urbanSTL

I think efforts would be better targeted towards revitalizing remaining older housing stock then criticize developments like this. And if you want to criticize these developments, blame our City plan review, not the developers. As the developers are following the rules in place.



I too wanted to see this historic church adaptively reused, but if new homes were to be its replacement, I think Magnolia Square (alleys, small yards) is still much more urban than nearby Parc Ridge Estates (cul-de-sacs, front garages). Where Magnolia Square could improve is in its house models, or architecture, not the planned development's fairly urban site plan.



Today, each type of development has its place within the City. A development like Parc Ridge Estates really only works on rare, isolated sites already cut-off from the street grid. In constrast, a development like Magnolia Square with its new alleys and small front yards is fairly urban in site plan, as it should be for a block with such established context. Despite its good site plan, its more suburban looking architecture is what critics likely dislike. However, its surroundings is already a hodge-podge of architecture (many modest frame homes). Thus, while Magnolia Square's architecture would be rejected in more cohesive areas of urban fabric, it still barely works in this location.



Since the City lacks any architectural review outside historic districts, anything goes. Ideally, forms and massing should mimic surrounding context. But again, only site planning falls under review. And in the case of Magnolia Square, the Planning Commission ironically wanted larger front yard setbacks than the developer's desired ten feet. That's because our zoning code forces an arbtirary set of numbers for the building envelope, irrespective of a site's contextual fabric.

I think we need form-based zoning instead of use-based zoning. A central city like St. Louis is largely not a place well-suited for segregated uses, auto-oriented site plans, and mundane anyplace architecture. Yet today, our zoning code reads like any other suburban place, where it's easier to build low-density mundane crap, instead of build upon your surrounding urban context. And sadly, our uniquely wonderful, existing fabric largely fails to conform with our ridiculous, arbitrary codes.



The City recently adopted a Strategic Land Use Plan, and has been successful in stricter plan review within historic districts. What's is now desperately needed is a major overall to our typically Euclidean zoning code. And form-based zoning seems like a good solution.

There was an ad/article about Magnolia Square in the South Suburban Journal real estate section Wednesday. I gotta say, looking at the renderings and the site plan, I really can't see how anyone could call this a "Suburban" looking development. Looks like an extension of good-old St. Louis to me. Granted, I've not studied it as closely as others on this forum, but come on, what else do you want? It's got alleys, narrow lots, brick fronts etc. (I know, I know, Mullet House)

Here is the website in case anyone hasn't seen it yet...



Magnolia Square Homes --

http://www.magnoliasquarehomes.com

I have to agree with Framer. This is nothing like what I expected -- rows and rows of ranch style homes with white vinyl siding! I think these houses will blend nicely with the neighborhood.



I especially like that the Gem and the Star have shotgun style floorplans. That's something you really don't see in new houses anymore.

Agreed. These do seem nice. A HUGE improvement over what was first proposed.



I also am surprised by the Star and Little Gem options! They should fit nicely into the neighborhood. And they're not the traditional layout of a shotgun house (3 rooms, front to back: parlor, bedroom, kitchen). These layouts look pretty well thought-out and functional.



If only the developer had these designs up-front, I'm sure a few people would have been less outraged from the get-go. (But then again, losing the church still stinks ... even though I personally don't agree with adaptive re-use of church buildings into residential or retail).

I would have been all for converting the church into a nightclub -- ala The Church nightlcub in Denver.



There was a Baptist church over on Russell, close to Grand that was for sale briefly last year... I kept thinking how much fun it would be, but I knew that St. Louis was too conservative to stand for such blasphemy.

^The Archdiocese has placed deed restrictions on the sales of all closed churches limiting such "blasphemous" uses.



Anyway, I'll miss my former parish. This lenten season, I've already missed the shorter lines, slower pace, and very familiar faces of its more intimate fish fries. Of course, its small size partly led to its demise.



But alas, I do find some condolence in how these new homes replacing my soon-to-be-lost centennial landmark are at least rather urban in their design. Moving on then, I feel Magnolia Square will be a good addition to the neighborhood, and a model for other infill, just not hopefully on the sites of other former landmarks.

OK I admit that the new designs are WAY better than what was originally released. The January design with the front porch option looks pretty sharp.

longtime lurker, first-time poster.



So far no further demolition on this site. Maybe they thought it a bad omen/in poor taste to start during holy week?



I live a couple of blocks away and walk by nearly every day so I'll post again if I see any new activity.

They had a piece on Fox 2 news this morning about the demolition of St. Aloysius. Most of the front of the church had been torn down already and they were just removing the cornerstone.

The newest church structure is still there as of noon, so get your pics quick. The original church and gym is under structural demo, and the rectory or convent (whichever was on the south side of the church) is about half down.

MattnSTL wrote:The newest church structure is still there as of noon, so get your pics quick. The original church and gym is under structural demo, and the rectory or convent (whichever was on the south side of the church) is about half down.

On Fox2 tonight, they showed some items removed from a time capsule found at the building's cornerstone. These items will be on display at Saint Ambrose according to the report.



Someone please let me know when the last brick was hauled off, because until then, I think I have no desire to be anywhere near that place.



I know there are differing opinions here, but I think the church, rectory, and convent buildings would've been ideal for residential use. Instead, we sacrifice another distinctive complex of buildings with a unique and picturesque setting, a true anchor for the neighborhood, in the name of progress.



Also, I cannot help but wonder how mismatched these new homes will look with the existing homes that they will face (most of which are one level shotgun-style homes in varying states of condition).



I must confess that I like the style of most of the new homes in this plan, particularly the bungalows. Are all the houses going to start in the 280s, though? It wouldn't be new, but I could buy the best bungalow in St. Louis Hills for a similar price once the Magnolia Place builder throws in options like doors, locks, and windows...

I was thinking about this today when I was walking around the site. Bellon is salvaging all the brick during the demo process. Presumably this brick will end up being sold to developers in cities like Dallas and Atlanta, cities that do not have anywhere near the architectural quality that we have here in St. Louis. Why not reuse the bricks from the buildings on the site for the new homes? The bricks are good quality and would help the homes to blend in better. I know there would still be the expense for laying the bricks, but the brick cost itself would be eliminated and the bricks could be reused here instead of sprawling suburbs down south.

^Used brick doesn't usually get reused for exterior house walls, even if modern veneer. Instead, most used bricks end up in patios and other hardscape, like low, outdoor walls in a garden.

I realize that, but I think it could be done. Maybe just another dream of mine.

You're right about that Ted, and I didn't think about that one. I'll just discard my whole hypothetical theory.

not much left now.

Remove those photos please!



I can barely look.

Could a bigger mistake have been made?????



Oh, yah...the Century.

Its hard to believe I once called St. Al's my parish. Stupidity has won.