This redevelopment has turned out nice. The only thing I would like to see changed in the future construction is less use of vinyl siding. King Louis Square, the first phase did a good job on limiting the use of siding, but I would like to see even less than that.
I also hope that all the new medians are kept maintained. I also like the use of a roundabout, although I saw someone last Friday that did not know how to use it. This area is really coming along with these buildings, the City Hospital and other renovations, and all the roadwork.
It is a heck of a lot better than the old Darst Webbe, I think it could have used some better architecural detail, but hey, I also understand they were on a budget.
hmmm, i was just reading about an architectural design competition the city of Montreal held for an affordable housing project, the city should try that it would be very interesting to see a modern, urban, affordable housing project that created some kind of dialogue with surrounding architecture.
Anyone else really, really hate the brick on the front and the sides and the back all siding look? To me it just looks cheap. I hate it on new construction in the city because it stands out so much from the existing houses, and I hate it in the county on the McMansions because to me it just says "we wanted the biggest, most gigantic house we could afford, so we just slapped some brick on the front and said 'heck no one sees the side and the back, lets go for the over-sized three car garage instead of brick back there." Just a rant, I think it's just really really ugly.
i agree whole heartedly. Its just plain ugly and overly artificial, no two ways about it.... If you ask me they should have spent the money they used for those brick facades on hiring an innovative architect who could make good looking modern, urban affordable housing. It's a lack of imagination on the architect and developers' parts.
I agree, spend the money on design and just use siding around the entire house, or apartment. Siding isn't by nature bad, look at all the gorgeous homes in Webster Groves, but it makes a Development look cheap when its used as a replacement for brick. And if you're trying to attract a mixed income population for a development, making it look cheap isn't the way to go.
I would have preferred that the development be built on a traditional street grid with alley garages, as opposed to putting the garages in the basement. From the "inside" of the development, it looks kind of like a suburban apartment complex.
King Louis is just okay to me, not awful, but not great either. Some of the buildings look better than others (I don't like the ones with the balconies in the front). I would have liked it if it were more integrated into the surrounding neighborhood and with more attached row houses.
St. Louis infill for the most part is atrocious. It tries to mimic the old but just ends up looking schlocky and cheap. It doesn't have to look old to be urban-- it's time for some innovative contemporary infill with lots of glass to complement the historic buildings. King Louis Square is among the better looking infill, and that's just sad. I especially hate the new developments with white picket steps and front porches. Yuck, it looks so horrible, cheap and country!
I think it's depressing that St. Louis has such amazing historical architecture that is noticed throughout the country, but the majority of new construction in this city has ignored our great legacy and often ends up being the cheapest, least imaginative option.
I always felt that Chicago does a great job implementing smart urban design with neighborhood infill that is modern yet fits in with the historic context of the city.
If you wanna see really bad infill, you have to come to New York.
I wish I could attach a photo of a typical unbroken line of a dozen or so 16-foot-wide, 3-story attached townhouses going up in every vacant lot in the borough I live in, with only front parking pads--never mind alleys or garages--and selling for nearly $300K.
While I can easily understand everyone's preference for innovative design and more thoughtful use of materials, I and many of my neighbors would be thrilled to see a few of those brick-fronted lovelies in our community. Anything but this unending block after block of screaming yellow vinyl siding and poured concrete.
If inspired design is on the menu, I'll choose it; but if the only choices being offered are banal or hideous, I'll go for banal every time.
I used to live in soulard when they started that project and man it was a dump beforehand! I admit, it can be cheezy and elsewhere this project would suck. However, that area was in BAD need for rehab and development asap. The surrounding area needed a catalyst and my impression is this filled that role nicely and provided decent quality.
Now that its in place, everything else is clicking with the old City Hospital next door being restored and converted condos among many things.
What was a barren wasteland between Lafayette Park and Soulard is now showing some promise!
This might be the worst housing project that has hit the city in the last century. I am glad I saw this topic because the other day I was driving by and thought to myself "what a total waste of prime real estate". The buildings are ugly, they are marketed to low income residents, and worst of all the project is low to medium density housing. They should have built 5 or six high rises that would have had one of the best view in the midwest. It would have been on a busy street with retail shops, restaurants, and other business which would have created a vibrant neighborhood. As opposed to the ugly buildings whoses tenants have to drive (instead of walk) to a nearby neighborhood to conduct their business that meets their everyday needs. SILLY!!!!!!!!
birdmanstl wrote:This might be the worst housing project that has hit the city in the last century.
Yes, Pruitt-Igoe and Darst-Webbe were much nicer than King Louis Square
This area was in shambles before the Hope VI development. Without this project, the rehab of the City Hospital probably wouldn't have happened. Granted it's not the utopia of planning and development many here expect, however this has been a huge success. Poor people need somewhere to live just like everyone else. I wish there was more brick and less siding, but future phases may include such. I'd like to see some crime numbers comparing before and after.
I kind of ripped this project earlier, (I still don't like half brick/half siding buildings) but after driving through the neighborhood this weekend, I've changed my mind, and I don't think it's all that bad. It's not my first choice, but we're not talking about market rate in-fill, this is a goverment project done on limited dollars. And once the Street work is finished and the trees get a chance to grow in, I think it will fit fairly well with the neighborhood. And as brickandmortar pointed out, before this there was Darst-Webbe. We're not just talking about asthetics of the buildings, People live here, and I'm sure King Louis Square is a much, much more gratifying and dignifying place to live.
King Louis Square may very well be a better place to live than Darst-Webbe, but most former Darst-Webbe residents never got the chance to find out. There was no mandated one-for-one replacement of low-income, subsidized housing units and the HOPE VI grant only mandated an initial provision of low-income housing that could be "upgradded" through attrition. Different people live at King Louis Square than lived at Darst-Webbe.
I'll agree with you on that one, there are not as many subsidized units at King Louis Square as there were in the old Darst-Webbe complex, but I don't think that's King Louis Square's Fault. Darst-Webbe was built to (ware) house people on a mass level on a relatively small site. I don't know the numbers, (thousands perhaps?) but that site realistically should not hold that many units of housing. I think King Louis Square is a fairly well done project (though only time will tell.) The real problem is the dearth of alternate sites. If there were 2000 units in Darst-Webbe, and now 200 units in King Louis Square, that's a huge drop in availabe affordable housing units. (Those numbers are just a guess) The problem is that the city is expected to fill up that supply. I try not to get on the city vs county issue too much, but where are the King Louis Squares in the county? in St Charles County? I may be wrong, but i don't believe they exist. Affordable housing won't work as long as it is seperated and marginalized away from other types of housing. When I read an article in the paper that people are protesting a normal apartment development somewhere in St Chas, because it abuts their subdivison and will lower property values, increase traffic, and increase crime, (and increase water run-off, people always seem to complain about this too, weird.) it makes me wonder what would happen if someone tried to introduce something like King Louis Square? affordable housing is a regional issue. St Charles could really be in trouble in the future, because as it's housing prices rise, there's going to be nowhere for people working in the service industries to live, and i don't see many people taking the bus for probably 2 hours (because they'd most likely have to transfer 4 times) to get to a job at The home Depot in Wentzville when they live the City. I kind of got off on a tangent, but this issue really irks me.
