Strange that this project is dying on the vine while they recently released those updated renderings upsizing their proposal on Arco.
This is not Restoration St. Louis.wabash wrote:Strange that this project is dying on the vine while they recently released those updated renderings upsizing their proposal on Arco.
Oh right. Thanks. I got this mixed up with the RestorationSTL project near 4444 Manchester.chriss752 wrote: ↑Sep 25, 2020This is not Restoration St. Louis.wabash wrote:Strange that this project is dying on the vine while they recently released those updated renderings upsizing their proposal on Arco.
This was a thought provoking design. With the Brutalist side facing the best views. A long distance cousin of the Serra sculpture.
- 2,623
At least the fences are no longer blocking the sidewalk
Yes, apart from the base, it was a stellar design, no doubt. But drawings are cheap.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Sep 26, 2020This was a thought provoking design. With the Brutalist side facing the best views. A long distance cousin of the Serra sculpture.
Question is: Was that rendering ever even genuine, or just distractingly-sweet eye candy?
4 years ago, this week; how time flies:
nextSTL- Contemporary Mid-Rise Proposal Chosen by City for Prominent Site in The Grove
nextSTL- Contemporary Mid-Rise Proposal Chosen by City for Prominent Site in The Grove
- 2,419
4101 Manchester has been a vacant, non-construction site for as long as I have been a resident of St. Louis City (July 2019).
I think it's absolutely insane that that site has been able to sit there like that over a year-and-a-half.
I think it's absolutely insane that that site has been able to sit there like that over a year-and-a-half.
- 592
Back in my day post incoming...4101 Manchester has been a vacant, non-construction site for as long as I have been a resident of St. Louis City (July 2019).
I think it's absolutely insane that that site has been able to sit there like that over a year-and-a-half.
In 2008, I was a newish resident of the city, and our fair city allowed the demolition of the Doctor's Building at N. Euclid and West Pine around then. It took five years before the hole was filled, and another two years before the Orion opened (or CityWalk, or whatever the Whole Foods apartments is calling itself these days). Many moons ago, St. Louis demolished dozens of city blocks of downtown real estate and left it as an open parking lot for about... twenty years. So I guess the fact that now residents are agitated after only a year and a half is progress!
Edit for clarifying my recollection that it actually was five years an open hole, then two years to build the thing.
It's not unusual for construction sites to be vacated for long periods of time. It happens all over the country, every time we journey through an economic valley. There was a site near me in Chicago where they had completed about 1 1/2 floors of a 5-story concrete block building, and then left it that way for several years. Picture prolific weeds in between piles of gravel and concrete blocks, with rusted steel and rebar sticking out everywhere...KansasCitian wrote: ↑Feb 11, 20214101 Manchester has been a vacant, non-construction site for as long as I have been a resident of St. Louis City (July 2019).
I think it's absolutely insane that that site has been able to sit there like that over a year-and-a-half.
That said, there is a procedure in place to prevent that situation for high-profile development projects like this. For whatever reason, that procedure has been ignored.
The 4101 Manchester parcel was a parking lot operated by the city, and owned by the LRA. In 2016, the developer answered a RFP issued by the city to redevelop the property, and was selected from amongst three competing proposals. That competition ostensibly considered each developer's ability to complete their proposal.wabash wrote: ↑Feb 12, 2021What's the procedure?urbanitas wrote: ↑Feb 12, 2021It's not unusual for construction sites to be vacated for long periods of time. It happens all over the country, every time we journey through an economic valley. There was a site near me in Chicago where they had completed the first floor of a 5-story concrete block building, and then left it that way for several years. Picture prolific weeds in between piles of gravel and concrete blocks, with rusted steel and rebar sticking out everywhere...KansasCitian wrote: ↑Feb 11, 20214101 Manchester has been a vacant, non-construction site for as long as I have been a resident of St. Louis City (July 2019).
I think it's absolutely insane that that site has been able to sit there like that over a year-and-a-half.
That said, there is a procedure in place to prevent that situation for high-profile development projects like this. For whatever reason, that procedure has, so far, been ignored.
One of the conditions of the RFP was that the winner of the competition was to sign a redevelopment agreement with the city within 6 months of taking possession of the property, and that that agreement would in turn start a 2 year development clock. If construction was not substantially complete when the clock expired, then the LRA could effectively repurchase the property for some price that should have been stated in the agreement.
Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that, but that clock should have expired awhile ago. So, the city has chosen to ignore some part of that procedure for some reason, as there has been no extension agreement.
Anyone know of any updates on this site? With all the other activity in the Grove, I am surprised this site has remained so quiet.
It has remained quiet because it's a steaming mess and the owner is well-connected. He's clearly not capable of getting anything done here, and yet will not be reasonable about letting the property go, even though he acquired it from the city for a song...rbeedee wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2021Anyone know of any updates on this site? With all the other activity in the Grove, I am surprised this site has remained so quiet.
Still nothing on this? That fence is such a hindrance to the neighborhood
- 2,053
I think with all of the momentum in mixed use right now... this lot, the arco lot, and the vandeventer lots are hopefully coming soon.
- 2,430
May I ask who is the owner? Has a NYC address or is that basically a financial backer for a local developer? Anyway, I asked about this frustrating (non?)-project on twitter after a mention of a Mexican restaurant coming next door.urbanitas wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2021It has remained quiet because it's a steaming mess and the owner is well-connected. He's clearly not capable of getting anything done here, and yet will not be reasonable about letting the property go, even though he acquired it from the city for a song...Mayrbeedee wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2021Anyone know of any updates on this site? With all the other activity in the Grove, I am surprised this site has remained so quiet.
^ Answering my own question, I see after reviewing this thread that the developer, Spencer Development, is led by a Matthew Spencer apparently from the area (and not from NYC). And apparently his brother is Sean Spencer, who presently sits on the LCRA Board. This is an interesting situation regarding the 2 year completion clock and why SLDC/LCRA may be letting this go.
Anyway, whether by Spencer or somebody else hopefully this gets on track soon (I hesitate to say "back on track" as I'm not sure it ever was on one).
Anyway, whether by Spencer or somebody else hopefully this gets on track soon (I hesitate to say "back on track" as I'm not sure it ever was on one).
For sale for $2.2M. The Assessor appraises it at $288k.
https://www.cbre.com/properties/propert ... s-mo-63110
https://www.cbre.com/properties/propert ... s-mo-63110
Head scratcher
| SPENCER DEVELOPMENT LLC | Building | 01/29/2025 | SOOCCER | $155,000.00 | EXT ALTS (CONCRETE PAD) PER PLANS |
- 3,762
"SOOCCER"
i'm guessing this "temporary pitch" nonsense (saw your bluesky post) is a soft segue into a semi-permanent parking lot until the owner/speculator gets whatever insane amount of money he thinks he deserves.
i'm guessing this "temporary pitch" nonsense (saw your bluesky post) is a soft segue into a semi-permanent parking lot until the owner/speculator gets whatever insane amount of money he thinks he deserves.
- 922
[face palm] can we please just make this, 4014 Chouteau and 4571 Manchester fantastic wedge buildings that are the signature entrances into the grove, which itself is a big wedge. It would only make too much sense
Between this and 4571, can we please stop with making them yards. The Grove is incredibly popular - let’s build
Between this and 4571, can we please stop with making them yards. The Grove is incredibly popular - let’s build
- 62
- 922
^I really do not like this plan - flat out no. Build here.