urbanSTL

Some pretty noticeable changes to the proposed house on Longfellow from the initial, more historic design put forth back in May:

https://nextstl.com/2017/05/reproductio ... n-heights/

^ dang, that's for sure. The original rendering could really stand up to the other mansions in the neighborhood. This new iteration screams 'McMansion' to me.

New:


Old:

Yuck. Why do these renderings always get worse? Just a slight of hand to get approval?

Yeahhhh, I really don't care for either design for the Compton Heights house. Much better than the newest Lindell House but still a bit of an insult to the history of that neighborhood. It doesn't have to be a mansion, just some more attention to detail. Honestly, I'm still waiting for someone to rebuild this thing in STL



Also, I reeeaaaallly like the new Pershing elevation. Yes, it looks like every other new mid-rise building in the Uptowns, Midtowns, and College towns of America but I think that's a good thing.

aprice wrote: ↑

Feb 23, 2018

Honestly, I'm still waiting for someone to rebuild this thing in STL

Is that a Barnett Haynes house? I don't think they are making any more of those, sadly. I assume most of the changes to the Longfellow house are driven by cost concerns and not stylistic choice. I wonder what the cost delta is on a round versus hexagonal tower.

Renderings are perspectival. ^^Elevations aren't meant to be pretty. Just meant to show the building blocks to scale.

Tomorrow is the day of reckoning for 300 South Broadway. I personally think that it will pass but by a very close margin. What about y'all's thoughts?

I figured any opposition would/will get steam-rolled. The headline is too seductive to politicians.

I'm going with 60/40 chance 300 South Broadway advances

Downtown Neighborhood Association is in support of removing the facade condition, and issuing the full demo permit with 3 conditions that the developer has agreed to
1. Demolition permit is not issued until evidence is provided that construction of the new building has received financing and is ready to proceed immediately following the demolition of the current structure.
2. Plans for the new residential building are altered from the original plan that only included one and two bedroom units to one that will now include a minimum of 10 three bedroom units, which are a community need.
3. Retail space is created on the ground floor of the building located at the corner of Broadway and Clark and at any other location(s) on the ground floor of the building deemed feasible by the developers.

Would be great to see a glass facade all the way around also.. in my opinion..

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Feb 26, 2018

Downtown Neighborhood Association is in support of removing the facade condition, and issuing the full demo permit with 3 conditions that the developer has agreed to
3. Retail space is created on the ground floor of the building located at the corner of Broadway and Clark and at any other location(s) on the ground floor of the building deemed feasible by the developers.

Interesting that ground floor retail space wasn't included in the initial proposal. Any idea how large the retail space will be?

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Feb 26, 2018

Downtown Neighborhood Association is in support of removing the facade condition, and issuing the full demo permit with 3 conditions that the developer has agreed to...

This is totally not worded in a condescending or snotty tone or anything, but I'm curious of what "pull" (for lack of a better word) DNA has? I'm sure Coater wants to keep residents in his ward happy, but just wondering what else I might not be thinking of?

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Feb 27, 2018

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Feb 26, 2018

Downtown Neighborhood Association is in support of removing the facade condition, and issuing the full demo permit with 3 conditions that the developer has agreed to...

This is totally not worded in a condescending or snotty tone or anything, but I'm curious of what "pull" (for lack of a better word) DNA has? I'm sure Coater wants to keep residents in his ward happy, but just wondering what else I might not be thinking of?

I can tell you from my perspective as a member of the Board of Adjustment, we take NA input seriously and usually apply all conditions that the NA asks for, at the end of the day its the people in the immediate area that have to live and co exist with these projects and businesses. DNA has 800+ resident members and 100s of small businesses that pay dues and a paid full time executive director. When this project comes in front of the board of adjustment (which it will later in the summer, they'll need all kinds of variances) im sure dna will be looking for the 10 -3 bedroom units and retail on first floor as DNA outlined in the DEMO support letter

^That's great to hear. I had no idea DNA had gotten that big.

imran wrote: ↑

Feb 22, 2018

Final agenda with details
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... -26-18.pdf

dblnsouthcity, I assume 5539 Pershing Ave got its blessing even though 300 broadway over shadows everything else on the agenda

Pulled from agenda by applicant.

Anybody know why Rocco Danna and the McKinley Heights N'hood Ass'n are appealing this?

Address: 2326-46 ALLEN AVENUE
Project Description: Appeal of an approved building permit to construct a mosque.
Jurisdiction: McKinley Heights Historic District Ward: 7
Owner: Qooba Foundation – Tim Kaminski
Appellants: Rocco Danna and McKinley Heights Neighborhood Association

^I was wondering the same thing

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Mar 18, 2018

Anybody know why Rocco Danna and the McKinley Heights N'hood Ass'n are appealing this?

Address: 2326-46 ALLEN AVENUE
Project Description: Appeal of an approved building permit to construct a mosque.
Jurisdiction: McKinley Heights Historic District Ward: 7
Owner: Qooba Foundation – Tim Kaminski
Appellants: Rocco Danna and McKinley Heights Neighborhood Association

Yes. Have you seen the site design? It's positioned like a suburban fast food joint on the site. They are fronting Jefferson with parking and placing more parking all the way around it.

Jefferson is supposed to see the Metrolink (hopefully!) in the coming years and yet they are still short-sighted designs that are killing the urban fabric of the city. The mosque already is in the neighborhood, nobody is against it but they skirted the code for the neighborhood saying they needed the parking for their safety.

The neighborhood is asking that they build to the street as is code.

This might help: https://www.change.org/p/10127225/u/225 ... 59882&jb=1

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Mar 19, 2018

Yeah, just flip it around and I don't see any issues. Plenty of room for parking behind. This should be an easy fix.

Mosque's are built to face Mecca correct? Seems like that's the problem - the building can't be flipped. A synagogue or church could certainly be updated to fit onto Jefferson.

mjbais1489 wrote: ↑

Mar 19, 2018

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

Mar 19, 2018

Yeah, just flip it around and I don't see any issues. Plenty of room for parking behind. This should be an easy fix.

Mosque's are built to face Mecca correct? Seems like that's the problem - the building can't be flipped. A synagogue or church could certainly be updated to fit onto Jefferson.

Yeah, I think this is the main reason it is so out of line with the grid but they haven't given that as a reason thus far. (at least that I have seen).They have claimed parking in the rear of the building is dangerous as it's out of sight.