Tapatalk

New homes on 2300 block of Hebert

New homes on 2300 block of Hebert

2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostJan 20, 2006#1

I found this listing on the realtor website. Apparently Pyramid is building them. Here is a link to one of the houses:







2300 Hebert

696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostJan 24, 2006#2

Surely, this must be a joke...that's what I thought until I went to the web page. This is HIDEOUS...unbelievably, even WORSE than the St. Aloysius plan. I can NOT believe that 1960's era type tract suburban housing is being allowed to built in the city. If I were wealty, I swear I'd buy these homes and obliterate them off the face of the earth. This is disgusting.

1,282
AdministratorAdministrator
1,282

PostJan 24, 2006#3

Bosley must enjoy torturing us. :twisted:

407
Full MemberFull Member
407

PostJan 24, 2006#4

I see that these are being brokered by Pyramid Properties. Please tell me they aren't developing these too. I checked their website and their is an image saying 5th Ward homes. It kind of looks the same. I always liked you Pyramid. Why? Why?

2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostJan 24, 2006#5

North St. Louis is full of crappy suburban tract housing infill. There is some west of Vandeventer on Delmar and a whole lot near Old North St. Louis at North Florissant and North Market.



Sorry, I wish I was joking about these homes, but it looks like several are being built. Admins, we need a vomit emoticon.

480
Full MemberFull Member
480

PostJan 24, 2006#6

Suburban sprawl is turning inward, which kind of makes sense. (Not that I like to see it.) The great neighborhoods that were there weren't maintained, now they're treating it as if it were empty farmland to build upon, and who's in the neighborhood to stop them?

696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostJan 25, 2006#7

Well, SoularD, I can see how former suburbanites might be coming back to the city...but the architecture...and way out dated architecture at that? I can't see them building this kind of crap in the suburbs, let alone the city. Who and why have permits been given for these monstrosities to be built? Someone at city hall is responsible. Someone should write to Mayor Slay on this one.

407
Full MemberFull Member
407

PostJan 25, 2006#8

Developers, as well as Mr. Bosley, probably were push the whole affordable housing thing. You must admit, $115,000 for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath home is pretty cheap. I can picture how this project got through. They probably pulled the old, "If you don't approve this project then you are against lower income people." Nobody wants to get the heat and most probably don't care about NSTL.

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJan 25, 2006#9

A $115,000 home isn't sold to a low-income household, but a moderate-income household, or "working class." With the majority of current residents in the area already low to moderate income, believe or not, this project is still adding new households with higher income than current residents.



While near-northside areas from Old North St. Louis to the West End appear safe from suburban style housing, greater North City will likely see this and other projects in its future. But here, homebuilders are building new within the seas of vacant lots. If your location has already lost too much of its urban fabric, then I say let developers build such a marketable product, when attracting new households to a largely vacant area.

2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostJan 25, 2006#10

I guess you guys can see the renderings better than me. I can't make a judgement - they just looks smeared. One appears to have some tudor trim.

2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostJan 25, 2006#11

I just enlarged the image slightly and resampled the image hoping it'd look better.

1,282
AdministratorAdministrator
1,282

PostFeb 09, 2006#12


PostFeb 09, 2006#13

Sorry, citlover, that's a no-no.
I never said I liked them. :wink:

696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostFeb 10, 2006#14

I thought maybe you posted that as an example, not meaning you did like 'em...that's why I meerly said it was a "no no". If I thought you were serious, I'd have been a little more emphamatic! The rest of my post was directed to anyone who hadn't read the article. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that, Citylover.

It's a shame, but some people do like 'em, and whether someone does or doesn't, that article is great and says a lot about proper city development and what can be accomplished.