urbanSTL

imran wrote:It’s simply not true that these properties cannot be rehabbed or that it’s cheaper to build new (I’ve worked on one without a back wall myself and would be happy to share how the numbers work out)
I can’t believe that with all the years of experience with historic rehabs in the city/country you would say this.
Attaching a picture from Old North.

Maybe you’re hoping to see something else built here - I get that. Maybe the political will isn’t there - fair enough. Let’s not lean on a narrative that has been debunked many times.

I'm not saying so just because it lacks a back wall. It is much, much worse than that.

The stone foundation is brittle, crumbling. The interior is worse than gutted.

Maybe you're right, but this is more than a simple flip and there seems to be less to save than you might thing. I live nearby and these are very, very rough.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I would imagine that the $1M price tag for these properties is a bigger variable too. Not sure how much you purchased that property imran, but I assume it was for substantially less than what these come out to be individually. I don’t know if the finances of $1M purchase cost + cost of stabilization / full rehab would justify whatever final sales price along this stretch. Not sure these will sell unless a developer has other long term plans for the site that would justify the high acquisition costs.

I was surprised at the price for the parcel, I thought they would have asked for more. Despite it being right on Kingshighway, I would still think it very valuable real estate, though presents some challenges.

Any building is salvageable for a price, but I do not think these particular ones are exceptional, and I would be ok with demolition if they were being replaced with something comparable or better but oppose their demolition for vacant lots (as Drury has frequently requested). I think these 2-story 4-familes are not the highest use of the land, and something a little denser could work here. The form-based code calls for 3-7 stories. In terms of land area, on Google maps this surface area looks bigger than the 4400 Manchester, 4321 Manchester, and some of the smaller apartment buildings going up south of Manchester. Retail might be hard since access is challenging due to the I-64 on-ramp, lack of alignment of Oakland on either side of Kingshighway, and otherwise convoluted access via Taylor --> Oakland/Gibson/Arco, but I don't think retail should be a requirement here.

I was curious how much they had paid for these parcels and when, so I looked them up in Geo St. Louis. It looks like in 2014 they acquired multiple parcels for a total of $1.675 million (1074, 1080, 1084, 1086-88, and 1092-94 S Kingshighway Blvd, and 4575-77 Oakland, as well as some parcels further into the neighborhood listed below). 1076 S Kingshighway Blvd was bought in 2010 for $200,000. Hard to tell if they are selling at a loss or not given the fragmented nature of their purchases over the years and this sale not including all the parcels they bought in 2014. I think this list covers their neighborhood holdings:

4564 Chouteau (bought in 2018, $260,000)
4570 Chouteau (bought in 2019, $406,000)

4521 Gibson (bought in 2008, $129,900)
4571 Gibson (bought in 2011, $178,620)
4575 Gibson (bought in 2017 for $280,000)
4577 Gibson (bought in 2019 in a multi-unit sale for $650,000)
4579-81 Gibson (bought in 2019 in a multi-unit sale for $650,000)
4583 Gibson ((bought in 2019 in a multi-unit sale for $650,000)

4562 Arco (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
4564 Arco (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
4568 Arco (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
4570 Arco (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
4571 Arco (bought in 2019, $325,000)

4559-4561 Oakland (last listed sale in Geo St. Louis 2002 for $125,000, but it transitioned to Drury in 2014 so likely part of that 2014 deal)
4575-77 Oakland (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
4565 Oakland (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
4569 Oakland (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
4571 Oakland (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)

1034 S. Kingshighway, the church (last listed sale in Geo St. Louis "unverified" 2010 and looks like the property changed hands then, $125,000)
1048-1050 S. Kingshighway (sales history says it changed hands 1/24/2011 as "miscellaneous" with $0.00, probably changed hands with the church as their parking lot)
1060 S. Kingshighway (last listed sale was in 1991, and up through 2015, last year with Geo St. Louis Parcel History info, it is listed as being under a different owner)
1074 S. Kingshighway (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
1076 S Kingshighway (bought in 2010 for $200,000)
1080 S. Kinghighway (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
1084 S. Kinghighway (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
1086-88 S. Kinghighway (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)
1092-94 S Kingshighway Blvd (part of $1.625 million 2014 sale)

4583 Gibson is a vacant wedge-shaped lot that pre-dates the Drurys and would be challenging to build on as an isolated development given the size/shape. I would imagine that it, some of their holdings on Chouteau, and the buildings more north on Kingshighway would be attractive to whoever winds up developing the chunk of land by I-64 that WUMCRC bought. 4571 and 4559 Oakland have already been demolished due to neglect while Drury-owned. A few of these other properties are occupied, but many are not and continue to deteriorate, especially on Oakland. I hope these other parcels are also listed for sale so we do not have to continue to watch buildings crumble in a neighborhood that is otherwise seeing a lot of development.

Not surprised at all.

Looking at that, it's easy to see how that area of Kingshighway could be totally transformed.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

Poor 22 is so lonely. I Think someone will come in and propose a building from 10 - 25.

I sense a QuikTrip coming.

I kid. I kid. Hopefully these sites are put to the highest and best usage. 

Curious about the green patch: I assume it's controlled by MODOT, but is some of it potentially available for development? 

framer wrote:Curious about the green patch: I assume it's controlled by MODOT, but is some of it potentially available for development? 

I was wondering the same thing about that green patch. That pedestrian bridge between the Grove and the Central West End makes that area seem pretty attractive to me.

I don't know if MODOT would allow anything there, but the land obviously seems spacious enough to hold something, and I think it would be successful.

According to Google, it would be an 18 minute walk from the green patch to Whole Foods in the Central West End.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

doellingd wrote:The land that was owned by MODOT at Kingshighway/40 is owned by WashU's development corporation, WUMCRC (or Forest West Properties).

First, to catch everyone up, a quick history of these properties:

• Starting over a decade ago in 2007, Drury Corporation began acquiring properties along Kingshighway and in the 4500 blocks of Arco, Gibson, and Chouteau Avenues.
• Their intention was to build one of their Drury branded hotels.
• A two-tower plan was presented to the neighborhood in 2008.
• Since that time, they have continued acquiring properties in that area, including several parcels purchased in the past few months.
• Many of their properties have been boarded up and left in various states of decay as part of a strategy of demolition by neglect.
• In March 2019, a six-family structure at 4559 Oakland succumbed to decay and collapsed, and the Drury Corporation tore it down.
• As recently as 2017, they have stated that they do not want to renovate their other properties because they might demolish those properties later.
• In May 2019, Landmarks Association conducted a survey of the buildings owned by Drury. 11 of their 26 properties are uninhabitable.  3 more are unoccupied.

As for the land owned by WUMCRC:

• This parcel of land was a mixture of Forest Park land and residential properties taken via eminent domain in the 1930s to create a parkway.
• It eventually came to be owned by MODOT when the parkway turned into a state highway.
• A large portion of the land became obsolete for MODOT with the removal of the cloverleaf exchange.
• WUMCRC purchased this land in September 2018.
• In June 2018, WUMCRC issued a Request for Qualifications to developers regarding this parcel.
• In March 2019, rumors started to spread that WUMCRC was in negotiations with the Drury Corporation

Knowing Drury’s history in the neighborhood, and concerned for this large, extremely visible and representative area of FPSE, a number of residents started working together  (around March 2019) to gain more information about what was happening.

• We/They spoke with Alderman Roddy who recommended we speak with Hank Webber at WashU.
• We/They met with Hank Webber of WashU and Brian Phillips, of WUMCRC.
• WUMCRC declined to share the proposals that they have received in response to the RFQ.
• They told us they have not yet selected a developer for their land.
• They confirmed that Drury Corporation is a finalist, and is one of ‘less than three’ viable proposals that they received.
• WUMCRC also listened to our suggestion that there should be a larger community engagement process than normal, due to the size of this land and its impact on the people of this neighborhood.
• They agreed, in principle, that there should be a “robust community engagement” process.
• WUMCRC referred us to Park Central Development to inquire about this process.
• A couple of residents met with Abdul of Park Central Development to make the case for a thoughtful, thorough neighborhood feedback process.  

Through this point, residents involved were advocating for:

• A multi-part process to inform the development of this land.
• Ideally, there would be feedback from the community before Washington University selects a developer for this land.
• This would let WashU know a broader concept of what kind of development would be beneficial to the neighborhood, and would give a developer a chance to make a plan that would be agreeable to a majority of neighbors.
• After WashU has selected a developer, plans should be presented to the neighborhood and residents should have a chance to give feedback on specifics.
• Preferably this process would be facilitated by a third party to ensure impartiality.  This would be similar to the process used to develop the neighborhood Form Based Code. Additionally, a third-party facilitator would be properly staffed and trained to handle neighborhood engagement in a way that reaches all interested residents in this neighborhood.

That timeline can be found in the FPSENA June Minutes.


Jump to August 2019:

• In August, Washington University/WUMCRC pulled the RFQ for the MODOT land, and informed all bidders that they will not be selling the land at this time. They additionally conveyed that if in the future they do re-issue the RFQ, any future proposal would require neighborhood support.
• Shortly afterwards, Drury requested to meet with the (above) FPSE resident group and members of the Development Committee.   
• That group met with Tom Milford, the Director of Development for Drury Corporation, Tim Breihan from H3 (consultants of the neighborhood’s Form Based Code), who is consulting for Drury, and Mark Rubin from Koman Group.
• They want to build a hotel – this would involve the land currently owned by WashU. In order to build a hotel, they would need to build an access road along Kingshighway; this would most likely result in a realignment and opening of Oakland Ave to Kingshighway. A side consideration was that the plan may include additional housing in the form of apartments, which is where Koman might come in, but that is to be determined.  This was included because of the RFQ considerations. If they could not build the hotel and access road they do not have a Plan B. 

More in the November FPSENA meeting minutes.

Jump to December 2019 at a FPSE neighborhood association meeting. Drury & H3 present to residents a process on how to get moving forward on a consensus for community wide feedback and involvement a project that involves the 1.7 acres owned by Forest West Properties plus the 2.9 acres of property owned by Drury. 

• You can dive into presentation here.

In January 2020, the FPSE Neighborhood Association holds a workshop meeting with residents to solicit neighborhood feedback on Drury’s proposed engagement process for redevelopment, and the neighborhood. Passes that feedback to Alderman Roddy and other neighborhood organizations.

March, pandemic hits. Drury pauses talks.

Today: Land at Kingshighway/40 remains under WashU's control. Last I heard (in 2019), they were looking internally for uses. Drury properties are up for sale. How those properties sell and to whom (packaged to developers, individually, etc) is yet to be seen.

IIRC, the two other (non-Drury) RFQ responses in 2019 for the 1.7 acres of WashU land were nice, but weren't viable without heavy use of abatements/incentives.

What residents want to see is mixed, but the consensus is 

• maintaining the housing stock
• easy access to Forest Park 
• The properties along Kingshighway (and thus the perception of the neighborhood) to not look/be dilapidated   
• and no ingress/egress roads from Kingshighway. Nobody wants to lose more of their neighborhood to f*cking roads.

*Phew*. Thanks for reading. 

Dan, your notes as always are phenomenal. You are the glue to this neighborhood's history lol

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Seems like something is in the works. 

I'm excited to hear that the grass parcel is in play. It will be super interesting to see what the neighborhood is okay with. It seems the grass parcel is probably our best bet to see anything with some size. 

But now I'm getting greedy. 

What about the grass lot south of Clayton Ave. and Hudlin Park? The one with a small, lonely playground just north of the exit ramp on the other side of the highway? 

Again, I think the pedestrian bridge makes this area super intriguing for development. I would think a lot of people, particularly BJC employees, would love the connectedness of the area. 

I would think that developing anything on Forest Park land would be a real headache, perhaps even requiring a city-wide vote or something like that. 

That's why I didn't even allow my eyes to wander to that swath of land just north of Oakland Ave. at Kingshighway. I'm fairly confident that's Forest Park land and that it just isn't eligible for development - even if there is a small building there already. 

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2020

What about the grass lot south of Clayton Ave. and Hudlin Park? The one with a small, lonely playground just north of the exit ramp on the other side of the highway? 

Again, I think the pedestrian bridge makes this area super intriguing for development. I would think a lot of people, particularly BJC employees, would love the connectedness of the area. 

That's in Forest Park so subject to city-wide vote.

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2020

framer wrote:Curious about the green patch: I assume it's controlled by MODOT, but is some of it potentially available for development? 

I was wondering the same thing about that green patch. That pedestrian bridge between the Grove and the Central West End makes that area seem pretty attractive to me.

I don't know if MODOT would allow anything there, but the land obviously seems spacious enough to hold something, and I think it would be successful.

I always thought that the pedestrian bridge would make way for a wider corridor incorporating a north - south modern low floor streetcar line running down Euclid through CWE/Barnes/Wash U, a new bridge where the pedestrian bridge is currently located and then hang a left at Chouteau through FPSE and could eventually tie into Iron HIll/SSM/SLU med campus   

quincunx wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2020

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2020

What about the grass lot south of Clayton Ave. and Hudlin Park? The one with a small, lonely playground just north of the exit ramp on the other side of the highway? 

Again, I think the pedestrian bridge makes this area super intriguing for development. I would think a lot of people, particularly BJC employees, would love the connectedness of the area. 

That's in Forest Park so subject to city-wide vote.

I'm not sure why anybody would be opposed to construction on that parcel - unless they consider it to be a slippery slope issue. 

That area doesn't have much residential currently - and this location would be perfect for it. It would provide tremendously easy access into Forest Park, the Central West End, the Grove, and Cortex. The walk into Forest Park is also very near to where Forest Park Forever is going to build that pavilion for Jefferson Lake. 

You would also have Hudlin Park right there. This could be a truly fantastic area for some medical and tech professionals with families to settle down. 

KansasCitian wrote:

quincunx wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2020

KansasCitian wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2020

What about the grass lot south of Clayton Ave. and Hudlin Park? The one with a small, lonely playground just north of the exit ramp on the other side of the highway? 

Again, I think the pedestrian bridge makes this area super intriguing for development. I would think a lot of people, particularly BJC employees, would love the connectedness of the area. 

That's in Forest Park so subject to city-wide vote.

I'm not sure why anybody would be opposed to construction on that parcel - unless they consider it to be a slippery slope issue. 

That area doesn't have much residential currently - and this location would be perfect for it. It would provide tremendously easy access into Forest Park, the Central West End, the Grove, and Cortex. The walk into Forest Park is also very near to where Forest Park Forever is going to build that pavilion for Jefferson Lake. 

You would also have Hudlin Park right there. This could be a truly fantastic area for some medical and tech professionals with families to settle down. 

I always have the same thought about the park lots fronting DeBaliviere between FPP and Lindell. Anytime I bring it up, people dismiss it (not saying that Quincunx is doing that here) by saying it requires a city wide vote and my follow-up thought is, “would city voters strike down cash flow for unused park space that could become popular commercial space?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk