1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostJun 30, 2021#726

Seen on Facebook.

Incredibly creative mural. Illustrates how much blank walls detract from a community. Even though it’s a clever illusion, the difference is night and day.
F831A9A2-93C4-4F2B-BCEA-71DA6B726063.jpeg (1.59MiB)

sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJun 30, 2021#727

I also saw that…very cool.

6,119
Life MemberLife Member
6,119

PostJul 01, 2021#728

^That's a nice effect. I suppose it's for similar reasons that everyone so loves the mural on the Edison Brothers warehouse, but that's even more effective.

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostJul 04, 2021#729

Is your city pedestrian unfriendly?

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... A3K4yLSjm4

PostJul 04, 2021#730

Another one, relevant to the wave of pancakes going up in the city.
‘How to fight those boxy buildings’

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/202 ... -buildings

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostJul 04, 2021#731

^ pancakes and toilet bowls.

5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostJul 04, 2021#732

imran wrote:
Jul 04, 2021
Another one, relevant to the wave of pancakes going up in the city.
‘How to fight those boxy buildings’

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/202 ... -buildings
I mean, we're not on the level of some cities receiving huge box apartment buildings. Our "building boom" has been fairly tame in this aspect whereas some cities that have grown like a weed really got hit hard with those types of developments (sometimes referred to as Texas Donuts). Our neighborhoods, even the ones that have received a good chunk of new construction, are visually interesting and diverse in architectural styles. However, I'm not against small scale development and multiple property owners. The only real issue I see rising from this are fights between neighboring property owners when someone wants to build right up to another building in a gap. 

For example, lets take the 900 block of South 4th Street and subdivide the land to John Q (900), Johhny Appleseed (902), and John Doe (904-8). Since 900 and 904-8 are existing structures that border a gap at 902, Johnny Appleseed could propose an infill building there. John Q is fine with it but John Doe is not and puts up a fight. His argument, "my building could be damaged during construction!" This concern ends up turning into an argument between the two property owners with threats of lawsuits getting involved over "altering my property by building right up against my building" or something along those lines. Ultimately, Johnny Appleseed may decide to cancel his project and sell the parcel to John Doe, leaving it up to John Doe what to do there.

Bring it back into reality and that problem doesn't exist there. Midtown Locust owns the entire 900 block. If they wanted to build a infill building at 902 South 4th Street, they could with no opposition from neighboring property owners because they are the neighboring property owners. The point I'm making here is that in some cases, a single property owner is a better option than multiple.

Finally, in St. Louis where we have so much land and are continuing to lose people, we can afford to build sprawling buildings (like Chroma, Terra, and SoHo). If we actually turn the corner and start growing as a City again, then some changes to how we build can be considered but for now, I see this as creating an issue out of nothing.

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostJul 04, 2021#733

One should be living a healthy lifestyle and making choices to prevent illness rather than saying there’s isn’t a problem until the day diabetes and heart disease come to your doorstep.

Loss of granularity makes our cities fragile whether you’re at a point to realize the issue or not. That push and pull between neighbors is what balances a city and form based codes can set up the standards to limit conflicts.
When John who owns all the buildings on a block passes away, his out of town heirs may sell all his holdings to the highest bidder and that is how you end up with a QT where once stood a varied collection of buildings.

Guess I’m a futurist, not impressed by short-term gain efforts if the eventual outcome is jeopardized.

2,630
Life MemberLife Member
2,630

PostJul 05, 2021#734

In a city like St. Louis I don't particularly mind these big buildings, particularly when used as gap fillers in the empty land between two vibrant areas. 

Example: The area between Soulard and Downtown is mostly dreadful from a walkers perspective despite being between two of our marquee walkable neighborhoods. Wide and fast roads and a lot of empty or underused space. Industrial and auto oriented. The majority of the tiny lots of the pre-urban renewal neighborhood have merged together long ago into larger parcels. Ballpark parking demand keeps the price of these lots artificially high.

That makes this neighborhood a perfect place for these boxy apartments. It would only take 4-5 projects like the Soulard Lux Living project to completely change the neighborhood. It may not be granular, but as long as they bring the residents and have decent ground level retail I have a hard time turning my nose up at it.

STL has so many places where this type of development makes sense:
  • Kosciusko
  • North Riverfront and North Broadway
  • Giant strip mall across Manchester from Dogtown
  • Iron Hill and the surrounding area
  • Current empty pockets in North St. Louis
  • Old Toyota dealership at Kingshighway and Chippewa
  • McRee by Bar-K
  • North of Downtown between Lucas and Cole
  • Bottle District
Is it a perfect example of urbansim? No, but it's the best remedy we have for the scars left by urban renewal on this city. They can stitch our city back together relatively fast. Call it brute force urbanism.

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostJul 05, 2021#735

I understand the temptation to have a few such projects fill in the blanks rather than the long arduous work of organic granularity. The truth is though, like silver bullet projects, these housing warehouses make more of the city vulnerable to large scale land ownership that usually has little interest in the local community.

It’s not like my saying this is going to keep these from going up. I’m just advocating for being mindful about the negatives that come with them.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJul 06, 2021#736


PostJul 18, 2021#737

City Lab - A Lesson in Decaying Victorian Architecture From Scooby-Doo
These losses didn’t go unnoticed, and the early 1970s was also a time when grassroots historical preservation societies fully ground into action, saving now famous districts such as St. Louis’s Lafayette Square.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... chitecture

6,119
Life MemberLife Member
6,119

PostJul 19, 2021#738

^Nice! That's a neat analysis of a campy piece of my childhood right there. And we even got a good mention.

1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostJul 19, 2021#739

Louis Rossmann has made some videos recently on the urban decay he's noticed that is present in NYC. Worth a watch, IMO.


6,119
Life MemberLife Member
6,119

PostJul 19, 2021#740

^Couldn't make myself watch the whole thing, but the takeaway seemed to be that there's presently a lot of vacancy and people are asking way too much in rent? Is that about right? With a touch of luck maybe this brings down property values and rents and New York actually gets its soul back as a part of the deal. Things in the sexy towns had clearly swung way too sexy, international elite same, and artificial. A bit of a correction might be just what the doctor ordered.

952
Super MemberSuper Member
952

PostJul 20, 2021#741


1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostJul 21, 2021#742

symphonicpoet wrote:
Jul 19, 2021
^Couldn't make myself watch the whole thing, but the takeaway seemed to be that there's presently a lot of vacancy and people are asking way too much in rent? Is that about right? With a touch of luck maybe this brings down property values and rents and New York actually gets its soul back as a part of the deal. Things in the sexy towns had clearly swung way too sexy, international elite same, and artificial. A bit of a correction might be just what the doctor ordered.
Yeah more or less. Also brought up was just the fact that all of these buildings are just left to rot and decay on both the outside and in since the owners don't wait to pay for maintenance. I think someone mentioned that most of the scaffolding present in NYC isn't for construction, but simply to protect pedestrians from falling debris from decaying building facades.

But yeah, the market needs an enormous correction, at this point. Not just in NYC, but in pretty much every wealthy nation.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJul 21, 2021#743

Strong Towns - Kansas City Residents Demand Safer Streets

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/202 ... er-streets

6,119
Life MemberLife Member
6,119

PostJul 22, 2021#744

Trololzilla wrote:
Jul 21, 2021

Also brought up was just the fact that all of these buildings are just left to rot and decay on both the outside and in since the owners don't wait to pay for maintenance. I think someone mentioned that most of the scaffolding present in NYC isn't for construction, but simply to protect pedestrians from falling debris from decaying building facades.

But yeah, the market needs an enormous correction, at this point. Not just in NYC, but in pretty much every wealthy nation.
I don't mind over-inflated property values taking an extended sit in the corner until they can behave. But I do worry the average stiff is going to end up taking the hit rather than the speculators and fancy people that drove things through the wall.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJul 22, 2021#745

FWIW, the supposed value of my house in U City has nearly doubled in the eight years since I bought it; and I don't live in a trendy, high-demand neighborhood, either. 

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostJul 29, 2021#746

From Pinterest:
An example in Marseille
Not knowing the background, I’m intrigued by the glamorized historic ruins.
Stunning composition that upstages yet honors at the same time.

Part of me wishes we could have opted for something like this rather than demolish, say, Cupples 7 downtown.

I know I know .Finances, Reality etc. This is the urban ‘theory’ thread though 😊
6624CF7C-77B5-40DE-8AF9-12CFAFB29A60.jpeg (1.91MiB)

1,213
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,213

PostJul 29, 2021#747

That reminded me of this example in Lisbon: a royal palace that was left unfinished and is finally getting concluded:
https://imagens.publico.pt/imagens.aspx ... S&type=JPG
https://magnolia-portugal.dunegestion.c ... 43c318aeb5

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJul 31, 2021#748


6,119
Life MemberLife Member
6,119

PostAug 01, 2021#749

^Are you suggesting we needed one of those land tax thingies . . . oh . . . forty years ago?

(While we're at it let's get rid of parking minimums and invest some of the extra cashwa in free public transportation and road diets. Ideally shunting at least some of the driving infrastructure thus freed up back onto the tax rolls.)

432
Full MemberFull Member
432

PostAug 02, 2021#750

^Yes! We've needed an LVT since the 18th century... Agree on all points. 

The LVT should in theory be politically doable, but any mention of road diet and the public goes absolutely bonkers, at least as evidenced by the changes to Morganford in 2015 and now the same on Hampton. Holy sh*t do the neighborhood reactionaries on NextDoor absolutely explode if anyone dares suggest maybe we consider the interests of anyone other than drivers.

Read more posts (358 remaining)