inch off center and you can see the vinyll. Let's make it all or nothing. All siding (not vinyll) looks just fine.

Those are my only two gripes with this project. A through street would've been preferable. And I'd take higher-quality siding instead of the unconvincing brick front elevations. If anyone's familiar with the newer houses on Fairmount Avenue (just north of Mitchell Avenue in Dogtown) - they have siding similar to the composite used in New Town, and it looks much better IMHO.



(Of course, I'd take one of those homes on Fairmount in a heartbeat just for the killer view of downtown.)

Though the style of homes in this development don't suit my taste, they do match adjacent suburban-looking homes and townhomes already built along the southside of Arsenal to the east and west of this site. However, I now agree that not building a through-street was a mistake.



Although the nursing home site never previously had a through-street, Jasper Park was always a dedicated but unimproved right-of-way along the eastern edge of the site. A new straight street from January and Arsenal would line up perfectly with Jasper and Connecticut to the south. As it is now, the only subdivision entrance will be foolishly less than 100 feet from (but not at) the four-way stop at Arsenal and Dalton. Since cars queue up to stop at the stop sign immediately west of the new subdivision's entrance, how do all these new homebuyers ever expect to exit PRE onto Arsenal?

southslider wrote:Since cars queue up to stop at the stop sign immediately west of the new subdivision's entrance, how do all these new homebuyers ever expect to exit PRE onto Arsenal?

They can't. Chalk one up for poor planning.