Can someone please share what the proposed setback is vs. the required setback?
I don’t think the poster who appears to be concerned about height and setbacks is reading the CWE Local Historic District standards that apply to this site correctly. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... ec-181.pdf
See page 16.
It essentially says that whatever the Form Based Code says for the “Neighborhood Core” designation that this lot falls into, presents no conflicts with the local historic district, so the form based code rules apply. The form based code allows unlimited height and does not require a minimum setback from Lindell for stories 1-13 in this location. Once it gets taller, stories higher than 13 must be stepped back 30 feet.
I don’t think there will be any issue in getting the proposed building height or setbacks approved by zoning.
Board of Adjustment voted to table the Albion request for up to 60 days to allow for time for the Preservation Board to consider the issue of conflicts with the Historical Standards. Will be taken up at April 25th Preservation Board meeting. Board of Adjustment also wants to see a 'staging plan' Seems reasonable. Unlike most major projects ( and even minor ones) no letter of support from the Alderman. Site plan presented had major changes, including setting the garage back 45 feet, and moving the tower.
Board of Adjustment voted to table the Albion request for up to 60 days to allow for time for the Preservation Board to consider the issue of conflicts with the Historical Standards. Will be taken up at April 25th Preservation Board meeting. Board of Adjustment also wants to see a 'staging plan' Seems reasonable. Unlike most major projects ( and even minor ones) no letter of support from the Alderman. Site plan presented had major changes, including setting the garage back 45 feet, and moving the tower.
Standards for new construction in the Central West End Historical District, including setbacks which must be "strictly maintained". Which is why the garage is now moved back 45 feet.
Board of Adjustment voted to table the Albion request for up to 60 days to allow for time for the Preservation Board to consider the issue of conflicts with the Historical Standards. Will be taken up at April 25th Preservation Board meeting. Board of Adjustment also wants to see a 'staging plan' Seems reasonable. Unlike most major projects ( and even minor ones) no letter of support from the Alderman. Site plan presented had major changes, including setting the garage back 45 feet, and moving the tower.
Again, this should be interesting.
I don’t understand why Board of Adjustment does this (mind you I served on the board for 2 years, 2016-2018) they’re asked to make a decision one one thing, not what other city board have to decision or when they decide.
It is a minor delay, common, not unique to St. Louis, and ultimately not the major roadblock, but it is also an inefficient way to conduct business and governance where the costs outweigh the benefits.
Labyrinthine development processes favor large developers over small ones, and politically connected ones over those lacking connections. They also diffuse accountability without anyone actually giving up power because everyone points to someone else as the problem, or the party responsible for making the decision: it's the fault/responsibility of the ward alder, the Board of Aldermen, the mayor's office, the Preservation Board, the Board of Adjustment, the neighborhood groups, etc,
It is a minor delay, common, not unique to St. Louis, and ultimately not the major roadblock, but it is also an inefficient way to conduct business and governance where the costs outweigh the benefits.
Labyrinthine development processes favor large developers over small ones, and politically connected ones over those lacking connections. They also diffuse accountability without anyone actually giving up power because everyone points to someone else as the problem, or the party responsible for making the decision: it's the fault/responsibility of the ward alder, the Board of Aldermen, the mayor's office, the Preservation Board, the Board of Adjustment, the neighborhood groups, etc,
Agree with this. The way the system works, those regulations meant to protect our historic architecture and urban space also usually get waved for those large/politically connected developers. Like how the CWE's form based code got waved for the Enterprise Bank & Trust building redevelopment to tear down the neighboring building for a parking lot, despite that the form based code requires a habitable building at least 3 stories tall.
More clear, rigid development requirements could actually encourage more construction imo while protecting urban/historic spaces effectively.
On the subject of the Alderwoman not supporting this project, it’ll be interesting to see the type of payout she demands from this development team in exchange for support. That Marshall project didn’t get her endorsement without a price.
the type of payout she demands from this development team in exchange for support. That Marshall project didn’t get her endorsement without a price
If thats the game and par for the course than a developer figures that cost into the mix
the type of payout she demands from this development team in exchange for support. That Marshall project didn’t get her endorsement without a price
If thats the game and par for the course than a developer figures that cost into the mix
Pay-to-play isn't a good thing whether it's expected or not, especially for things like this.
the type of payout she demands from this development team in exchange for support. That Marshall project didn’t get her endorsement without a price
If thats the game and par for the course than a developer figures that cost into the mix
Pay-to-play isn't a good thing whether it's expected or not, especially for things like this.
When a developer expects tax subsidies it’s not unreasonable for these to be tied to community benefits in under-resourced neighborhoods.
If Albion was being built without subsidies, this conversation would not even come up.
The words ‘Pay-to-play’ make it sound like bribery or personal gain on the part of the alderwoman.
the type of payout she demands from this development team in exchange for support. That Marshall project didn’t get her endorsement without a price
If thats the game and par for the course than a developer figures that cost into the mix
Pay-to-play isn't a good thing whether it's expected or not, especially for things like this.
When a developer expects tax subsidies it’s not unreasonable for these to be tied to community benefits in under-resourced neighborhoods.
If Albion was being built without subsidies, this conversation would not even come up.
The words ‘Pay-to-play’ make it sound like bribery or personal gain on the part of the alderwoman.
The Marshall isn't going to get a tax abatement, yet I was shown proof by a very trusted individual that she demanded, and received, a fat check in exchange for support. So, what I am saying is she got a bribe. She and her cohort can deny it all day, but the proof is out there if you know who to go to.
Pay-to-play isn't a good thing whether it's expected or not, especially for things like this.
When a developer expects tax subsidies it’s not unreasonable for these to be tied to community benefits in under-resourced neighborhoods.
If Albion was being built without subsidies, this conversation would not even come up.
The words ‘Pay-to-play’ make it sound like bribery or personal gain on the part of the alderwoman.
The Marshall isn't going to get a tax abatement, yet I was shown proof by a very trusted individual that she demanded, and received, a fat check in exchange for support. So, what I am saying is she got a bribe. She and her cohort can deny it all day, but the proof is out there if you know who to go to.
If you have evidence of a crime please contact the FBI.
Pay-to-play isn't a good thing whether it's expected or not, especially for things like this.
When a developer expects tax subsidies it’s not unreasonable for these to be tied to community benefits in under-resourced neighborhoods.
If Albion was being built without subsidies, this conversation would not even come up.
The words ‘Pay-to-play’ make it sound like bribery or personal gain on the part of the alderwoman.
The Marshall isn't going to get a tax abatement, yet I was shown proof by a very trusted individual that she demanded, and received, a fat check in exchange for support. So, what I am saying is she got a bribe. She and her cohort can deny it all day, but the proof is out there if you know who to go to.
You literally just described a crime. Either expose it, or shut the f*ck up.
You literally just described a crime. Either expose it, or shut the f*ck up.
Who said myself and others didn’t report it? And please don’t tell me to shut the f*ck up when I didn’t tell you or others to do that.
I'm getting sicker and weaker, so I got nothing to lose beyond my somewhat bad habits. I purposely chose this attitude to burn the little bridge with members of this forum and show that my "goodwill" and "reputation" is just a made-up show meant to distract me. There are some things I care about, but not enough anymore to be a level-headed contributing member of this forum (as people have observed recently). Everything I care about focuses entirely on friends and family, nothing else. I'm ready to end the show I've put on for a number of years now. Let the real me flow. And if that involves pissing people off, so be it. I've reached the end of the road and boy does it feel good. What doesn't feel good is literally feeling my ability to walk disappear, ability to hear fade away, and ability to think straight go haywire. Knowing that nothing can be done and feeling that it's happening is terrifying. But that's not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is Albion.
Will Albion happen? I don't know at this point. If the city is going to be nitpicky about the facade and design, then maybe it would be best to trash the plans and start over. It's not like the Koplar family is going anywhere anytime soon and the plans I saw last fall were much more appropriate for the site. I do like what's presented, but, yea, the other version was better.
^ Same, sorry to hear about that Chris. I hope we can all take it down a notch and stay civil with each other. Even with the KC posters
Chris, since you are in the bridge-burning mood, feel like sharing any additional details on previous proposals? It would be interesting to see what else was considered. Thanks!
^ Same, sorry to hear about that Chris. I hope we can all take it down a notch and stay civil with each other. Even with the KC posters
Chris, since you are in the bridge-burning mood, feel like sharing any additional details on previous proposals? It would be interesting to see what else was considered. Thanks!
Eh. I’ve considered it but I respect Sam Koplar a whole lot for sharing it with me several months ago, which is why I haven’t revealed much about it. I will say that at the density this currently proposed building has, the other one would’ve had 410 apartments if it maintained the density (but it didn’t, it was a much more premium product). Design wise, it was visually interesting and pleasing to complete the Kingshighway street wall. The Albion design isn’t bad by any means, but the other plans seemed like the perfect end to a storied stretch along the park. It’s also likely that the other plans wouldn’t have been picked apart by the City for a glass curtain wall, metal facade pieces, exposed concrete, setbacks, terraces, parking garage height, and a curved facade since those plans checked the boxes off perfectly (based on what I remember). The only major issue with it that I think people would have with it was the height, but that’s all.
This local good guy with a really great site designs a tower which meets both the Form Based Code and Historical District standards. It's beautiful - it soars upward - it's in context with the neighborhood - and it has a big per square foot build cost.
His hard-headed big-bucks partner takes a gander and says: "Pardner', I'm worried about renting out all those units at the price per square foot we need to ask. Too f**kin' risky. But, I gotta' better idea. Maybe we can slide this pig thru the process when nobodies lookin'."
And, with that he pulls a denser, cheaper to build, bigger footprint, less risky, more profitable plan out of a drawer filled with his past rejects. (Got to have happened this way, since no-one would intentionally design a project so manifestly inappropriate to the site. As an example it includes a stepped plaza which apparently cuts off transit of the block by the handicapped. Yeah,....r-i-i-i-ght!)
Anyway, our good guy reluctantly knuckles under and files a pretty slick brochure with the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Whoops! Historic District! So they send a copy to the Cultural Resources Office (CRO) - who five minutes later calls the BOD and says: "Hey guys, this pig won't fly!"
Our boys get the word and make some quick changes to the tower location and the garage setback. (Razzle-Dazzle 'em!)
Then the BOD holds a public meeting where the big-bucks guy runs out of breath describing the multitude of variances they need. And even then, he misses a few. The BOD, knowing a hot potato when they see one, quite reasonably and quite appropriately bounces it to the Preservation Committee (PC).
fdayt wrote:So, we can now reconstruct the Albion farce.
This local good guy with a really great site designs a tower which meets both the Form Based Code and Historical District standards. It's beautiful - it soars upward - it's in context with the neighborhood - and it has a big per square foot build cost.
His hard-headed big-bucks partner takes a gander and says: "Pardner', I'm worried about renting out all those units at the price per square foot we need to ask. Too f**kin' risky. But, I gotta' better idea. Maybe we can slide this pig thru the process when nobodies lookin'."
And, with that he pulls a denser, cheaper to build, bigger footprint, less risky, more profitable plan out of a drawer filled with his past rejects. (Got to have happened this way, since no-one would intentionally design a project so manifestly inappropriate to the site. As an example it includes a stepped plaza which apparently cuts off transit of the block by the handicapped. Yeah,....r-i-i-i-ght!)
Anyway, our good guy reluctantly knuckles under and files a pretty slick brochure with the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Whoops! Historic District! So they send a copy to the Cultural Resources Office (CRO) - who five minutes later calls the BOD and says: "Hey guys, this pig won't fly!"
Our boys get the word and make some quick changes to the tower location and the garage setback. (Razzle-Dazzle 'em!)
Then the BOD holds a public meeting where the big-bucks guy runs out of breath describing the multitude of variances they need. And even then, he misses a few. The BOD, knowing a hot potato when they see one, quite reasonably and quite appropriately bounces it to the Preservation Committee (PC).
This should be interesting.
Really odd post and interest that you seem to view density in a negative light. It seems like you’re grasping for any reason to oppose this project. It’s probably one of the nicer towers in the region to be proposed.
Also, have you any idea how expensive or challenging it is to build something like this? They’re hardly cheaping out even if a few aspirations weren’t met.
By the way, we won’t get more density or development without people seeking profit. That part isn’t a bad thing. There has to be money in it, or we’re not going to get it. Urbanism is a profitable thing, for the city tax base, for developers, and for residents who can access more in their communities.
