The Chase project is interesting; I wonder what's up?
Seems to me that the new door on Blair should be allowed; it's really a pretty minor change.
Seems to me that the new door on Blair should be allowed; it's really a pretty minor change.
Preliminary agenda up for the next meeting
***demo in soulard ***
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 5-2016.pdf
***demo in soulard ***
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 5-2016.pdf
- 8,155
^ I recall something being proposed at that 7th & Victor site from 2 or 3 years back; very vague but I don't recall it being as ambitious as a new construction apartment building... I'm interested in seeing the details on this one.
Also, the 5 home single family infill on Shenandoah should be great for McKinley Heights and right off Gravois would be really nice... it'd be great to see Gravois commercial fill up more and more investment around it will only help.
Also, the 5 home single family infill on Shenandoah should be great for McKinley Heights and right off Gravois would be really nice... it'd be great to see Gravois commercial fill up more and more investment around it will only help.
- 9,541
^ juice probably not worth the squeeze for some of these developers, they make money on volume
Figured that. Why didn't our ancestors build fewer bigger buildings instead of more smaller buildings?
- 9,541
we all a lot of "middle" in south city..drive down Chippewa from Kingshighway to Hampton...you have everything that's shown as the the middle in that piece. also some of the streets off Chippewa in SOHA have it...like bankcroft or Nottingham in St.Louis Hills, its lined with 2-6 family units. But when these were built was the focus to just get paid or provide good quality housing?
- 8,905
My neighborhood, the Moorlands, has all of those types except the bungalo court. I really enjoy the mix.
Looking at the meeting minutes for march, I came across this:
Under 'Appeals of denials'
2016.0022 4571 OAKLAND AVENUE – DEFFERRED & SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED
Under 'Appeals of denials'
2016.0022 4571 OAKLAND AVENUE – DEFFERRED & SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED
- 1,320
Does that apply only to that one address? If so, I'm fine with that. I think that's the only single-story house on the street, and it looks sort of like it's the remains of a 2-story that lost its upper floor at some point. I'm more concerned about maintaining the street wall on Kingshighway.imran wrote:Looking at the meeting minutes for march, I came across this:
Under 'Appeals of denials'
2016.0022 4571 OAKLAND AVENUE – DEFFERRED & SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED
You are correct. It is the odd half house. I was just puzzled by the process of deferring something and then approving it.
Already demolished. I was wondering how that happened since the demolition application before the Preservation Board had been pulled. Very odd.
Preliminary agenda for May 23rd meeting
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2016-3.pdf
No fireworks so far.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2016-3.pdf
No fireworks so far.
monday's final agenda :
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 3-2016.pdf
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 3-2016.pdf
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 7-2016.pdf
Preliminary agenda for the June meeting. Drury demo request strikes back.
Preliminary agenda for the June meeting. Drury demo request strikes back.
- 8,905
Parking for the church next door?quincunx wrote:Any reason for the demos on Clayton?
3857 S Broadway?
- 3,762
i can't tell which building is 3857 S Broadway from Google Maps. is it the two-story at the corner or the connected one-story? Or both?
ugh... no to all of them. f*cking ridiculous. i hope these will be easy denials for the Preservation Board.
and that giant slab of concrete at Clayton and Graham is unacceptable. this is a block away from the relatively urban Clayton-Tamm intersection and a short walk to the zoo. infill construction should be a no-brainer here. actually, wasn't there a proposal for the Clayton-Graham intersection that got shot down by NIMBYs? sigh.
ugh... no to all of them. f*cking ridiculous. i hope these will be easy denials for the Preservation Board.
and that giant slab of concrete at Clayton and Graham is unacceptable. this is a block away from the relatively urban Clayton-Tamm intersection and a short walk to the zoo. infill construction should be a no-brainer here. actually, wasn't there a proposal for the Clayton-Graham intersection that got shot down by NIMBYs? sigh.