urbanSTL

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Dec 20, 2021

quincunx wrote: ↑

Dec 19, 2021

1900 Olive was reviewed. The CRO director approved the demos without referring to the Preservation Board.

https://nextstl.com/2021/01/1900-olive- ... is-needed/

Do you know if the criteria for approving demos in preservation districts or referring them to the board are publicly available? I still can't believe that one was approved.

This appears on point:
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/cultural-resources/documents/upload/Preservation-Review-Districts.pdf

The Preservation Board voted 4-1 to withhold preliminary approval of partial demolition and new construction.

Some  unhappy DeBaliviere Place residents testified against as well as Jim Dwyer chair of the CWE Association Planning and Development Cmte

quincunx wrote: ↑

Dec 21, 2021

The Preservation Board voted 4-1 to withhold preliminary approval of partial demolition and new construction.

Some  unhappy DeBaliviere Place residents testified against as well as Jim Dwyer chair of the CWE Association Planning and Development Cmte

Thanks. Any more detail on the nature of the DP residents' unhappiness? Just that they don't like the Chelsea/Hudson/Tribeca, or that they don't think Lux Living is a good landlord? Similarly, anything in particular about the project that Jim Dwyer was against and what he and the Committee might be for?

StlToday - St. Louis board denies developer's plan to demo portion of Engineers' Club in Central West End

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... b5a48.html

Do people actually email these staff members to show how ridiculous they are? I just emailed them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes me think the Optimist proposal has an even lesser chance of happening.

^Didn't the Optimist proposal already get preservation review blessing after the last redesign?

symphonicpoet wrote:^Didn't the Optimist proposal already get preservation review blessing after the last redesign?

Not yet. It was submitted to the city about 2 months ago and nothing has come about since then

^ Good to hear.  What was the biggest issue with the previous plan?  Thanks for the update.

EssTeeEll wrote: ↑

Apr 15, 2022

^ Good to hear.  What was the biggest issue with the previous plan?  Thanks for the update.

One issue was the size of the building. Some people believed it was way too massive as presented and took away from the Engineers building. Another issue, and this was one that the city had, was peeling the roof off of the existing Engineers building.

After the loss of the San Luis, we should have learned "parking lots are bad" but somehow we ended up with "let's let mildly interesting buildings stand in the way of more housing".

This needs to happen

aprice wrote: ↑

Jul 18, 2022

After the loss of the San Luis, we should have learned "parking lots are bad" but somehow we ended up with "let's let mildly interesting buildings stand in the way of more housing".

Yeah we should have a better governance structure for approving projects. One that takes good urbanism as its MO and takes into account preservation but not have that be the only metric. 

aprice wrote: ↑

Jul 18, 2022

After the loss of the San Luis, we should have learned "parking lots are bad" but somehow we ended up with "let's let mildly interesting buildings stand in the way of more housing".

The loss of the San Luis is why there was the assessment of MCM structures that's been the sticky wicket.

Do they have neighborhood and Aldermanic support?

No longer on our agenda for the Preservation Board on Monday.

Thank you to those who have been around long enough to know why the San Luis battle helped change the game on Lindell. 

So when does this version get denied?

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑

Jul 25, 2022

So when does this version get denied?

I think it'll get pushed through. The alderman was/is for it. The Engineer's building no longer requires demolition of the roof or other components. It shrunk a few floors. And some recommendations by CRO staff + Jim Dwyer were listened to and included in the newest plans. It's not much different from when I helped out on design a bit. The only major issue is addition of black brick around the front windows and removal of the decorative fin. 

Funny how in this Biz Journal article, like the Post-Dispatch one, they call me a "consultant" when my employment contract clearly stated otherwise, but that's beyond the point. If they wish to keep calling me that, fine, but I have my copy of the contract that was signed, saying the position I was hired for as well as pay and responsibilities. "Consultant" was a lesser-than job than what I was hired to do. If they changed it on me while I was there, they should've said so instead of using it as ammunition to try and discredit my comments.

If this one gets through, good because it does away with a crummy parking lot on one of our signature boulevards. I'm still sour about the Preservation Board's decision to kill the Optimist project. I would've preferred that one over this one regardless of if it was a Lux project or not. It had more thought, heart and soul put into it (thanks Eli Hoisington of HOK).

^Agreed. The last iteration of the Optimist project was nice. HOK does good work. Hopefully someone else will do something with it the project.