This thread is off the rails haha.
- 1,614
What do you mean? I'm assuming that Lux will re-engage the process with the neighborhood and Pihl and everyone will emerge satisfied? Close?chriss752 wrote: ↑May 26, 2022It is what it is. I’ll let this one play out the way I think it will.
Derailed fer sure.sc4mayor wrote: ↑May 26, 2022This thread is off the rails haha.
The process will start over but it’ll lead to a stalemate.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑May 26, 2022What do you mean? I'm assuming that Lux will re-engage the process with the neighborhood and Pihl and everyone will emerge satisfied? Close?chriss752 wrote: ↑May 26, 2022It is what it is. I’ll let this one play out the way I think it will.
Here ya go:
6-story, 155-unit, 155-parking space (+30 bike stalls) apartment proposal incorporates some feedback from the community meetings held in September & October of 2021. Changes include:
-The parking garage entrances/exits moved from the alley to Kingshighway. This community request is a variance from the Form-Based Code.
-Relocation of the pool courtyard from the east side of the building (facing the neighborhood) to the Kingshighway side.
-More red brick in the exterior facade.
Construction & Logistics Schedule (per Lux Living)
-A standard temporary fencing and screening will be implemented along all sides of the project according to the final location of the project property lines and setbacks, once established.
-Additional traffic and parking caused by construction activities should not, per Lux Living, impact surrounding residents as construction workers will be instructed to park on site during the construction of the garage. Once the two level parking structure is completed workers will be directed to park inside.
-All construction material and equipment deliveries will exclusively use Kingshighway to enter and exit the site.
-They plan to use the tower crane on the project to load, unload, and stage delivered items on site.
-Per Lux Living, general construction activities will take place during standard work hours as prescribed by the City of St. Louis regarding construction projects on major arteries like Kingshighway.
-Incorporated in their civil and site plan, they will complete necessary repairs and replacements to certain public right of ways. They’ve stated that additional damage to public or private property will be repaired/replaced on a case by case basis.
-Construction activities are slated to begin early in the first quarter of 2023 with an estimated schedule duration of 18 months.
https://www.forestparksoutheast.com/wp- ... Letter.pdf
6-story, 155-unit, 155-parking space (+30 bike stalls) apartment proposal incorporates some feedback from the community meetings held in September & October of 2021. Changes include:
-The parking garage entrances/exits moved from the alley to Kingshighway. This community request is a variance from the Form-Based Code.
-Relocation of the pool courtyard from the east side of the building (facing the neighborhood) to the Kingshighway side.
-More red brick in the exterior facade.
Construction & Logistics Schedule (per Lux Living)
-A standard temporary fencing and screening will be implemented along all sides of the project according to the final location of the project property lines and setbacks, once established.
-Additional traffic and parking caused by construction activities should not, per Lux Living, impact surrounding residents as construction workers will be instructed to park on site during the construction of the garage. Once the two level parking structure is completed workers will be directed to park inside.
-All construction material and equipment deliveries will exclusively use Kingshighway to enter and exit the site.
-They plan to use the tower crane on the project to load, unload, and stage delivered items on site.
-Per Lux Living, general construction activities will take place during standard work hours as prescribed by the City of St. Louis regarding construction projects on major arteries like Kingshighway.
-Incorporated in their civil and site plan, they will complete necessary repairs and replacements to certain public right of ways. They’ve stated that additional damage to public or private property will be repaired/replaced on a case by case basis.
-Construction activities are slated to begin early in the first quarter of 2023 with an estimated schedule duration of 18 months.
https://www.forestparksoutheast.com/wp- ... Letter.pdf
- 285
Looks excellent to me. Happy with the materials and massing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 337
Looks like more of the same to me. Happy for new construction of course but man how many of these do you build till you realize they are all the same?
Because of the way they're designed and built I feel like it's inevitable that 5/1s always look the same. I think the brick gives it at least a little bit of Saint-Louis flair. Anything is better than the 2 5/1s on FPP to me
- 1,614
Given the issues at both Hudson and Ely Walker is the NA and / or alderperson requesting covenants forbidding AirBnB type rentals and move in prior to final completion?
Looks pretty good to me.
BTW, I'm noticing a definite trend towards dark gray buildings around the country. Not sure what to make of it.
BTW, I'm noticing a definite trend towards dark gray buildings around the country. Not sure what to make of it.
Def looks better. I don't know who would want to sit on the ground level patio and be tortured by the traffic going by on Kingshighway, Note the moving of the alley.
NextSTL - Revised Lux Living Proposal for Oakland and Kingshighway
https://nextstl.com/2022/06/revised-lux ... gshighway/
NextSTL - Revised Lux Living Proposal for Oakland and Kingshighway
https://nextstl.com/2022/06/revised-lux ... gshighway/
- 285
What a beautiful time it would be for some traffic calming here!quincunx wrote:Def looks better. I don't know who would want to sit on the ground level patio and be tortured by the traffic going by on Kingshighway, Note the moving of the alley.
NextSTL - Revised Lux Living Proposal for Oakland and Kingshighway
https://nextstl.com/2022/06/revised-lux ... gshighway/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I could be wrong, but I think the parcels were deed restricted or something by Drury when they were sold from being used for short term rentals.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Jun 11, 2022Given the issues at both Hudson and Ely Walker is the NA and / or alderperson requesting covenants forbidding AirBnB type rentals and move in prior to final completion?
Correct. The challenge is enforcing it.Tim wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2022I could be wrong, but I think the parcels were deed restricted or something by Drury when they were sold from being used for short term rentals.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Jun 11, 2022Given the issues at both Hudson and Ely Walker is the NA and / or alderperson requesting covenants forbidding AirBnB type rentals and move in prior to final completion?
Is having the parking garage entrance on Kingshighway really the best idea?
^open the darn streets and you wouldn’t need a special curb cut access to Kingshighway.
Selfish disregard for others is poor social and urban policy. SMH
Selfish disregard for others is poor social and urban policy. SMH
^It's what the neighbors wanted though, so I can't complain too much about it. I'd rather have the entrance and exit on Oakland and just shift the gate back to the alley, but that probably wouldn't be received too well. I fail to see how requesting a move of the parking entrance is selfish. There are genuine concerns by genuine people, who do want something done here, just they have concerns over traffic increases. It's a valid concern that can't be ignored because it would be viewed as "selfish" by people who aren't neighbors and think in the same way a good chunk of users on this forum think. Special consideration for immediate neighbors had to be taken into consideration, which is why...
This might be a project that I had little influence over when it came to design, but it was nice to see changes that the neighbors wanted made last fall incorporated. Not everything could be included, but a good chunk was. It was interesting to see that this was the path taken and, in my view, it shows the value of community feedback. A generally better product than initially proposed even if some do believe it is cookie-cutter (I have opinions on this, but can't say that publicly, but I discussed it with Vic before). To a lesser extent, the Optimist followed a similar path, but the changes were done due to Jim Dwyer and other's feedback in blog/social media posts and in quiet conversations.
I will be in attendance at this meeting, just don't expect me to present anything. I'm there to observe, learn and take some notes. Plus, it gives me something to do on an otherwise quiet Wednesday evening. I expect this meeting to get heated at times based on recent media coverage, but that's somewhat expected. Ultimately, I think the neighborhood board, presenters, and neighbors all have conducted themselves in a professional manner in the past despite personal opinions. The only outlier was me getting annoyed last fall (with slight regret), but everyone else was fine.
Maybe I'll be wrong, and this will be a walk in the park with a few hard questions but nothing huge. I don't know. I'm just not the one to present. I'll opine on this further after the meeting.
- The pool deck was moved to the Kingshighway side (so that if anyone's out there later in the evenings and playing music, it doesn't disturb people living right next door).
- Parking entrances move to Kingshighway.
This might be a project that I had little influence over when it came to design, but it was nice to see changes that the neighbors wanted made last fall incorporated. Not everything could be included, but a good chunk was. It was interesting to see that this was the path taken and, in my view, it shows the value of community feedback. A generally better product than initially proposed even if some do believe it is cookie-cutter (I have opinions on this, but can't say that publicly, but I discussed it with Vic before). To a lesser extent, the Optimist followed a similar path, but the changes were done due to Jim Dwyer and other's feedback in blog/social media posts and in quiet conversations.
I will be in attendance at this meeting, just don't expect me to present anything. I'm there to observe, learn and take some notes. Plus, it gives me something to do on an otherwise quiet Wednesday evening. I expect this meeting to get heated at times based on recent media coverage, but that's somewhat expected. Ultimately, I think the neighborhood board, presenters, and neighbors all have conducted themselves in a professional manner in the past despite personal opinions. The only outlier was me getting annoyed last fall (with slight regret), but everyone else was fine.
Maybe I'll be wrong, and this will be a walk in the park with a few hard questions but nothing huge. I don't know. I'm just not the one to present. I'll opine on this further after the meeting.
- 6,123
I've given up on the "heal the grid" idea. In the end I don't see how it benefits any mode buy automotive, as you can still walk or bike through all the grid closures. I really think I was just wrong about that in the past. Filtering different modes of transportation is maybe even desirable. It might even function to encourage residents to walk, rather than use a car. Not sure this is particularly well thought out, and more curb cuts is certainly not ideal. Maybe there's another way to satisfy both issues . . . if the money can be found for it.imran wrote: ↑Jun 13, 2022^open the darn streets and you wouldn’t need a special curb cut access to Kingshighway.
Selfish disregard for others is poor social and urban policy. SMH
Interesting. For me it’s always landed as an issue of equity. You want to ban cars? Great! Ban ALL cars in the neighborhood. What instead we have with these street blocks is that some people (with political pull ) get to usurp public roads (built and maintained with general tax revenue/) for the use of their own cars at the expense of the rest of us. If all the blocked roads were turned into garden space with a path network ( and public transit) it would not annoy my sense of fairness.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jun 21, 2022I've given up on the "heal the grid" idea. In the end I don't see how it benefits any mode buy automotive, as you can still walk or bike through all the grid closures. I really think I was just wrong about that in the past. Filtering different modes of transportation is maybe even desirable. It might even function to encourage residents to walk, rather than use a car. Not sure this is particularly well thought out, and more curb cuts is certainly not ideal. Maybe there's another way to satisfy both issues . . . if the money can be found for it.imran wrote: ↑Jun 13, 2022^open the darn streets and you wouldn’t need a special curb cut access to Kingshighway.
Selfish disregard for others is poor social and urban policy. SMH
- 6,123
^Surely a blocked street with less traffic costs less to maintain. Concentrating automotive traffic in a relatively few places should, in theory, mean fewer miles of pavement to maintain. And the blocked street can (and should) still be accessible to all, just by a more circuitous route or with a different mode.
Mind you, we definitely need more transit. I'd be completely in favor of giving up two lanes from nearly all our major and secondary streets for exclusive transit use. And even more could stand to lose an additional lane or two for improved pedestrian infrastructure. We need so many road diets it's not even funny.
Mind you, we definitely need more transit. I'd be completely in favor of giving up two lanes from nearly all our major and secondary streets for exclusive transit use. And even more could stand to lose an additional lane or two for improved pedestrian infrastructure. We need so many road diets it's not even funny.
To me, the street closures are a bit of a tragedy of the commons thing. There are some places they make sense--for example, between roads with wildly different traffic speeds where it might be unsafe to try and turn onto a high-speed road at a non-signalized intersection. I think the Kingshighway-Oakland closure here makes sense for that reason, though I think a right turn-only from Kingshighway to Oakland or vice versa would be reasonable, if hard to enforce.
Most of the time, though, street closures are done because people don't want traffic by their personal home, even though they are drivers themselves who use streets that go by other people's homes. That is reasonable enough from an individual perspective (leaving aside that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and can override the preferences of others on the same or adjacent streets or people who use the roads), but that traffic usually doesn't disappear, it just gets shifted to adjacent streets. You wind up with some bucolic streets that are almost private places, and others that channel all the local traffic and don't have the option to close because people do have to be able to get in, out, and through neighborhoods.
I think a more fair solution would be to open up all the streets (where safe to do so) in exchange for traffic calming measures (curb bump-outs, medians, street narrowing, etc.), so that your neighbor can't decide that you have to have more traffic on your street in exchange for less on theirs, and so that some streets don't get lead into the role of traffic sewer because they were not fast enough request closure or connected enough to get it.
Research-wise I don't think the question is settled, but there was an article in the Post-Dispatch a few years ago questioning the safety of street closures: To make St. Louis safer, hundreds of streets were closed. What if that was a mistake?
Most of the time, though, street closures are done because people don't want traffic by their personal home, even though they are drivers themselves who use streets that go by other people's homes. That is reasonable enough from an individual perspective (leaving aside that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and can override the preferences of others on the same or adjacent streets or people who use the roads), but that traffic usually doesn't disappear, it just gets shifted to adjacent streets. You wind up with some bucolic streets that are almost private places, and others that channel all the local traffic and don't have the option to close because people do have to be able to get in, out, and through neighborhoods.
I think a more fair solution would be to open up all the streets (where safe to do so) in exchange for traffic calming measures (curb bump-outs, medians, street narrowing, etc.), so that your neighbor can't decide that you have to have more traffic on your street in exchange for less on theirs, and so that some streets don't get lead into the role of traffic sewer because they were not fast enough request closure or connected enough to get it.
Research-wise I don't think the question is settled, but there was an article in the Post-Dispatch a few years ago questioning the safety of street closures: To make St. Louis safer, hundreds of streets were closed. What if that was a mistake?
I didn't realize the meeting was tonight, so I attended over Zoom and later showed up in person. As expected, people behaved professionally. Not sure what the outcome was.
- 285
I am saddened that the Forest Park Southeast NA amended its bylaws such that it's no longer a neutral forum earlier this year, and even with its amended bylaws, I'm not convinced that it has the authority it has granted itself to serve as an official development rec body.
Pretty sure it sees its authority coming from the second bullet point under its purpose "To provide a place where information can be distributed, perspectives discussed, and community concerns collected and communicated to elected officials and other government and non-government entities within the City of St. Louis".
1) That seems far off from delivering a "The Board" statement with approval or disapproval; and 2) The legitimacy of the recent meeting as an approval/disapproval event seems questionable when multiple other sections of the bylaws are not followed including:
a - Article 12 Code of Conduct - "performing their duties without bias for or against any individual, group of owners, or non-owner residents"
...which would be challenging to adhere to given that the President and VP started the closed community session by first stating their disapproval and then going over Micheal's (well-written) article on NextSTL. Of course, Lux is now a group of owners in our neighborhood as well.
b- Article 7. Meetings - "All votes conducted at Board meetings are public and shall be recorded in publicly available meeting minutes"
...Lux had been told to leave for a closed session where this vote took place.
c - Article 7. Meetings - "All meetings shall be open to the public."
...The meeting closed to the public, specifically Lux (an owner in the neighborhood), for a closed vote.
d - Ground Rules for Meeting Attendance and Participation - "Each neighborhood association Member...shall receive one vote, there will be no voting by proxy"
...Not sure if this was violated, but there was a Zoom portion where I'm not sure if votes were collected.
Obviously folks know my publicly held view that community review should be separated from development, but I think the case is made even stronger when showcased in this context. I don't even think that, for the reasons described, any result from the still-yet-to-be-public vote results should not carry any weight.
Pretty sure it sees its authority coming from the second bullet point under its purpose "To provide a place where information can be distributed, perspectives discussed, and community concerns collected and communicated to elected officials and other government and non-government entities within the City of St. Louis".
1) That seems far off from delivering a "The Board" statement with approval or disapproval; and 2) The legitimacy of the recent meeting as an approval/disapproval event seems questionable when multiple other sections of the bylaws are not followed including:
a - Article 12 Code of Conduct - "performing their duties without bias for or against any individual, group of owners, or non-owner residents"
...which would be challenging to adhere to given that the President and VP started the closed community session by first stating their disapproval and then going over Micheal's (well-written) article on NextSTL. Of course, Lux is now a group of owners in our neighborhood as well.
b- Article 7. Meetings - "All votes conducted at Board meetings are public and shall be recorded in publicly available meeting minutes"
...Lux had been told to leave for a closed session where this vote took place.
c - Article 7. Meetings - "All meetings shall be open to the public."
...The meeting closed to the public, specifically Lux (an owner in the neighborhood), for a closed vote.
d - Ground Rules for Meeting Attendance and Participation - "Each neighborhood association Member...shall receive one vote, there will be no voting by proxy"
...Not sure if this was violated, but there was a Zoom portion where I'm not sure if votes were collected.
Obviously folks know my publicly held view that community review should be separated from development, but I think the case is made even stronger when showcased in this context. I don't even think that, for the reasons described, any result from the still-yet-to-be-public vote results should not carry any weight.