urbanSTL

BellaVilla wrote: ↑

May 12, 2021

urbanitas wrote: ↑

May 11, 2021

I'm not even sure if this is a McBride home, since it seems to be a completely different style than the others, but what in the actual f*ck is going on at the roof? It's like the architect couldn't decide between a gable roof or a cornice, soz, "Let's do both!"  

And those porch posts...  It's all vaguely, I don't know...like some sort of Georgian-Italian Renaissance mishmash? Is this trying to mimick some architectural style in the area of which I am completely unaware?

 

......and its still the best looking house in that shot

It is.

Trash the weird cornice gable combo, just go with one or the other, take off the porch, and it could be quite nice.

I neglected to mention the oddest feature of the cornice gable thing. It's that narrow strip of asphalt shingle roof on top of the cornice...

It's a nod to the Clemens mansion, right?  Or maybe the dwindling Clayton esthetic.  McBride on the Hill definitely not a marriage made in heaven.  Worst local home builder in one of the most solid city neighborhoods shows we'll accept just about anything a developer presents.

The Bad Mansard blog:

http://badmansard.blogspot.com/

STLinCHI wrote: ↑

May 12, 2021

It's a nod to the Clemens mansion, right?

Maybe that's what they were going for, Greek Revival, but it's more like a slap in the face than a nod.

Greek Revival has the triangular pediment, but it's always above some sort of colonnade, like so:



And I'm pretty sure it doesn't usually involve asphalt shingles anywhere inside the pediment...

framer wrote: ↑

May 13, 2021

The Bad Mansard blog:

http://badmansard.blogspot.com/

You're just trolling me with that. Surely. Also . . . holy crap is that Holly Hills example awful.

Reminds me of a bit of bad 80s architecture where I once had the displeasure of paying rent.

34 of the 58 homes are complete or underway. The apartment building's precast parking garage is going up and the outline of that building is clearly visible.

Been loving watching this development get built.  I know it's "McBride" but it's not their typical suburban cookie cutter homes, the style matches the rest of the neighborhood well, the finishes look high quality from what I've seen, and I love how they're right up on the street and not setback/spaced far apart.  Really a good city build.

Also, St. Louis could desperately use more new housing stock and it's great the see The Hill continue to grow.  Hope this spurs more new city friendly neighborhoods.

McBride is reportedly going to use some of these home designs in their project in Crestwood. I wonder if they will put in an alley so they can have detached garages or if they will just tack a front-facing garage onto the side of them.

npav wrote: ↑

Jun 07, 2021

Been loving watching this development get built.  I know it's "McBride" but it's not their typical suburban cookie cutter homes, the style matches the rest of the neighborhood well, the finishes look high quality from what I've seen, and I love how they're right up on the street and not setback/spaced far apart.  Really a good city build.

Also, St. Louis could desperately use more new housing stock and it's great the see The Hill continue to grow.  Hope this spurs more new city friendly neighborhoods.

true, they are instead atypical, ugly, cheap-looking, cookie-cutter homes. they're really the bottom of the faux historic barrel. not sure how these horribly value-engineered styles match the rest of the neighborhood. and i assume you're talking about the interior finishes, because the exterior ones look awful. density-wise it's slightly better than suburbia. i'll give you that.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Jun 08, 2021

npav wrote: ↑

Jun 07, 2021

Been loving watching this development get built.  I know it's "McBride" but it's not their typical suburban cookie cutter homes, the style matches the rest of the neighborhood well, the finishes look high quality from what I've seen, and I love how they're right up on the street and not setback/spaced far apart.  Really a good city build.

Also, St. Louis could desperately use more new housing stock and it's great the see The Hill continue to grow.  Hope this spurs more new city friendly neighborhoods.

true, they are instead atypical, ugly, cheap-looking, cookie-cutter homes. they're really the bottom of the faux historic barrel. not sure how these horribly value-engineered styles match the rest of the neighborhood. and i assume you're talking about the interior finishes, because the exterior ones look awful. density-wise it's slightly better than suburbia. i'll give you that.

Maybe it's just my personal opinion, I though they did a pretty good job of making something that would appeal to new home buyers and not look TOTALLY out of place in The Hill, they didn't try to put Chesterfield style cul de sacs and McMansions, we got homes/streets that added to the grid and expand the neighborhood, and this is one of the few new single family housing projects of any decent size happening within city limits.

I think these homes will sell fast and open the door to more single family projects in the city, long term home owners will be important for building strong neighborhoods, and it is currently one of the strongest assets of The Hill.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Jun 06, 2021

Is there a window shortage or something?

It's bad enough facing the gangway in the middle of a block, but one small window on a blank three-story wall facing the street, on top of the blank garage wall, is just unacceptable.  And from what I can see from the aerial shot, this isn't the only one.

5 permits issued for new homes
2109 ROBERT RUGGERI PL
2107 ROBERT RUGGERI PL
2113 ROBERT RUGGERI PL
2124 BOARDMAN ST
2108 ROBERT RUGGERI PL

This pace at which these are selling is strong evidence of the opportunity that was missed. Yeah, its better than nothing, but, damn, it is worse than MANY alternatives.

^Haven't been following closely, but curious. The pace? Fast or slow?

Fast - which to me means that while some UrbanSTL peeps in general may hate this type of development and the details of how it's being executed, it's tapping into the exact market that McBride identified as having strong demand or was underserved.  Let's not be lazy and just say "see, these are selling fast! they should have done XYZ instead!" Any developer (or investor) who thinks the St. Louis market can support an alternative has a boat load of empty land in the city to build on.  Short of someone else actually proposing one of the "many alternatives" and that development taking off, the only data point we have is that McBride appears to have succeeded based upon their price point, site plan, and floorplan options for this specific opportunity.  

If anything, I think that the success of La Collina shows that the strong demand for this type of development could be a way to finally get some new large scale residential north of Delmar.  Work with McBride to identify areas north of the central corridor and try to get some of this underserved market to go a little further north than they may have otherwise been looking.

^Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

Getting off the topic a little bit but using La Collina footprint is their some parts of West Downtown/Midtown that fit well?  I think a few have noted that some form of row house development will be a nice add.   La Collina not quite row house but at same time feel the density of the residential housing part inter mix with some multi units/mid rise would work well to fill in the remaining parts of the central corridor 

The reason these houses are selling fast is because they are in The Hill, period.

Because of perceived safety, relative isolation, and genuine neighborhood feel and amenities like no place else in the city, The Hill has always been a highly-desirable neighborhood, as long as I can remember.  But due to neighborhood opposition to certain types of new development and new construction in general, and limited space for it, nobody has been able to put anything together which would translate to "booming neighborhood" metrics.  McBride simply had the resources and reputation to overcome these issues where others have not.

So, the point above shouldn't be dismissed.  Given the obvious desirability and the rate of sales, what might have been had McBride pushed the envelope in terms of construction quality, design, and density, while expanding on all the things that make The Hill a great neighborhood in the first place?

You're basically asking for a completely different developer then.  And a completely different development than what is succeeding.

^Cool. Anyone but Mcbride. They build the ugliest sh!t in town. They get credit for building houses when there's a housing boom? Frankly, good for McBride recognizing that the residents of the hill have bad taste and would approve of their ugly homes. Yay for McBride.

Glad they are successful with this development but the architecture is truly horrible. So easy and no more expensive to have great architecture, we have thousands of examples to choose from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Jul 27, 2021

You're basically asking for a completely different developer then.  And a completely different development than what is succeeding.

Maybe, but I don't believe that McBride is incapable of producing well-designed housing appropriate for the surrounding urban neighborhood.

Nor do I think a "completely different development" is required.

These problems can be solved by properly-employed incentives, no matter who the developer is, if city leadership could ever manage to be proactive instead of reactive.

Two more complaints while we're sh*tting on this:

I appreciate (sarcistically) how close those maple trees are to the front of those houses, and how every other yard has 2-3 utility boxes taking up the rest of the lawn.

Those trees are going to be scraping all over those houses long before they reach maturity, and the ill-placed utility boxes are just bad.