Nice. A couple of new construction infill projects in South City, additions to Lafayette Prep Academy.
Why are there so many restrictions on replacing windows though? I can understand someone slapping siding on the outside of a brick home or a hideous sun room, but, generally, don't all windows look pretty similar? Just curious because I'm sitting here living with 125 year old drafty windows.
Why are there so many restrictions on replacing windows though? I can understand someone slapping siding on the outside of a brick home or a hideous sun room, but, generally, don't all windows look pretty similar? Just curious because I'm sitting here living with 125 year old drafty windows.
- 3,762
^ yeah, the PRB has got to ease it's restrictions on window replacement. i mean, it's absurd to expect citizens in a city this poor to spend thousands of extra $ on historically appropriate windows. and so windows don't get replaced and the buildings' lives are shortened and everyone's energy bills are driven up.
Windows matter more than you are giving them credit. There's a big difference between cheap white vinyl replacement windows that are mis-sized, and historically appropriate full new windows. I spent a lot of money on aluminum clad wood windows that matched what was historically in my openings, but they will last a lot longer because they are high quality, and they look correct even though I have no local historic district or tax-credit restrictions on my house. They're also a lot more energy efficient that cheap replacements. Having the right windows custom made for me had some upfront sticker shock, but will probably save me more money in the long-run.
Since this is just the preliminary agenda, we don't know the details of this case. Maybe they are proposing good windows that are just not quite perfectly right. I think there is room for some compromise, but only just a little.
Since this is just the preliminary agenda, we don't know the details of this case. Maybe they are proposing good windows that are just not quite perfectly right. I think there is room for some compromise, but only just a little.
- 2,430
The building in question regarding the window replacement is the Sts. Peter & Paul Hall.
^Indeed it is. I would posit that a more substantial building like that should definitely be held to a higher standard. Looking at the streetview image shows nothing that would add a remarkable cost to the windows to replace them with a historically accurate new window.
Well, yeah, I'm not advocating for cheap, crappy windows. But my windows are, quite literally, just rectangles. Unless someone is peeking through a telescope from the street, they're not going to tell the difference. Obviously that's not a one size fits all approach, but just what I've felt.MattnSTL wrote: ↑Nov 17, 2017Windows matter more than you are giving them credit. There's a big difference between cheap white vinyl replacement windows that are mis-sized, and historically appropriate full new windows. I spent a lot of money on aluminum clad wood windows that matched what was historically in my openings, but they will last a lot longer because they are high quality, and they look correct even though I have no local historic district or tax-credit restrictions on my house. They're also a lot more energy efficient that cheap replacements. Having the right windows custom made for me had some upfront sticker shock, but will probably save me more money in the long-run.
Since this is just the preliminary agenda, we don't know the details of this case. Maybe they are proposing good windows that are just not quite perfectly right. I think there is room for some compromise, but only just a little.
The University Lofts on Washington have notoriously drafty windows. I guess new replicas would have been too expensive, so they just re-used the originals.
Have preserved original windows in our 1896 house. Not drafty likely because we have fitted storm windows on the outside. I notice details and feel that a poorly done window/door replacement takes away from a historic building. I am glad there are historic standards. Cant trust that everyone in my neighborhood would do it correctly otherwise.
- 3,762
^ yeah, but c'mon. your aesthetic sensibilities aren't a good reason to force people who may be struggling financially to either pay more for historic replicas or freeze. i think we need to be realistic about our socioeconomics and volume of crumbling old buildings.
Like I noted before, I am living with the original windows on the front of the house and so far have not frozen in the last 6 winters. Storm windows cost a fraction of replacements. Heavy drapery is another solution one could use.
Don't know the details of the denial in question. Will look out for the final agenda next week to see if financial hardship is the issue.
And I agree with your comment about the volume of crumbling buildings. Most of the neighborhoods in dire straits though are not in historic districts and there is nothing preventing cheaper solutions if it keeps properties from falling apart.
Don't know the details of the denial in question. Will look out for the final agenda next week to see if financial hardship is the issue.
And I agree with your comment about the volume of crumbling buildings. Most of the neighborhoods in dire straits though are not in historic districts and there is nothing preventing cheaper solutions if it keeps properties from falling apart.
- 3,762
So poor people should stick to the neighborhoods in dire straits while those who can afford expensive windows get to live in the historic districts? And frankly, it's even difficult to maintain a historic home on a middle-class income. There should be standards, of course, but I think we need to weigh our priorities and choose our battles given our poverty and vacancy rates.
Final agenda for monday
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 7-2017.pdf
Ahem.. The Archbishop of St Louis hardly fits the narrative of poor people being priced out of a historic district
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 7-2017.pdf
Ahem.. The Archbishop of St Louis hardly fits the narrative of poor people being priced out of a historic district
Agenda for December 18th. Thought I would post it here.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 8-2017.pdf
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 8-2017.pdf
- 3,762
never said it did. the Archdiocese is flush with cash and can afford historic windows. lots of other people can't.imran wrote: ↑Nov 22, 2017Final agenda for monday
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 7-2017.pdf
Ahem.. The Archbishop of St Louis hardly fits the narrative of poor people being priced out of a historic district
- 592
Sounds like Dalco windows screwed up and probably told the Archdiocese not to worry about it. Methinks that Dalco is gonna be on the hook for fixing it.
But looking at the pictures, I also don't really notice the difference that much (on some windows like when they take out a half round and fill it with a piece of wood it's obvious, but not in this case).
But looking at the pictures, I also don't really notice the difference that much (on some windows like when they take out a half round and fill it with a piece of wood it's obvious, but not in this case).
- 9,559
I don’t see how staff recommends demo for 300 S Broadway. Board will have to reverse the staff wishes.
The other options for the developer? Negotiate for sale of a parking garage and end up with more land than usable? Try to force the city hand on the Mike Shannon site? Risk losing the project altogether?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2017I don’t see how staff recommends demo for 300 S Broadway. Board will have to reverse the staff wishes.
I hate replacing, as opposed to adding to the density south of Market. It's a loaded issue, though. Perhaps they have a plan B in place, keeping this potential demo denial in mind. I didn't see subsidies mentioned before, so that could come into play I guess as well.
Could they be bluffing? And maybe trying to force the city into a land swap? I have a friend in real estate who has done that before.
- 9,559
They are not bluffing. This project is much further along than what’s made public. The developer is doing a lot of foundation building behind the scenes to get this done.
Do you think they pull out if they aren't granted the demo request though? I think that's my main concern for this project right now.
- 6,120
The biggest problem, in the end, is that nothing south of Spruce will have a decent view of the infield, since you'd be looking over the infield stands, so you'd have to be moving into FAA regulated territory before you could really see the entire infield . . . from directly above. Okay, I exaggerate a bit there, but you get the idea. North of Spruce is the better sight lines. And of course, the Cardinals themselves really control all the best ones. (Nice bit of planning, that. HOK Sport did their job admirably.) The Stadium East garage, of course, has comparable sightlines, though BPV-2 will begin to interfere as you go further north. (Again, probably not an accident.) Honestly, as much as I hate to say this (and I do) I don't think they have a better option, even were one available.
