^ me too. i'm almost positive it used to be PRB.
I think it does.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jul 03, 2021i think i recall that being on the National Register does not guarantee preservation review. correct?
Here's the city's webpage on the city's historic districts.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... tricts.cfm
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... tricts.cfm
City or Local Historic Districts are created by Ordinance at the request of the Alderman and/or property owners in the district. The designation process for local districts requires that a petition be filed: by the staff of the St. Louis Preservation Board; the Alderman of the ward with the proposed district; or by at least 10% of the property owners within it. After numerous public hearings, the Preservation Board and the Board of Aldermen must approve the petition for the district to be designated.
- 3,762
^ yeah, "numerous public hearings" aside, i feel like 10% of property owners shouldn't be allowed to dictate subjective and sometimes rather arbitrary aesthetic standards for the other 90% and all future residents and construction.
These height restrictions also seem to be in tension with the city's sustainability/climate change goals, where denser land use is important to achieving those goals (in addition to the economic benefits to the city writ large). We had a long stretch of trying to fill in streetscape holes even in our most popular neighborhoods, but we are getting close to a point where we have to think about trade-offs, like preserving neighborhood scale versus building more densely in the places people want to live, and how broadly historic preservation criteria should be applied. Good problems to have in the big picture.
- 2,663
Would really like if the city would identify areas where it wants to concentrate density and streamline the process for tall buildings to get approved in those specific districts. How many of those Lindell apartment projects got killed or shortened by complaining neighbors? Especially annoying when Lindell is the CWEs densest corridor going through neighborhoods filled with single family homes and mansions that aren't going anywhere.
If there are any neighbors/nearby residents on this forum who were in support of this project the last time around, please email me at Chris@4thStreetPartners.com
I hope the response from neighbors is more welcoming this time around than last time.
I present a revised proposal for this site this evening to the immediate neighbors to kick off the hopeful approval process of the latest plans. Until the meeting is complete, and maybe even next week's, I will not share any images yet but I will say this...
I present a revised proposal for this site this evening to the immediate neighbors to kick off the hopeful approval process of the latest plans. Until the meeting is complete, and maybe even next week's, I will not share any images yet but I will say this...
- The new proposal takes into account the concerns neighbors had with the previous proposal especially when it comes to building height and parking.
- Parking here is at a 1:1 ratio in the newest plans. The curb cut along Waterman could not be removed due to there being no alley. Curb cut on Clara, in the previous plans, was removed.
- Height falls just below the maximum for the site (average of the block + 15%). The maximum height for this site is 43ft, 7in.
- Setback requirements on Waterman and Clara are met.
- Facade materials are brick with a little bit of metal accenting. Brick colors will match the red and darker brick colors found throughout the neighborhood.
Anyone know if there's been any opposition to the latest proposal that I've been apart of?
https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/waterman-and-clara
https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/waterman-and-clara
No matter what the scale and aesthetic of the project/proposal, as we've already (sadly) seen, opposition will primarily arise out of two key concerns: parking and traffic.chriss752 wrote: ↑Sep 10, 2021Anyone know if there's been any opposition to the latest proposal that I've been apart of?
https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/waterman-and-clara
I just don’t understand how people until this day that live in a city are concerned about parking and traffic! The whole purpose of cities is to have urbanism and everything at walking distance!wabash wrote:No matter what the scale and aesthetic of the project/proposal, as we've already (sadly) seen, opposition will primarily arise out of two key concerns: parking and traffic.chriss752 wrote: ↑Sep 10, 2021Anyone know if there's been any opposition to the latest proposal that I've been apart of?
https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/waterman-and-clara
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True. The parking issue was brought up a few times at the neighbor meetings I had. I told them that since there are 55 spaces for 54 apartments, I don't think any of the residents will be parking on the street especially since parking is included in their rent. So if you have a car and you park on the street, then you're just not all that smart because you are already paying to park in the garage. Additionally, it's my belief that not all spaces will be used because some residents will be students and they wont have a car. So there will be more available parking spaces than some might think.wabash wrote: ↑Sep 10, 2021No matter what the scale and aesthetic of the project/proposal, as we've already (sadly) seen, opposition will primarily arise out of two key concerns: parking and traffic.chriss752 wrote: ↑Sep 10, 2021Anyone know if there's been any opposition to the latest proposal that I've been apart of?
https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/waterman-and-clara
For traffic, no one ever raised this concern except for during the construction phase where I then said that Waterman or Clara would not be shut down for extended periods of time during construction. The only things that would be closed will be on street parking and the sidewalks during excavation and assembly of the precast garage. Once brought back up to street level, equipment can move onto the property via the setback on Waterman, allowing for parking on Clara to reopen. Move-ins will utilize the parking out front on Waterman or on the Clara side. It just depends on what's available.
Trash pickup was another big issue raised since the previous plan had another curb cut on Clara for access to the trash cans/dumpster. The new plan has the trash dumpster in the parking garage and in an area where the Republic Services worker will have to walk down there and move the dumpster into a position for trash to be collected. This will help keep any loose trash from rolling down the street.
Another concern was the original brick color of the proposal. We originally intended on doing a classic red and gray brick color scheme. That was met with some opposition, so we changed the gray color to a brown.
The last concern was that the proposal needed more landscaping on Waterman to better match the other buildings on that street. So we will include a more lush landscaping plan than what was presented, just the updated renderings we got didn't really reflect this lush landscape. But it's promised that it'll be a welcome "garden-like" landscape.
Overall though, I think many of the issues people had before were addressed in the latest plans. The building doesn't tower over it's neighbors, it's clad in all brick with some metal accents, there are no large blank walls, setback rules are maintained on both Waterman and Clara, unit count falls below the maximum for the site, parking is practically 1:1 (with an extra space thrown in for good measure), no incentives are being sought, and there's no corner cafe that would/could've potentially lead/led to more vehicular traffic on Clara.
Chris that building looks awesome!! Super great infill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Must’ve been removedquincunx wrote:It's on the preliminary agenda of the Preservation Board.
Thanks.JJ Rivera wrote: ↑Sep 18, 2021Chris that building looks awesome!! Super great infill.
I believe Anthony Duncan and his team did a tremendous job on this, especially going off of the hand drawn drawings by our architect friend.
What are the neighborhood sentiments regarding this new proposal? Are most neighbors ok with this? I sure hope so.
Neighbors are happier with this proposal than the previous one because...stlgasm wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2021What are the neighborhood sentiments regarding this new proposal? Are most neighbors ok with this? I sure hope so.
- Only one curb cut
- Trash dumpster in-building, so it's hidden.
- 4-stories.
- More in size of the surrounding buildings than the old proposal.
- 1:1 parking ratio.
- No tax abatement.
- Brick colors match the neighborhood better.
Updated website link with more renderings, elevations, and information. I also decided to name this project, "The Manhattan".
https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/the-m ... residences
This image is by far my favorite view of the building.
https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/the-m ... residences
This image is by far my favorite view of the building.
Is the developer no longer Greg Daney / Real Estate Investor Wholesale, LLC?
I'm currently leading the project through entitlement and have a prospective developer signed onto the project. Once I hopefully get this thing entitled, I will meet with said developer again to finalize the project, get the architect to make formal construction drawings, and turn it over to them for construction and delivery. However, at this point, I cannot share who that developer is since this project isn't at the end of the entitlement process yet. The developer has agreed to ride with the design and with the idea of not getting incentives for this.quincunx wrote: ↑Oct 05, 2021Is the developer no longer Greg Daney / Real Estate Investor Wholesale, LLC?
So in short, Daney won't be involved if this is approved. He'll sell the land to the developer I'm talking to.
- 3,762
PLEASE no more NYC names. it's inauthentic to the point of parody. STL has plenty of its own history and place to draw from. or just pick a pretty name (e.g. the Lillian). anything is better than these tired NYC clichés.
I considered naming this building the Westside Flats (after the part of the city the building is in) or The Marigold (after the flower). I chose the Manhattan because of how dense neighboring Pershing is. But I can change it. It’s good to get feedback on the name. I'll rename it "The Marigold" since no other building in St. Louis is called that.urban_dilettante wrote:PLEASE no more NYC names. it's inauthentic to the point of parody. STL has plenty of its own history and place to draw from. or just pick a pretty name (e.g. the Lillian). anything is better than these tired NYC clichés.
Update: Renamed - https://www.4thstreetpartners.com/the-m ... residences