Wow, not much left of 2907 McNair
Glad to see demo of 3201 Locust isn't on the agenda.
Pretty weird that they want to reduce the scale of the new Mini-golf building on Delmar. Looks like it matches the church quite well. As far as the building to the east; well, that building is lower in elevation because of the downward slope of the street.
I was actually hoping for a more modern design, but oh well.
I was actually hoping for a more modern design, but oh well.
- 6,119
^You're not kidding about McNair. I hope someone at least documented what was back there behind the facade as they atomized it. And maybe salvaged some of the materials.
And yes, it seems odd they're complaining about the scale of the mini-golf building. Overall that seemed pretty good to me. Sure, it's more revivalism, but . . . it's Edwards and St. Louis and does that board ever approve contemporary? (I exaggerate, but not by a whole lot.)
And yes, it seems odd they're complaining about the scale of the mini-golf building. Overall that seemed pretty good to me. Sure, it's more revivalism, but . . . it's Edwards and St. Louis and does that board ever approve contemporary? (I exaggerate, but not by a whole lot.)
preliminary agenda for 11/26
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... -26-18.pdf
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... -26-18.pdf
They wanna tear down this building, in the middle of the red-hot Locust Business District?
![]()
They could easily restore it and it would fill up quickly and so I hope the Board holds their ground. Now, if a new building is proposed in it's place, taller and with great design, then I would be in support of demo but not right now.
- 6,119
^They've been gunning for that building for a while now. It's the church next door that wants it down. I've never been quite sure why they don't just sell it to someone who would restore it. Maybe they're afraid they'll lose their parking behind the place if it's occupied.
- 2,630
That building is pretty important to the future of that corner. If they want to tear it down and replace it with something 6+ stories then sure but I am sure that will not be the case.
- 3,762
A CHURCH WANTS TO TEAR DOWN A BUILDING FOR PARKING!?!?!? WUUUUUUUUUUT!?!?!?
f*ck them. really tired of this sh*t. i'm guessing they don't pay taxes on it. this is a situation where the city needs to be able to take property. otherwise they just keep letting it rot and resubmitting for demo until it falls in on itself.
f*ck them. really tired of this sh*t. i'm guessing they don't pay taxes on it. this is a situation where the city needs to be able to take property. otherwise they just keep letting it rot and resubmitting for demo until it falls in on itself.
They are paying taxes on that building, which with the other holding costs is probably part of the reason they want to demo it.
- 3,762
^ i have zero sympathy for entities that buy buildings expecting to be able to demolish them for parking. guess they should have looked into a better solution for their parking "problem".
- 1,044
I hope that the city stands firm on keeping it. However i spend many Sunday mornings near here and I can attest that parking in the area can be very difficult with people parking for blocks around. They have an urban church made up of suburban congregants who expect the same conviences of their north county neighborhoods. The ridiculous number of security guards this church employs tp patrole the area on Sunday mornings is a reflection of that.
- 3,762
^ wow. now i have even less sympathy. perhaps their congregation should raise funds for a small parking garage on one of the many vacant lots in the area. or move the church to north county.
Yeah. This would be a tremendous loss for the area. It's so prime to be rehabbed into creative spaces, studios, etc. Hopefully they stand firm on it and just sell it off. Perhaps they could just buy a bus to shuttle people to and from an overflow parking garage and validate parking or something.
I wonder if the developer of the Jefferson Connector could put some pressure on.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Nov 18, 2018Yeah. This would be a tremendous loss for the area. It's so prime to be rehabbed into creative spaces, studios, etc. Hopefully they stand firm on it and just sell it off. Perhaps they could just buy a bus to shuttle people to and from an overflow parking garage and validate parking or something.
The final agenda
a little late since the meeting is going on as I post this.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2018-2.pdf
a little late since the meeting is going on as I post this.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2018-2.pdf
I guess the appeal for the Locust demolition was removed? I didn't see it in the final agenda.
Could they have given up?
Could they have given up?
- 6,119
^What the heck is up with that McNair application? Do they think that if the change the wording a half dozen times they can eventually slip it by? The only thing left is the east wall, right? Which I would call the front of the building. Are they now calling that McNair avenue facade the rear of the building or do they mean something else. Jeez Louise they seem intent on trying that every which way but actually fixing the mess they made without a permit.
(I'm also a little skeptical of the Geyer alley house demo. Not sure why it's necessary, given the amount of surface parking and vacant space in that parcel and those adjacent.)
(I'm also a little skeptical of the Geyer alley house demo. Not sure why it's necessary, given the amount of surface parking and vacant space in that parcel and those adjacent.)
A multi-family building at 4329 Westminster? Isn't that block entirely large single-family homes?
- 3,762
^ looks like it but 4323-29 is only one lot away from Boyle and the west side of the Boyle/Westminster intersection is ripe for some multifamily infill (currently 2 surface lots). east side too (grass). some of the mansions may have been converted to multifamily or office already. 4331 (?) for example--adjacent to Boyle--has a pretty substantial driveway/parking lot for a single-family home. actually, i think more of the large mansions in the CWE need to be converted to multifamily in order to achieve functional urban density (to supports transit, small businesses, etc.).
I suppose I'd be OK with reasonable sized new-construction multi-family if the home owners on the block are OK with it. But...sub-dividing large homes into multiple units is a slippery slope. Isn't that one of the things that led to the decline of the CWE back in the '60s and '70s?
- 3,762
^ i don't know. i think the decline of the CWE in the 60's/70's was probably a symptom of the the general decline/emptying out of the city. i don't think converting mansions to multi-family causes decline, per se. but the reality is that a city can't support successful public transit or small business density on single-family mansion population density. i think such conversions are fairly common in cities like Philadelphia and Boston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causationframer wrote: ↑Dec 11, 2018I suppose I'd be OK with reasonable sized new-construction multi-family if the home owners on the block are OK with it. But...sub-dividing large homes into multiple units is a slippery slope. Isn't that one of the things that led to the decline of the CWE back in the '60s and '70s?