urbanSTL

Maybe they can build it in such a way that they can add 6 stories of fly dwellings at a later date with South Beach neons, some angular grotesques, and a dirigible mast.

Thanks imran. I didn't want to say it, but was hoping someone would.

KerrytheKonstructor wrote:Maybe they can build it in such a way that they can add 6 stories of fly dwellings at a later date with South Beach neons, some angular grotesques, and a dirigible mast.

...And don't forget the obligatory container units...

roger wyoming II wrote:A cite by presby to literature would be helpful to my understanding.

I don't remember where I read it, but the argument was that the volume required to go tall didn't actually correlate to increased density because of setbacks, structured parking, lobbies, amenities and increased circulation space (elevator shafts and stairwells), etc. The same souce mentioned how tall buildings tend to require a lot more curb cuts for parking garages and typically displace street level retail with a lobby and a garage entrance.

None of this is to argue against height... just to say that its advantage is not typically greater density.

^It's an interesting thought exercise, especially when you consider that the densest neighborhoods in St. Louis are Peabody-Darst-Webbe and Gravois Park, and that the densest neighborhood in American history was the Lower East Side of Manhattan circa 1880 (with few if any buildings above 5 stories). Obviously land use throughout a neighborhood has a much greater impact on overall density than the heights of a small agglomeration of building's. But to say that height and height restrictions don't effect density is also an oversimplification.

I'm not sure it's effected St. Louis or the CWE (an example being the Opus Lindell project, where instead of fitting 210 units into 25+ stories, Opus fit them into 12). But in neighborhoods like the Upper East Side and Upper West Side of Manhattan, where lateral expansion simply isn't an option, vertical expansion and increased height limits definitely are a contributing factor to increased density. Those are pretty extreme examples though, by American standards of land use and expense.

Here's the story on NextSTL, with additional renderings etc.

http://nextstl.com/2015/08/koman-group- ... -n-euclid/

Yeah, who would want to live in the Park East Tower? Let's spread our density out. Good plan.

I jest.

That rendering from the south does a better job of giving the viewer a better feel for how it fits into its surroundings. It's more utilitarian looking than its neighbors and I'd expect the rents to reflect this. Not quite a return to Brutalism, but getting there.

The new rendering does look a bit crude. I know the roof line debate has raged on some of these threads, but for some reason the lack of any roof differentiation on this building seems particularly egregious. The brown brick is also more boring than I thought it appeared in the northern perspective.

^I think these will be rentals (at least originally) and not for sale condominiums. So, rents will prob be from lower mid 1K for an efficiency to upper mid 2K for 2BR.

As cheap as those renderings look.... It's a heckuva location though. It just doesn't exactly scream luxury to me. More like, "Hey look at my neighbors!" But maybe that's what they are going for. 26.5m just doesn't go that far anymore, I guess. I mean 60 to 70 apartments, some free underground parking, some new pipes, and some ground floor and office. Where's my adding machine?

Ah who cares? It's gonna look even more sweet for me driving and walking on Euclid. And its got good street presence at least. Park East, 9 North, Citywalk, not to mention the entire FPP/Euclid intersection (short of tiny Toms and their lot) more than make up for the Doctors Bldg. and that old round tower that used to be at W Pine Ct. The last 15 years has made a big difference for these 3 intersections of Euclid. I can't even remember what was where Metrolofts are.

Archcity, confused on your comment that this project doesn't add density. You are literally replacing a one store dry cleaner and bar with same amount of retail space, a second floor of office space and four floors of apartments. Not to mention the fact that land values/market values barely support underground parking in CWE let alone anywhere else in the city.
.
Will Koplar/Koman put something together that says wow, hope so and believe that lot is where it should happen. Right now I think a BASIC is not a bad thing for the central corridor until CORTEX/Wexford can add some signature tenants and bring in some additional residents/dollars who will pay those premiums.

dredger wrote:Archcity, confused on your comment that this project doesn't add density. You are literally replacing a one store dry cleaner and bar with same amount of retail space, a second floor of office space and four floors of apartments. Not to mention the fact that land values/market values barely support underground parking in CWE let alone anywhere else in the city.

I understand your confusion and point. Let me expound. Think about it....with the exception of Opus' 52-unit Nine North (which by the way is a better modern design that blends well, in my opinion) every demolition-to-new build project along North Euclid such as Metro Lofts, Park East, CityWalk and Lindell Residences have been density rich and interesting in design.

Over the last ten years, there have been a number of dense high-rise proposals up and down North Euclid. And although there were a few complaints about its height, Mills Properties was going to build the structure below on the CityWalk construction site until the recession hit. They had demo'd the site creating a crater there until the Whole Food/CityWalk project started last year.

Point is, although Koman (with all due respect) is adding residents in 60-units, a small amount of office space with ground-level retail in a slightly taller building than what's currently on the site, this small build, in my opinion, is not good land use for such a prime street.

The higher density of the development creates efficient land use and more sustainability for the area. I'm not saying the Koman Euclid site has to be 30-stories, but a 10-12 story building, with more residential units (since they are in heavy demand) or increased office space just seems more appropriate for such a hot prime street.

My biggest beef, however, is the exterior design. If they changed the exterior design, I think I might shut up.


30-story Renaissance at Euclid

Roddy said that the Covington/Vanguard project didn't adequately "create demand." What that means isn't exactly clear. I assume he meant pushing the envelope in terms of scale rather than design, but it's not clear. Here are his exact words:

"The Optimist project doesn’t create demand by pushing the envelope like the Park East Tower, nor does it create demand by providing neighborhood amenities like Mills or Opus’ 28th ward project which both include parking and retail. It doesn’t remove blight and there is no situational urgency like the Hallmark property."

I really hope this project gets built. I'm not thrilled with the brown brick, but between the MetLofts, 6 N Euclid, and Opus Lindell Residences, the design actually isn't inconsistent with other major developments along the Euclid corridor. And the scale/density seems appropriate with both the surrounding buildings and what Park Central seems to be going for in their form-based code. Also, while the design might not be perfect, I don't think it looks cheap in anyway (like The Standard or new West Pine proposal). It looks solid, substantial, and like it would be built to last.

Also, for better or worse, the current form-based code would not allow for either the original Mills proposal (posted above) or the Park East Tower as built. It would allow for 12 stories at this site, but as mentioned before, the setback requirement could be a problem on such a narrow site. In other words, this proposal may come pretty close to the maximum viable density for the site (without replacing commercial office space with residential units).

^ I can't help to wonder how much Koplar/Koman have been or is expressing to Roddy about their pending proposal. I think it is tough to see how the market can bear 2-3 signature towers until the next phase of CORTEX/US Metals site build out is in full swing. As the saying goes, all politics is local and Roddy might be hedging on something significant in the works for Koplar's prime piece of real estate

Per a subscriber-only article in the Post, Club 34 is looking to relocate.

i think Dredger has hit the nail on the head....