Always interesting to see St. Louis County be considered to be suburban when places like Jackson County are considered urban. I'm guessing the absence of a central city automatically makes it suburban. With that said, even though the Missouri side isn't growing at a significant rate it's very clear that Metro East population loss is significantly hurting regional growth rates. I wish Illinois would do something to help Metro East out.mikenewell48 wrote: ↑Jun 19, 2022STL side gaining? Metro east not so much
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-moving-urban-counties-141924038.html
To those who defend scaling up everywhere do you think this is good?( from twitter)
- 991
It's not the prettiest building, but having walked through this area numerous times over the past few years, it's actually the single story row homes on either side that are the outlier. The neighborhood is zoned for high density, and pretty much all around it are mid rises that are mixed use. Aesthetics aside, it's a good development in my opinion.
Though, as a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't use Washington, DC as a comparison for development. Just totally different economics at play with regards to supply, demand, cost of living and local pushes to add more density to alleviate the housing shortage.
Though, as a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't use Washington, DC as a comparison for development. Just totally different economics at play with regards to supply, demand, cost of living and local pushes to add more density to alleviate the housing shortage.
The context of DC market pressures and surrounding density aside, do you think, architecturally, this building has a positive or negative impact on its immediate neighbors.
Ruins the street wall. Sets a precedent for more tear downs. Jagged teeth is not a good look. Obviously fits within zoning regulations, so my opinion means nothing, lol.
- 991
I think that you can't set aside the market pressures or surrounding density - no reason to take an academic stance on something when there's actual real world functionality and need that matters more. If this is only about aesthetics, then yes, I do think the developers missed. But I would also suggest you check out the most recent streetview of the area to get a better idea of just what the local density of the neighborhood really is.imran wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022The context of DC market pressures and surrounding density aside, do you think, architecturally, this building has a positive or negative impact on its immediate neighbors.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/11th+ ... -77.027036
This is an area where the city and local leaders are pushing for more density. The single residency homes on either side are going to be the outlier for the area moving forward.
- 488
We shouldn't stop 3 families from living in a neighborhood they want because its not the most ascetically pleasing look.imran wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022To those who defend scaling up everywhere do you think this is good?( from twitter)
- 337
I’d say negative. I would have appreciated it more if they maintained more of the original facade and didn’t paint it black or replace it whatever they did. Start the new above it.imran wrote:The context of DC market pressures and surrounding density aside, do you think, architecturally, this building has a positive or negative impact on its immediate neighbors.
All I’m looking for is the focused view on such practices - not a list of excuses why it’s okay in this case. You can always rationalize bad architectural moves…Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022I think that you can't set aside the market pressures or surrounding density - no reason to take an academic stance on something when there's actual real world functionality and need that matters more. If this is only about aesthetics, then yes, I do think the developers missed. But I would also suggest you check out the most recent streetview of the area to get a better idea of just what the local density of the neighborhood really is.imran wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022The context of DC market pressures and surrounding density aside, do you think, architecturally, this building has a positive or negative impact on its immediate neighbors.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/11th+ ... -77.027036
This is an area where the city and local leaders are pushing for more density. The single residency homes on either side are going to be the outlier for the area moving forward.
So you’re saying beauty in a City is not as important to you as density? Is there any threshold at which you would say no to more density?mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022We shouldn't stop 3 families from living in a neighborhood they want because its not the most ascetically pleasing look.imran wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022To those who defend scaling up everywhere do you think this is good?( from twitter)
- 488
If someone wants to develop a building in a city, I think we should push to have as little tax abatement over time. We should push for them to use better materials, but we shouldn't stop people from building in a city unless there are extreme reasons. Factory pollution, etc. Not developing the optimist building has been a mistake by the city & the neighborhood. Not developing the corner in SD where the Imo's is now going is a mistake by the neighberhood. Alot of families who could live in those!imran wrote: ↑Jun 21, 2022So you’re saying beauty in a City is not as important to you as density? Is there any threshold at which you would say no to more density?
St Louis doesnt have a big housing affordability problem because we are essentially shrinking. But hopefully we start growing again. And if we don't learn from the mistakes of NYC, SF/the whole bay area, seattle, etc. we could begin to have a real affordability problem. Opposing development because of traffic, shadows, "renters", etc. is wrong.
So no, to me there really is no reason to oppose density for beauty or architectural uniformity. I'd rather we had a lot of homes and noone was living on the street, or living with a partner they dont want to because they cant afford something on their own. I'd prefer to live in a city that had landlords & sellers fighting over renters & buyers rather then the other way around. Density is really the only way to get there.
- 991
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.imran wrote: ↑Jun 21, 2022All I’m looking for is the focused view on such practices - not a list of excuses why it’s okay in this case. You can always rationalize bad architectural moves…Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022I think that you can't set aside the market pressures or surrounding density - no reason to take an academic stance on something when there's actual real world functionality and need that matters more. If this is only about aesthetics, then yes, I do think the developers missed. But I would also suggest you check out the most recent streetview of the area to get a better idea of just what the local density of the neighborhood really is.imran wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2022The context of DC market pressures and surrounding density aside, do you think, architecturally, this building has a positive or negative impact on its immediate neighbors.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/11th+ ... -77.027036
This is an area where the city and local leaders are pushing for more density. The single residency homes on either side are going to be the outlier for the area moving forward.
St. Louis will never have the affordability problems that DC or SF have. Chicago is arguable just as if not more dense and vibrant as DC or SF, but house costs in Chicago are closer to St. Louis than any coastal city. I think the problem we have in St. Louis is lack of demand. The city could easily hold another 150-200k comfortably and still not have major affordability issues imo.
- 188
People Hate the Idea of Car-Free Cities—Until They Live in One
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/car-free-cities-opposition
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/car-free-cities-opposition
- 6,118
Okay. that's some hard core trolling there. I need to see if I can isolate the audio and figure out what he actually said!
Maybe there's a better thread for this, but I've been wondering, why is the Northside's street grid east of Grand so disjointed and odd? There are like 5 different grids in the area, it seems very bizarre. Especially compared to the Southside east of grand which only arguably has 2 grids.
Pure speculation: It was designed that way by notorious racist Harland Bartholomew to keep the undesirables in their designated neighborhoods.alexstl wrote: ↑Jun 29, 2022Maybe there's a better thread for this, but I've been wondering, why is the Northside's street grid east of Grand so disjointed and odd? There are like 5 different grids in the area, it seems very bizarre. Especially compared to the Southside east of grand which only arguably has 2 grids.
I’m increasingly convinced that rather than chasing after towers (which I do find impressive in the skyline) with obnoxious garage bases and traffic patterns we should be focused on building scattered gentle density that infills vacant lots in desirable neighborhoods.
We are doing that all over the city though. It's important we do both and also to make sure that new construction in neighborhoods doesn't lead to displacement (The Grove 
).
). 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/upsh ... -park.html
Interesting read on the future (or lack thereof) of suburban office parks. Concludes the future of offices will be smaller in footprint due to work-from-home, but more likely to be located in downtowns and urban cores than suburbia.
Interesting read on the future (or lack thereof) of suburban office parks. Concludes the future of offices will be smaller in footprint due to work-from-home, but more likely to be located in downtowns and urban cores than suburbia.
- 6,118
^Saving that for later. Looks like it might be an interesting channel.