urbanSTL

quincunx wrote:A commenter on FB celebrating the defeat because it was too big has a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge and NYC as her profile pic. Face Palm.

Hahaha I saw that. I almost responded back. I’m second cocktail in, and didn’t think it would be such a wise idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They may need to reword their description now. Seems like they are against vibrancy (less people), diversity (booo students), desirable (but F developers), and thriving (no we care about parking spaces more).

I’ve only moved into the neighborhood in May, previously was downtown. I fully intend on being apart of the committee, if I can get on it, and apart of the the meetings.

This proposal seemed perfect for The Loop, how did it fail?  And why do NIMBY'ers have so much power to shoot down positive developments?

If you live in The Loop, you are looking for a walkable dense community...  Why block that from happening?  And the comments about "what if Wash U Students don't want it later on"... Wash U is one of the top Schools in the country and has been a staple for 168 years.  It's not going anywhere, there will always be students.

How did it fail? NIMBYs spoke up, supporters didn't in greater numbers. 

NIMBYs tend to be the most vocal people to show up at neighborhood meetings, which is unfortunate. I feel like there are more people in support of this than against it, but they either didn't speak up at the neighborhood meetings out of fear of being blasted by fellow neighbors (which is disneighborly conduct) or were too busy with something more important in their lives. Not all people wish to wait/attend these meetings because some people are just busier than others, and those people sometimes tend to be in support of projects (just my observations).

In my view, the proposal had three main flaws that could've been easily fixed (the parking entrance on Delmar, lack of windows on the Skinker street level, and the general facade design of the building). I feel like the garage entrance could've been moved to the alley and the design made a bit nicer, but that would've likely been worked out later on. Shooting this project down is short sighted and while OPUS can go through the city approval process without neighborhood support, it's unlikely to gain much traction and die at either the Preservation Board or Board of Adjustment.

The proposal, being 14-stories, also wouldn't have met the form based code maximum if the form based code was in place today. So, maybe OPUS does two things and re-presents their proposal. 1: Make it 12 floors so that it meets the form based code and 2: retain the same number of parking spaces. Doing so should yield a just as transformational project and give OPUS some leverage in the process by saying it goes directly by the currently in-process form based code. 

I'd prefer 14 floors, and maybe that's what makes the economics work on this project, but I'd encourage OPUS to return with a revised, 12-story proposal (if the numbers work). 

I mean really, OPUS should not back down and should not let the NIMBYs win. And the neighborhood board should be ashamed of their vote as it goes against the description on their website (as shared by LArchitecture). But hey, I guess keeping this sh*tty lot is better than something new. 

RE: the parking entrance on Delmar. This was my main complaint. not brought up by NIMYs AFAIK, they'd probably object to an alley entrance.

We didn't get to talking design, which would have been nice.

Opus proposing 12 stories might help, but for some NIMBYs it doesn't matter. A parking space to bedroom ratio of 0.26 v 0.21 wouldn't matter in the least to them.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2021

RE: the parking entrance on Delmar. This was my main complaint. not brought up by NIMYs AFAIK, they'd probably object to an alley entrance.

We didn't get to talking design, which would have been nice.

Opus proposing 12 stories might help, but for some NIMBYs it doesn't matter. A parking space to bedroom ratio of 0.26 v 0.21 wouldn't matter in the least to them.

For the 12-story idea, I feel like by them (OPUS) keeping the same amount of parking spaces, the ratio will decrease. Without seeing the updated floor plans that came as a result of eliminating the 4 bedroom units, I can't make an exact estimate. But 12 floors in the old plans would yield 102 apartments with 267 beds. With 68 parking spaces, the ratio goes up to .66 per unit, which would be generous considering the proposed form based code doesn't have a defined parking minimum for this site. I don't feel like each bedroom should warrant a parking space despite NIMBYs demanding it.

I don't know if it was ever brought up at one of the neighborhood meetings, but I feel like it would be of use to see how many parking spaces are in-use at the Everly.  That building is much larger than this. There are 209 apartments there and 210 parking spaces (1:1 parking) there, but just how many of those spaces are used by the students that live there?

It doesn't make sense to me why people think so many students will be driving to college (especially when it's a few blocks away). Additionally, there's no real need to bring your car if you're not from St. Louis because WashU and the Everly both have shuttles that take you to and from campus. The neighbors to the OPUS proposal need to realize this. I guarantee that most of the people who live in the Everly, and who would live in the OPUS building, are not from St. Louis. They're most likely not going to be joy riding around town.

So, 68 parking spaces for 102 apartments with 267 beds seems sufficient. But the economics might not work. The increase in unit count as a result of the elimination of the 4 bedroom units will reduce the ratio and make the numbers for a 12-story building look better, but still. I think the point has been made.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2021

Make it 12 floors so that it meets the form based code

Sadly I really don't see that assuaging any of the knee jerk obstructionist fears. So many were outraged and horrified ("It's a slaughterhouse!!") by the proposal I don't think you'd see any signs of thawing until something materially different, at the very least closer to the Moonrise's 7-8 stories.

Bring the height down to 7-8 stories and the parking up to .5 spaces per bedroom and voila! an uneconomic project that the developer won't pursue.

Either that or actually implement an FBC allowing for 12 stories, providing a presumption of compliance.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2021

I don't know if it was ever brought up at one of the neighborhood meetings, but I feel like it would be of use to see how many parking spaces are in-use at the Everly.  That building is much larger than this. There are 209 apartments there and 210 parking spaces (1:1 parking) there, but just how many of those spaces are used by the students that live there?

It doesn't make sense to me why people think so many students will be driving to college (especially when it's a few blocks away). Additionally, there's no real need to bring your car if you're not from St. Louis because WashU and the Everly both have shuttles that take you to and from campus. The neighbors to the OPUS proposal need to realize this. I guarantee that most of the people who live in the Everly, and who would live in the OPUS building, are not from St. Louis. They're most likely not going to be joy riding around town.

I wonder that too. I hear it's not busting with cars. 

They think every student will have a car because it's a way to oppose the building. Doesn't matter that int'l students prob don't bring a car. Walking distance to campus, transit passes, Uber/Lyft, Metrolink, doesn't matter.

quincunx wrote:RE: the parking entrance on Delmar. This was my main complaint. not brought up by NIMYs AFAIK, they'd probably object to an alley entrance.

We didn't get to talking design, which would have been nice.

Opus proposing 12 stories might help, but for some NIMBYs it doesn't matter. A parking space to bedroom ratio of 0.26 v 0.21 wouldn't matter in the least to them.

I think this was brought up by Opus that they were trying to be considerate of residential access to the alley and keeping it quieter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably ~$1M in property taxes, over half going to SLPS, assuming no abatement. But parking!

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2021

Maybe another point here is the neighborhood shouldn't be 100% arbiter of this right? If those tax dollars would go to support SLPS across the entire city, then the rest of us have a say too right?

100% agree with this.

wabash wrote:

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2021

Make it 12 floors so that it meets the form based code

Sadly I really don't see that assuaging any of the knee jerk obstructionist fears. So many were outraged and horrified ("It's a slaughterhouse!!") by the proposal I don't think you'd see any signs of thawing until something materially different, at the very least closer to the Moonrise's 7-8 stories.

Bring the height down to 7-8 stories and the parking up to .5 spaces per bedroom and voila! an uneconomic project that the developer won't pursue.

Either that or actually implement an FBC allowing for 12 stories, providing a presumption of compliance.

What does “it’s a Slaughterhouse!!” mean in this context?

^ wondering that as well. really wish somebody had called that person out at the meeting and made them look as stupid as their analogy.

moorlander wrote:

wabash wrote:

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2021

Make it 12 floors so that it meets the form based code

Sadly I really don't see that assuaging any of the knee jerk obstructionist fears. So many were outraged and horrified ("It's a slaughterhouse!!") by the proposal I don't think you'd see any signs of thawing until something materially different, at the very least closer to the Moonrise's 7-8 stories.

Bring the height down to 7-8 stories and the parking up to .5 spaces per bedroom and voila! an uneconomic project that the developer won't pursue.

Either that or actually implement an FBC allowing for 12 stories, providing a presumption of compliance.

What does “it’s a Slaughterhouse!!” mean in this context?

A neighbor told me that I should oppose this next to his house because he would oppose a hog rendering plant next to mine, which:

1: is a pointless and unequal comparison
2: apartment buildings as nuisances is an idea steeped in a history of racism and classism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't fathom living in a dense, urban city, right next to an entertainment & dining district, and complaining about a project like this. 

I'm just waiting for the site to sit empty for a few more years and then neighbors complain that it's an eyesore - that they don't understand why something won't be built there.

I assumed the slaughterhouse comment was supposed to imply that they didn’t like the density of the project and were trying to equate the maximization of the site to the cramped conditions used in factory farming. Still a dumb comparison though.

Another thing that annoyed me with this was that one council member (St. Roch rep) used the Expo and Hudson as examples for why this will turn out to be a disaster.

Neither of those projects are done yet so I don’t think that’s fair to say. And besides, the urban form of both is actually pretty good. Yeah Lux is messy, and yeah Expo stalled for a bit (again rumored to be legally related), but I think the majority of residents on the east side of the neighborhood remain really excited about the returning urban form of DeBaliviere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Buyers remorse" smh

Expo was stalled due to the lawsuit.