I agree with Chris’ statement. We have a lot of stupid people who live in STL.
What time of day and week is parking a problem?
Here are photos of parking on Rosedale, Washington, and Skinker around 810 am on a Tuesday when WUSTL students and staff are supposedly taking them all. There's little evidence of a parking problem. I didn't see any smart, mini, or other short cars in an effort to increase street parking capacity. The city-subsidized parking lot on Skinker was empty. No one was parked on Skinker between Washington and the library. There have been three building permits issued for garages on 61XX Washington and Westminster since 2010, so some are taking personal responsibility for their car storage. I would encourage others to do the same.
-
-
City-subsidized lot. Also no one parked on Skinker
Here are photos of parking on Rosedale, Washington, and Skinker around 810 am on a Tuesday when WUSTL students and staff are supposedly taking them all. There's little evidence of a parking problem. I didn't see any smart, mini, or other short cars in an effort to increase street parking capacity. The city-subsidized parking lot on Skinker was empty. No one was parked on Skinker between Washington and the library. There have been three building permits issued for garages on 61XX Washington and Westminster since 2010, so some are taking personal responsibility for their car storage. I would encourage others to do the same.
-
-
City-subsidized lot. Also no one parked on Skinker
- 6,118
I'm beyond weary of the complaints about parking. A group I meet with is always looking for new places to meet and I asked what was going into the old 1763 Public House space only to be glibly informed that it had been tried in the past but no one would go to the Central West End because . . . parking. Good lord, we're dying under a mountain of unused parking but people who often won't come to events anyway want more. And people put lawn chairs in spaces and leave nice notes in their neighbor's car if they happen to park down in front of their house on a busy day. It's not that people are stupid per se, but rather that they're petty, selfish, and often very particular about their immediate environment. They want to be able to park EXACTLY where they are accustomed to every time, and their accustomed spaces needs to be PRECISELY adjacent to their homes, workplaces, and preferred recreational spots. Will someone drop a meter on every public parking space in this god forsaken town now? ALL of them. In the entire region. And require businesses to charge for parking in their lots in order to get a license.
- 6,118
^Are you suggesting that public free parking is an entitlement or subsidy in the same sense as public retirement or health benefits? Say it ain't so!
Yes, they (we) are entitled. Sometimes it's okay. Other times it's a real problem.
Yes, they (we) are entitled. Sometimes it's okay. Other times it's a real problem.
The mentality you describe is possible due to the fact parking is readily available most of the time. After spending 20 years in Chicago I can say the dearth of available parking eliminated the entitlement mentality which exists in Saint Louis. Except when it would snow. Then Dibs would take effect and change everything. Lawn chairs. buckets and 2x4's staking out individual spots and citizens becoming uncivilized morons protecting "their" spot. Bottom line? It's a public street. You park where you can and deal with it.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2021I'm beyond weary of the complaints about parking. A group I meet with is always looking for new places to meet and I asked what was going into the old 1763 Public House space only to be glibly informed that it had been tried in the past but no one would go to the Central West End because . . . parking. Good lord, we're dying under a mountain of unused parking but people who often won't come to events anyway want more. And people put lawn chairs in spaces and leave nice notes in their neighbor's car if they happen to park down in front of their house on a busy day. It's not that people are stupid per se, but rather that they're petty, selfish, and often very particular about their immediate environment. They want to be able to park EXACTLY where they are accustomed to every time, and their accustomed spaces needs to be PRECISELY adjacent to their homes, workplaces, and preferred recreational spots. Will someone drop a meter on every public parking space in this god forsaken town now? ALL of them. In the entire region. And require businesses to charge for parking in their lots in order to get a license.
- 6,118
This is why I think it's past time to shove a meter up every parking space in town. All of them. And tax the crap out of the land required for the private ones and eliminate parking minimums. I'll gladly pay more taxes for the space my garage occupies if it means we get better streets in the deal.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2021The mentality you describe is possible due to the fact parking is readily available most of the time. After spending 20 years in Chicago I can say the dearth of available parking eliminated the entitlement mentality which exists in Saint Louis. Except when it would snow. Then Dibs would take effect and change everything. Lawn chairs. buckets and 2x4's staking out individual spots and citizens becoming uncivilized morons protecting "their" spot. Bottom line? It's a public street. You park where you can and deal with it.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2021I'm beyond weary of the complaints about parking. A group I meet with is always looking for new places to meet and I asked what was going into the old 1763 Public House space only to be glibly informed that it had been tried in the past but no one would go to the Central West End because . . . parking. Good lord, we're dying under a mountain of unused parking but people who often won't come to events anyway want more. And people put lawn chairs in spaces and leave nice notes in their neighbor's car if they happen to park down in front of their house on a busy day. It's not that people are stupid per se, but rather that they're petty, selfish, and often very particular about their immediate environment. They want to be able to park EXACTLY where they are accustomed to every time, and their accustomed spaces needs to be PRECISELY adjacent to their homes, workplaces, and preferred recreational spots. Will someone drop a meter on every public parking space in this god forsaken town now? ALL of them. In the entire region. And require businesses to charge for parking in their lots in order to get a license.
There's a meeting hosted by 28th ward alderwoman Navarro tomorrow Dec 2 6:30pm at the Moonrise.
And another by SDCC Dec 6-
Your next opportunity for updates and feedback will be a hybrid Community Meeting on: Monday, December 6th, from 7pm-8pm via Zoom or in person at Grace United Methodist Church. You must register for this meeting in order to join.
https://skinkerdebaliviere.wordpress.co ... al-update/
Or one can email the SDCC with their thoughts on the proposal, especially if you live in the neighborhood.
I'm hearing there's some fierce opposition.
And another by SDCC Dec 6-
Your next opportunity for updates and feedback will be a hybrid Community Meeting on: Monday, December 6th, from 7pm-8pm via Zoom or in person at Grace United Methodist Church. You must register for this meeting in order to join.
https://skinkerdebaliviere.wordpress.co ... al-update/
Or one can email the SDCC with their thoughts on the proposal, especially if you live in the neighborhood.
I'm hearing there's some fierce opposition.
Also from an SDCC email Opus said-
After listening to feedback and concerns from the neighbors and the community counsel we were able to study our unit mix and are pleased to inform you that after much deliberation and reconfiguring we are able to eliminate the 4 bedroom units from the project. We wanted to provide this information to you in advance of the meeting on December 6th so you can share with the community and the board as we hope this will address a number of concerns. The project will now be comprised of one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units including approximately 140 units and 327 beds. Our previous proposal included 130 units and 335 beds. The height and parking count will remain as previously proposed.
- 2,419
I hope this was OPUS's choice.
To make a company reconfigure the design of a 14-story building so that you can reduce its bedroom count by a mere eight rooms, from 335 to 327, is ridiculous.
Is that really what it took to satisfy NIMBY concerns?
To make a company reconfigure the design of a 14-story building so that you can reduce its bedroom count by a mere eight rooms, from 335 to 327, is ridiculous.
Is that really what it took to satisfy NIMBY concerns?
The city forbids more than 3 unrelated people living in a dwelling unit. Opus would need a variance for the 4 bedroom units to make sense financially, since certainly 4 students would be unrelated. As you can see changing the unit config doesn't change the population of the building much.
In an effort to quell single family homes being rented to students, SDCC has worked to get this enforced. Some neighbors fear their efforts would be undercut if the neighborhood supported a variance for Opus even though anyone else wanting to do it would also need a variance which then the SDCC and Ald could opt not to support, but a variance for Opus might be precedent setting (like how the Everly's height variance is now being used as precedent for Opus' height variance). The nuance that the Skinker/Delmar location is on a commercial corridor and zoned F while the rest of the neighborhood is A-D other than at the four corners isn't compelling enough for some.
And for some who just don't want this at all anything to grab onto to kill it will do.
In an effort to quell single family homes being rented to students, SDCC has worked to get this enforced. Some neighbors fear their efforts would be undercut if the neighborhood supported a variance for Opus even though anyone else wanting to do it would also need a variance which then the SDCC and Ald could opt not to support, but a variance for Opus might be precedent setting (like how the Everly's height variance is now being used as precedent for Opus' height variance). The nuance that the Skinker/Delmar location is on a commercial corridor and zoned F while the rest of the neighborhood is A-D other than at the four corners isn't compelling enough for some.
And for some who just don't want this at all anything to grab onto to kill it will do.
That's what it sounds like. This project would be a such a strong addition to that corner. Especially considering what it'd be replacing.quincunx wrote: ↑Dec 02, 2021And for some who just don't want this at all anything to grab onto to kill it will do.
I'm hearing the neighborhood meeting tonight on this isn't going well.
- 805
quincunx wrote:I'm hearing the neighborhood meeting tonight on this isn't going well.
Some paraphrased comments from the meeting here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 991
None of this is shocking (and don't be sad!). These four talking points were going to be the feedback regardless of the size or scope of what's proposed for this corner.
We want more parking, but we don't want more cars or traffic.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2021None of this is shocking (and don't be sad!). These four talking points were going to be the feedback regardless of the size or scope of what's proposed for this corner.
We don't want more cars, but we also don't want more bikes.
We love the environment, but don't support this highly efficient land use.
We love the environment, but don't support this additional density near transit stations.
We love living in the City, but shouldn't be expected to facilitate it's growth.
We love living in the City, but would rather see an abandoned lot than a new apartment building.
We want a vibrant, walkable community with convenient services, but not an "entertainment district."
We are not exclusive, elitist, or intolerant, but we don't want "transients."
We are immortal and are not transient, unlike "transients."
The parking, traffic and size complaints were to be expected. But when did a fear of "transient" college students become an issue? Is that just NIMBYs parroting talking points? Do these S-D residents not realize that every #1 bus, every WashU security patrol car, every old-timey streetlight along Skinker, every security call box, the maintenance of many buildings along Skinker, Pershing, and Waterman, nearly every business in the Loop - basically the entire viability and vitality of the neighborhood - is supported by the "transient" "rooming house" residents they are lined up against. It's so backwards.
- 805
I think there were two things pushing the transient rhetoric
1) there’s this feeling that LLCs are taking over the housing market buying up all the single fams and 2 fams for college housing. This isn’t true in any meaningful sense, but also, these types of developments help to drive down the feasibility of that business practice, so I’m not sure why people wouldn’t want that.
2) there was a lot of “what happens when this building is no longer attracting college kids?” There was a clear implication that if this building attracted poor people, it would “destroy” the neighborhood.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1) there’s this feeling that LLCs are taking over the housing market buying up all the single fams and 2 fams for college housing. This isn’t true in any meaningful sense, but also, these types of developments help to drive down the feasibility of that business practice, so I’m not sure why people wouldn’t want that.
2) there was a lot of “what happens when this building is no longer attracting college kids?” There was a clear implication that if this building attracted poor people, it would “destroy” the neighborhood.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
YES - perfectly stated.wabash wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2021We want more parking, but we don't want more cars or traffic.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2021None of this is shocking (and don't be sad!). These four talking points were going to be the feedback regardless of the size or scope of what's proposed for this corner.
We don't want more cars, but we also don't want more bikes.
We love the environment, but don't support this highly efficient land use.
We love the environment, but don't support this additional density near transit stations.
We love living in the City, but shouldn't be expected to facilitate it's growth.
We love living in the City, but would rather see an abandoned lot than a new apartment building.
We want a vibrant, walkable community with convenient services, but not an "entertainment district."
We are not exclusive, elitist, or intolerant, but we don't want "transients."
We are immortal and are not transient, unlike "transients."
The parking, traffic and size complaints were to be expected. But when did a fear of "transient" college students become an issue? Is that just NIMBYs parroting talking points? Do these S-D residents not realize that every #1 bus, every WashU security patrol car, every old-timey streetlight along Skinker, every security call box, the maintenance of many buildings along Skinker, Pershing, and Waterman, nearly every business in the Loop - basically the entire viability and vitality of the neighborhood - is supported by the "transient" "rooming house" residents they are lined up against. It's so backwards.
Do the neighbors actually have any way to prevent this lot from being developed?
This should be posted on a sign at every neighborhood/project meeting with a disclaimer that says "think before you b*tch."wabash wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2021We want more parking, but we don't want more cars or traffic.
We don't want more cars, but we also don't want more bikes.
We love the environment, but don't support this highly efficient land use.
We love the environment, but don't support this additional density near transit stations.
We love living in the City, but shouldn't be expected to facilitate it's growth.
We love living in the City, but would rather see an abandoned lot than a new apartment building.
We want a vibrant, walkable community with convenient services, but not an "entertainment district."
We are not exclusive, elitist, or intolerant, but we don't want "transients."
We are immortal and are not transient, unlike "transients."
- 289
People who buy a house near WashU then complain that too many WashU students live nearby are ridiculous. That’s like buying a house near the airport then complaining it’s too loud or buying a house near the MSD plant and complaining it smells bad.
No, but aldermanic support usually follows neighborhood support and approval by city boards usually goes with aldermanic and neighborhood support.Ebsy wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2021Do the neighbors actually have any way to prevent this lot from being developed?
