urbanSTL

This is total speculation on my part, but from their website it looks to me like Sabal Financial buys big chunks of bank-owned assets and under-performing loans and then tries to remarket them. Seeing that the previous owner had not paid taxes on the property for two years, I'd guess that's probably what happened here, and they will try to re-sell the property or solicit proposals for redevelopment.

Again, that's just speculation. I'm not a real estate or financial person...

That sounds like a great first step. Glad to hear the alderman letting the developer know where she/her ward stands on a gas station. I really hope that this new owner can make something positive development happen.

The old Y is now properly boarded up...the roof still needs attention, though

The NextSTL story on the Pelican - Which is actually a scaled down version of the 2006 3 story proposal

http://nextstl.com/2015/04/proposal-wou ... -building/

New plan is rehab of the Pelican and demo of the Y for 4 story, 116 unit apartment building.

https://nextstl.com/2016/11/renovated-p ... uth-grand/

The Dominos should also be moving over there; not sure if planned for the Pelican or any first-floor retail in the apartment building. At first blush, I like this plan better than the prior idea put forth.

This deserves a rant from me.

http://www.buildingstlnews.com/the-blog ... outh-grand

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Mar 24, 2017

This deserves a rant from me.

http://www.buildingstlnews.com/the-blog ... outh-grand

Your first Paragraph is wrong. When the Pelican Building is finished, the Domino's will move from S Grand to the Pelican building.

TG East Neighborhood has approved this. Currently its mostly abandoned parking lot with odd buildings and an odd site plan. This is a solid proposal for the site. Id love to see a perfect one but do I want to wait 5 more years to get that? As someone who lives a block away I am far more concerned with how to get better retail into the stores across the street from this and how to get rid of the Jack in the Box site which is a much greater eye sore then this will be.

I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer the newer design to the faux historic chesterfield strip mall that was originally proposed:

https://nextstl.com/2015/04/proposal-wo ... -building/

Sure, this looks a little...cold...and I had a "W.T.F." moment when I first saw it, but upon closer examination I kind of like the geometric feel of the building. Maybe if they added some pops of color or changed up the material a bit it could look friendlier, but I have to admit, the more I look at it, the more I don't hate it.

I also like the height of the project and how it will close gaps in the street wall that currently exist.

I'm also not a "matchy matchy" person...mix in modern with historic, i'm fine with that. I like variety when it makes sense.

In regards to the parking, most of the site is paved anyway, so I guess I don't really have a problem with it, esp. since the parking will be screened from Grand by the building.

Quick thoughts:

The design is fine. It's not a "Soviet era apartment bloc." I think this will be one of the rare situations that the finished product is better than the rendering. If you look at the detailing, the brick has variation within gray tones. The windows are large, so the units should be open and bright. The balconies break up the mass and will put eyes and ears on the street. I don't think the rendering itself is scaled correctly, so it looks shorter and further from the sidewalk than it should. This will fill a hole in the streetscape nicely. If the brick ends up looking terrible, it could always be painted (which is weird for me to say because I never advocate painting brick).

The density is nice. Sure, I'd like to not have a big parking lot in the rear, but we're not going to get underground parking. The numbers would never work without big subsidy. Structured parking with more apartment wrapping, maybe. I don't think I've ever seen a project that I didn't think could be improved some way, but I'll take this.

I think the design is fine, but it may be a bit monochromatic. Needs something to make it pop.

Design seems fine to me. It just comes down to the quality of the materials they use.

Yes, it's an improvement on the original faux-historic proposal. I do like the rhythm of the windows and balconies. And the varicolored brick could be nice, if done well with good materials.

I don't like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do yourselves a favor; click here and look at the pic at 100% zoom. It helps to get a better idea of the texture of the brick than the images on NextSTL or upstream in this thread, where they've been shrunk to fit the width of the message body.

I like the building. It's a bit minimalist, and not everyone is a fan of minimalism. But without much ornamentation or color, what'll sell this building is the quality of the materials used in construction. If they're quality materials, it'll represent itself fabulously.

The previous proposal was pushed up against the sidewalk; this introduces a setback with a green barrier. The YMCA has a front yard, so it's not exactly like they're setting a precedent, but that's the only thing I'm not 100% sure of, from the perspective of maintaining an urban corridor. But I'm sure 1st floor tenants would appreciate the buffer the setback will provide from Grand traffic.

-RBB

rbb wrote:Do yourselves a favor; click here and look at the pic at 100%

What?

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Mar 27, 2017

rbb wrote:Do yourselves a favor; click here and look at the pic at 100%

What?

Sorry posted prematurely. This is embarrassing, it doesn't usually happen. You gotta know, it's not you.

Post above has edited appropriately now.

-RBB

Is this thing still moving forward? I thought they'd at least put up a sign with a rendering or something.

^ I believe it is still moving ahead; building permit was submitted for the existing corner building relatively recently and I expect the new build portion will take some more time to get everything in order... still early in the timeline I think compared to some other projects that have taken some time to finally get going with construction.

According to the August Compton Heights newsletter interior work on the Pelican building should start any day now and a finalized proposal is going to the preservation board in Aug. A few changes: red brick veneer vs. concrete panels. Also increasing parking from 115-122 to 130 spaces.

^Thanks for the update. Red brick is OK and all, but I was really looking forward to a more contemporary look on this one. I mean, not every new building has to be red brick, for crying out loud.

I agree. I was hoping for something closer to the last rendering. Maybe a few pops of color but I think the previous facade would have looked good on the stretch with the right material.