urbanSTL

From the petition:

"The ease of getting in and out of Waterman Boulevard and Pershing Avenue on to DeBaliviere Ave and Union Blvd is a problem."

Well then freakin' open up some of your blocked-off intersections! QED. Sheesh. 

That petition is a hot mess.

"It serves as green space for an already dense neighborhood. It has become the space where neighbors walk their dogs, and where neighbors gather to chit chat and socialize, and it almost defines our street."

Oh please, it's a parking lot with some small grassy hills on the sides.

"As you know, the DeBaliviere Place area has become over-developed and over-saturated."

Apartment occupancy there is extremely high thanks to WashU and the nearby Central West End. It's not over-developed when there's demand for more.

"The ease of getting in and out of Waterman Boulevard and Pershing Avenue on to DeBaliviere Ave and Union Blvd is a problem"

Then how about reopening... 
- Waterman to Debaliviere 
- Clara to Delmar 
That would ease some traffic concerns as more entry/exit points are created.

"You’ve been living in your home for 20 years. It’s where you live among other homes & neighbors. Then a 5 story apartment building with 60 units will be built right next to your home or even on your same block. It will tower over your roof & home"

The height seems fine and comparable to the neighbors.

"It encroaches upon the green space to which you’ve been accustomed. It disrupts the feel and culture of the area around your home, around your neighbors’ homes, and on your street."

Ah yes, my beloved parking lot. What a cultural landmark. Would be such a shame to lose it. The OG of DeBaliviere Place. Anything but the parking lot!

"Ask yourself: Is it common to have a 5-story apartment building with 60 units set among a residential area? Is it common to have a large scale apartment building with modern architecture set among historic residential buildings?"

Yes. Just look around at your own neighborhood and get back to me.

"Is it common that you would support a 5-story 60 unit apartment building in your own neighborhood, on your own street and or next to your own home?"

I certainly would and would be the first to stand up and support such a project. One less underutilized and unsightly lot. Unfortunately, I live in an area where we have no more lots to be developed, especially next door to me.

I signed it just to comment.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Almost every parcel in the neighborhood has some green space. It's such a red hearing, drives me crazy.

I moved to DeBaliviere Place in 1995 and lived there almost continuously as a renter and later a condo owner until 2005.  A few observations:

I don't ever recall there being eight garages anywhere in the neighborhood - I don't know where that crazy talk is coming from.

Nobody ever used the "green space" at Waterman and Clara.  The fountain at Pershing and Clara was a nice gathering place, however.  

And sure, it's a dense neighborhood, but you have FOREST FREAKING PARK a couple of blocks to the south.  And the Ruth Porter Mall to the north, for that matter.  There's plenty of breathing room.

This would be a great time to reopen Waterman at DeBaliviere.

If you support, write Alderwoman Navarro and the Board of Adjustment.

debaliviere wrote:I moved to DeBaliviere Place in 1995 and lived there almost continuously as a renter and later a condo owner until 2005.  A few observations:

I don't ever recall there being eight garages anywhere in the neighborhood - I don't know where that crazy talk is coming from.

Nobody ever used the "green space" at Waterman and Clara.  The fountain at Pershing and Clara was a nice gathering place, however.  

And sure, it's a dense neighborhood, but you have FOREST FREAKING PARK a couple of blocks to the south.  And the Ruth Porter Mall to the north, for that matter.  There's plenty of breathing room.

This would be a great time to reopen Waterman at DeBaliviere.

I really wish the city could get all those private streets to open (at the very least to pedestrians and cyclists).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Mar 02, 2021

That petition is a hot mess.

"It serves as green space for an already dense neighborhood. It has become the space where neighbors walk their dogs, and where neighbors gather to chit chat and socialize, and it almost defines our street."

Do they not realize that the lot is private property and not a public park? 

And yes, it's "an already dense neighborhood." Hence why this project would fit right in. 

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Mar 02, 2021

I signed it just to comment.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I thought about doing that too. and since I don't even live in MO I'm not too concerned that it would help the NIMBYs' cause.

A commenter on the petition claims the new buildings haven't met the 1 parking space per unit. I confess I don't know the final counts in two of them. The LCRA agenda docs are illegible, surprise, surprise. I remember Tribeca having 279 spaces, but that was before a floor was cut.
Tribeca
Chelsea 
Hudson 163 spaces for 150 apts

No one on that NextDoor thread seems to grasp that if the current parking minimums had always existed the neighborhood wouldn't exist as it does today. One commenter posted that "the zoning codes that are already in place that protect the look, feel, and historic nature of Waterman Boulevard." not realizing that the parking minimums actually undermine the look, feel, and historic nature of the neighborhood, requiring parking podiums and parking lots that none of those pre-war buildings included. 

'gasm I'd like to get on there and get your back, but the idea of wading into that cauldron of delusion is a tough prospect. 

stlgasm wrote:

wabash wrote: ↑

Mar 03, 2021

No one on that NextDoor thread seems to grasp that if the current parking minimums had always existed the neighborhood wouldn't exist as it does today. One commenter posted that "the zoning codes that are already in place that protect the look, feel, and historic nature of Waterman Boulevard." not realizing that the parking minimums actually undermine the look, feel, and historic nature of the neighborhood, requiring parking podiums and parking lots that none of those pre-war buildings included. 

'gasm I'd like to get on there and get your back, but the idea of wading into that cauldron of delusion is a tough prospect. 

Great points, and I don’t blame you! Not sure why I allowed myself to get sucked in, but sometimes I can’t help myself...

I have to think that the insistence of 48 parking spaces in this project is partially responsible for them breaking the setback.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So... the NIMBYs won a bit with this? I guess they'll get a shortened building with more parking to appease the NIMBYs. Shameful. 

Would be funny if the new proposal was taller just to spite them. 

I'd like to see it taller, but set back to match the existing building line.

I realize 11am on a nice Saturday isn't peak parking demand time, but there were loads of open street spaces around this site.

Here's my favorite oxymoronic comment from the Nextdoor thread:

"Perhaps people are leaving St. Louis due to overdensity and over-development?"

framer wrote:Here's my favorite oxymoronic comment from the Nextdoor thread:

"Perhaps people are leaving St. Louis due to overdensity and over-development?"

To quote our local Yogi Berra: “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

framer wrote: ↑

Mar 09, 2021

Here's my favorite oxymoronic comment from the Nextdoor thread:

"Perhaps people are leaving St. Louis due to overdensity and over-development?"

how do these *sshats not realize how f*cking ludicrous they sound? you have to wonder if this person has ever set foot in an actual city.