^ The surface lot behind the building across the alley and the one across Lindell (between the Pizza Hut and Jack in the Box) appear to be pre-existing. I'd think the FBC doesn't require construction on lots that are already there?
^ The surface lot behind the building across the alley and the one across Lindell (between the Pizza Hut and Jack in the Box) appear to be pre-existing. I'd think the FBC doesn't require construction on lots that are already there?
The whole point of the FBC is to guide what form new construction takes. IIRC the FBC specifies no surface parking a certain feet from the sidewalk .Pre-existmg or not, that should be considered as part and parcel of this new plan. I am also concerned about the multiple curb cuts when there is alley access. These may also be pre-existing (or one of them associated with the building not being torn down). Stroad Variances like this impact the future of Lindell.
Pulled these from the Union at the Grove thread...would love to see some similar treatments on this building. The stepped facade, darker colors, some brickwork...all of that would look better here than what has so far been proposed.
You're not wrong. It really isn't hard to imagine anything that is more imaginative than this.
I get that it'll be revised, but your cold call to an employer shouldn't be a 15 year resume of entry level positions expecting to get the management job. It's lazy. And by that factor, I don't have faith that the end product is going to be quality either, no matter how much fluff you push.
urban_dilettante wrote:^ did the previous (horribly ugly) proposal for these sites fall through or is this sale related to that proposal?
Garrison Development is really a hit or miss firm. So this could be them, but could also be someone else. They’re really slow with things. Personally, I expect this is someone else and that Garrison missed their chance.
Went to the Laclede-West Pine Neighborhood Meeting on 41 Lindell earlier this week. The developers were asking for a variance to the CWE Form Based Code that would allow the building to be built all the way back to the very edge of the alleyway property line. They had an updated rendering, which looked slightly improved but for which you had to search for changes (some more brick, no corton steel). The developers also said the ABNA building's owners were steadfast on keeping their property, akin to talking to a brick wall. They said they were trying to be "good neighbors", which I'd say they were being overall. Also, leadership from Places for People were there, along with their real estate agent. Specifically for this meeting, the head of the development company drove in from KC; they also had their legal counsel and constructors on hand, plus their architect on speakerphone. After the presentation was the neighborhood meeting, held absent the presenters...
The neighborhood meeting was, as can be expected, a bowl of mixed nuts. The consensus is that people didn't like the building's external aesthetics, nor did the adjacent homeowners want their alleyway blocked up (they're apparently having problems with the alley from the Artizen's construction and don't want a repeat). Some didn't like the idea of partying kids coming to their neighborhood (where would they park?), others thought it maybe could lead to increased crime, and some just didn't want anything to change. It was frustrating as hell. Some recognized they were being wholly NIMBY. An architect, who hates the external design, thought it would be better to wait for another developer - who may have a better design - to come forward. Some said they've been in the neighborhood decades, before the other recent developments came in (i.e. 4101 Laclede), and that they should ask for better. Then again, others said that, should that mythical new developer materialize, they could come without wanting to be a friendly neighbor and build whatever they want without thought to what the neighbors would prefer aesthetically or design-wise (i.e. the site allows for 12-storey buildings, current proposal is for just 6). Some thought they should ask for more concessions from the developers towards the neighborhood, a "what else can we get out of it" idea. And, one person thought maybe there should be some resident restrictions for the building, fearing late-night partiers, before being told that, legally speaking, she was asking if there could be some new form of housing discrimination to keep certain people out of the neighborhood. Whoops.
There was a consensus vote. No one voted in favor. Many voted against, primarily for aesthetics, others for whatever personal reasons they had. Many abstained - me included - to get the Neighborhood Group to work with the developers to alleviate their concerns. I made sure to say aloud that they should get a concession for a dedicated contact person to make sure neighbors who back up to the alley from this site have full access to their properties throughout the build, that this would be reasonable, and that otherwise I'm in favor of it being built. And, that they should make sure to keep talking with the developers, not to just say "no" and effectively give the developers the NIMBY finger.
The main idea for the neighborhood vote, by the way, was to provide context to Alderwoman Pihl (who attended) as she talks with the developer about what's going to happen going forward, particularly with their requested alleyway variance (maybe also with some tax credits on materials or something else that I can't remember right now).
Personally, I could see the external design improved some.
I also think it's a good product for the neighborhood.
And, I wouldn't mind 12-storeys instead of just 6.
Thanks to Northwest Coffee for hosting this after hours (with fresh half-caf coffee brewed up).
I don't like the look of the apartment building personally, but appreciate the increased density. The thing I really dislike about the proposal is the three curbcuts and parking lot they propose in front of the apartment building. That could make walking down Lindell in front of the building unsafe, I wish they could just access the parking from the alley. If they fixed the curb cut issue I'd support.
IIRC The plans today are for one curb cut onto Lindell, entering the site via the turn currently existing that'd serve both the ABNA building and 41 Lindell. This curb cut would allow for entrance into the building's parking garage, as well as a second entrance to the garage via the alley. Therefore, this proposal should eliminate 2 curb cuts that currently exist onto Lindell - again, if my memory serves me well here.
^Think so. Again, IIRC, it'll be one garage entrance fronting Lindell and one from the alley. That image is sourced from the Park Central Development tweet from the other day that chriss752 also has posted above, right? I can say that the rendering on the left side of the building was presented differently last week at that neighborhood meeting, that certain aesthetic features are different (more brick, no cordon steel, things like that). I'm feeling less certain of my memory with every letter I type here, but otherwise I'll stand by what I recalled above. I'll gladly take more confirmation to how many curb cuts there'd be, so whoever knows more than me out there (and I'm sure there's plenty), please chime in.
These images are a little old and show some of the changes made since the first version came out. This plan includes 232 apartments (down from 254) and between 219-223 parking spaces (down from 258).
respectfully, are we kidding? how is this better? it's worse than the previous design. all they did was glue a bunch of boxes to a featureless facade to make it busier (because that's what passes for design now) and add another shade of vomit to the "color" palette. oh, but they thoughtlessly slapped some beige brick around the base to distract from the 5-story abortion sitting on top. so there's that, i guess.
This!
