urbanSTL

This looks terrible.

chriss752 wrote:

This looks terrible.

I agree. Honestly maybe I still think it's better. But I think where we differ on this most is the weight I am putting on what was originally proposed and the feeling that creates when that was so good...and then this is surprisingly bad.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Sep 11, 2020

This looks terrible.

why, because it doesn't have arbitrary combinations of cheap-looking, faux-historic arches and hips slapped all over a vomit-colored facade? and that fake-ass, ugly prefab cement that's supposed to resemble stone? i think this looks many many times better than the new Arbor. i would happily take this in lieu of the new Arbor design based on the form alone.

What's a Narwhals Branded space?

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Sep 11, 2020

framer wrote: ↑

Sep 11, 2020

The Arbor could look nice if they use quality materials and detailing. If not, it will look like a cheap caricature. 

Even then, those arched windows are awful. Looks like a rooftop accent on a postmodern office building...

this monstrosity in Denver is the first thing that came to mind when i saw the new Arbor rendering:



but this one was probably built in the 80s so at least they have an excuse.

Well y’all can hate on it then and get it cancelled. My standards have dropped quite a bit to the point where I just don’t care much anymore and my opinion on this being a great project and addition will not change.

I appreciate the Gill’s investment and series of investments into the neighborhood over the years and this is another investment to add to their successes.

PS: This was posted in the comments on my page and shows Arbor in context.

How often has push back, suggestions for a better building, criticism canceled a project? The traffic fearing pearl-clutching NIMBYs go to war often, and usually don't kill the project (yes, I know tower at Lindell and Euclid). You can see how well our outrage worked at 1900 Olive.
In the case of Link in the Loop there was much back and forth, it took a while, it happened, and turned out pretty great.

c'mon, chris. critiquing the design is not going to get it cancelled. ^ that one looks slightly better—the colors are a little more appropriate—but it's still far inferior to the original design. fake mansards with fake arches and fake hips just look dumb. at this point i wish they'd just go with a modern design.

Just go straight up on that top floor and put a cornice. Is that so hard?

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2020

Just go straight up on that top floor and put a cornice. Is that so hard?

It already has a decent cornice tucked immediately below the mansard. I agree. Just extend the brick one floor higher and move the white cornice to the top of the facade. 

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 11, 2020

What's a Narwhals Branded space?

Like the frozen cocktail spot by SLU?

Sure move that cornice up but put a band of some sort between the 4th and 5th floors. Fancier windows or more windows or some embellishment on the 5th floor. Kind of like the NW and SW corners of Euclid and W Pine

imran wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2020

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2020

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 12, 2020

How often has push back, suggestions for a better building, criticism canceled a project? The traffic fearing pearl-clutching NIMBYs go to war often, and usually don't kill the project (yes, I know tower at Lindell and Euclid). You can see how well our outrage worked at 1900 Olive.
In the case of Link in the Loop there was much back and forth, it took a while, it happened, and turned out pretty great.

That's what I was going to say, we've never as a NextSTL UrbanSTL community stopped anything from happening... if we could, we'd have stopped a lot of demo's, lol. 

The saucer Starbucks was a spectacular success IIRC. There's the AAA building on Lindell which was at one time to become parking for a suburban CVS. I would think more but its past bedtime

Citizen Park benefitted from a robust dialogue with and insistence by the NIMBYs/neighborhood. 

The NIMBYs got an additional level of underground parking. Wonder what that cost. I would love to know the parking utilization in the newer buildings.

Green Street Swan is our for bid. The project's name is "Terra in the Grove".
 https://www.sldcplanroom.com/jobs/2886/ ... -the-grove

Sneak peak at the new Sweetwaters Coffee & Tea in Chroma
https://missouri-metro.com/2020/09/12/a ... n-october/

Could the Restoration STL folks be f'n with us? This has to be a joke, right?

I have mixed feelings about the new design. Sorry about the long post, mostly trying to get my thoughts in order about it.

Overall, I like what I think is the increased density. Per a prior NextStl article, the initial proposal was for 95 units over 4215-4239 (11 units per GeoStl) with a half-sunken garage and stairs to 1st floor units similar to most houses in the neighborhood (and city). The new proposal is 152 units over 4211-4239 (12 lots per GeoStl), on top of a parking podium. Assuming the the underlying lots are similarly sized, the density would increase from 8.6 units per lot to 12.6 units per lot. Anyone have the ability/information to calculate the actual surface area under the development/density?

All the parking looks to be accessed from the alley, which is rare in a lot of proposals these days, and is nice to see.

There are several zoning issues involved here, relevant to the form-based code that various stakeholders in the neighborhood worked hard on to set development expectations in neighborhood:

• The western end of the parcel is zoned Neighborhood General Type 3 (NG3). It is supposed "to establish a flexible, mixed-use residential area that enhances and densifies" and allow "the establishment of more neighborhood services, corner retailing, and vibrant streetscapes." Buildings are to be built at zero lot line on the primary street, be 2-4 stories tall, with a building form at least 80% of build-to-line. The parking maximum is 1 space per dwelling unit for residential. Podium buildings are not listed among allowable building types.
• The eastern end of the parcel is zoned Neighborhood Center Type 1 (NC1). It is supposed "to establish a mixed-use, main street character that enhances and densifies the walkable commercial corridor at the heart of the neighborhood." Buildings are to be built at zero lot line on the primary street, be 3-6 stories tall, with a building form of 100% of the build-to-line on the primary street. Podium buildings are an allowed building type. The parking maximum is 1 space per dwelling unit for residential. Residential units on the first floor are a conditional use.
• The request for their initial proposal was to rezone the NC1 type into NG3, to allow first floor residential rather than commercial space on the first floor.
• Their current request is to rezone as NC1, presumably to allow a 5 story building and a podium building.
• Once rezoned, they are requesting a variance to not have first floor commercial.
• I don't know if they need an additional variance regarding the building form of 100% of the build-to-line, with the amenity deck set back on the primary street facade
• As I said above, I like the density and think a 5 story building is totally reasonable here, despite the code limiting height to 4 stories for part of the development.
• I am ok nixing a commercial component. While NC1 essentially requires commercial on the first floor, and NG3 encourages it, this building is not actually on Manchester, and there is still a fair amount of retail space waiting to be activated on Manchester and corner buildings throughout the neighborhood. Plus, you know, pandemic, Amazon, etc.
• The parking provided is within the zoning max and seems reasonable. I suspect they would be fine with less parking, but don't have any stats to back that up.
• Amenity deck seems fine.
• The initial proposal had first-floor living space, with entrances from the street and windows onto the street. I can't tell from the rendering if there is any residential on the first floor, or if those windows are fake windows masking the garage, but that would be my guess.
• The current proposal does not meet the criteria of "vibrant streetscapes." First-floor commercial makes a vibrant street via the commercial establishments, even if they are wrapped around a parking podium. First floor residential, when accessed from the street, also contributes to vibrancy, as do real first-floor windows. A garage, not so much. The lobby would help somewhat, but since it is at one end of the building, rather than entrances scattered along the length of the building as in the initial proposal, I think it is still a street quality step back from the prior proposal.
• Overall, I think the merging of the two zoning codes results in a mild improvement in building height, but a significant downgrade in street interactivity, and is trying to take the least-interactive features of the two zoning codes they are trying to merge.

Some design quibbles:

• What is the deal with the Juliet balconies on the side of the building? The windows do not appear to go down to the balcony. Rendering issue? Or faux balconies on the side of the building, analogous to the fake shutters that would clearly not cover a window if they were functional a la the Aventura or the bank on the corner of Manchester and Tower Grove (the goofiest ones are the windows that just have a single shutter, one just one side of the window). And why have them at all on the first floor, fake or not?
• I am surprised they did not put balconies on the primary facade
• Maybe it is the cartoony rendering making the mansard roof look bad, but I think they are heading for an entry on Badmansard. I think if you are going to put a mansard roof on a building in a city that has some beautiful mansard roofs and knows what they should look like, you should do it right. If you can't, then do something different. The alternating unornamented round windows and the ornamented triangular windows seem to be trying to combine a modern version of a mansard window with a historic version, but doing neither well. Hard to tell what the material on the roof is, but I suspect it would not be the hexagonal-style tile with varying colors like most St. Louis mansards.
• Are the other materials listed anywhere?
• The original design had almost a row-house feel, with alternating bays and entrances that gave a nice rhythm to the building. There are still some existing buildings on this block, and even though the proposal was 4 stories while the surviving buildings are 2 stories, the initial proposal seemed like it would do a better job of mimicking the way other intact residential parts of the neighborhood feel, with some variation in the street wall, frequent entrances to the street, etc. The new proposal is only a story taller but seems much more imposing, more monolithic, etc. If they could incorporate some design features to make the primary facade more varied, have a better rhythm, etc., it would make it seem less like an apartment building dropped in from space, and more like natural growth in the neighborhood that merged with its neighbors.

Last point, getting support from Park Central in 2018 to demolish 5 buildings based on one proposal, then 2 years later coming back with a different proposal once the buildings are  gone, is bound to upset people no matter the quality of the new proposal. There have been several similar episodes in our neighborhood over the past few years. They each seem reasonable as one-offs, but in the aggregate it seems to be a pattern, and once the buildings are demolished a major bargaining chip is also gone. I am not surprised people are upset.

My only quibble with this updated development, which I think aligns with most of the feedback I've seen posted here already, is the aesthetics. The updated proposal looks like a 1980's Richmond Heights apartment complex. And while I love seeing nods to historic St. Louis architecture, this location probably should lean more towards a simple, clean design. I personally would love to see more contemporary new construction, like 4321 Manchester's design.  But assuming that's completely out of the picture, just apply the aesthetic of 4400 Manchester here and I think it would be a major improvement. 

@rbeedee that's a fantastic analysis sir. Thanks much for the context, it's very much appreciated.

@doellingd welcome to the board! Have been following you on Twitter for a while. Hope you stick around, and thanks for raising awareness.


The updated rendering is better in some regards and worse in others. I am more encouraged by the second rendering posted by Chris.  My hope is that there's something agreeable ground between the 'more units = better, so let's accept it as-is' and the 'this is an abomination, cancel it'  points of view, and compromise can be achieved.

-RBB

And



10 years... wow. A good reminder that good development takes time. Lots of time.