urbanSTL

Build. It.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The existing structures, if rehabbed, would not activate the street at all.  The setbacks are an issue and very inconsistent.  The rendering above is just what the west end of The Grove needs to continue the streetscape on the south side of Manchester.  More density and additional retail is what is needed.  This plan checks most boxes.

dylank wrote:This may be it. Found on the architect's website. Notice the brick storefront on the left. 

This is practically a carbon copy of Chelsea on Pershing. Not incredible, but hey I'll take it.

Gotta agree with CHI here. I hate tearing down buildings but those houses, even if kept in good shape, don't serve as a noticeable entrance into the area. Houses are great on the main strip but they do little for activation or the density the Grove can accomplish. Hopefully this can do what Chroma did to the East entrance.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

The thing that frosts me about this is that, if I'm reading the property records right, Groveland LLC started buying this strip up nearly twenty years ago and they've done virtually nothing to maintain the houses. They've just let them fall down. I checked this a year ago or so when this first came up and the only permits they'd pulled since acquiring the properties were the tap destroys they pulled just before it went up for review. (And got denied, as I recall.) This feels exactly like what Drury did on Kingshighway, and very much like McKee on the north side. They're beginning to fall down now, so it's probably too late. But man, this sort of behavior is not acceptable. It's nothing short of despicable. Does their agent, Austin Barzantny live in the area? If so, how do his neighbors let him get away with this? He's got an office on Manchester. He's got to be staring at this. I cannot understand why we let this happen. That said, when reasonable proposals that preserve most of the architectural merit of sites like the Oddfellows and Engineers proposals get denied while more or less doing things right I suppose I can understand why people circumvent the spirit of the law. That said . . . this still makes me scream inside. The proposed building is okay. It's . . . meh. But not terrible. But the process where we got here? That's awful.

Looks to me like he acquired these 2015-18. Where do you see 20 years? Austin Barzantny has been rehabbing buildings in the neighborhood for many years. He did 4101 Laclede. Here's an article about his activities from 2016.

Barzantny, 38, is in the middle of it. Grove Properties has rehabbed nearly 50 buildings to produce about 125 apartments. Occupancy is steady at 95 percent, said Barzantny, adding that most tenants are students or workers at the nearby Cortex tech district or the BJC complex.

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 46cb6.html

Forest Park Southeast is a really a sleeper candidate to becoming the most "urban" neighborhood in the city. If it keeps infilling like this I really wouldn't be surprised. Driving down Manchester is starting to give off a vibe similar to many Chicago neighborhoods in my opinion. 

imran wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

Suds wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

dylank wrote:This may be it. Found on the architect's website. Notice the brick storefront on the left. 

This is practically a carbon copy of Chelsea on Pershing. Not incredible, but hey I'll take it.

Gotta agree with CHI here. I hate tearing down buildings but those houses, even if kept in good shape, don't serve as a noticeable entrance into the area. Houses are great on the main strip but they do little for activation or the density the Grove can accomplish. Hopefully this can do what Chroma did to the East entrance.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Really? I’m surprised you also believe that these Historic houses if rehabbed would not activate the street ‘at all’ (quoting here)
As for the entrance to a neighborhood, Both large and small scale buildings can  be effective if designed right.

I said they would do little for activation. A larger mixed-use building like this (still wish it were more unique, but oh well) fits the current vibe of the neighborhood more and works toward the density the neighborhood is capable of. It might be a different store had these buildings not been neglected and been more integrated into the rest of Manchester. But as things are now, even if renovated, they wouldn't be the best use of that land in my opinion. Definitely sad to see beautiful buildings go but if that rendering is real I think it's an improvement.

goat314 wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

Forest Park Southeast is a really a sleeper candidate to becoming the most "urban" neighborhood in the city. If it keeps infilling like this I really wouldn't be surprised. Driving down Manchester is starting to give off a vibe similar to many Chicago neighborhoods in my opinion. 

Yes, for sure. Has a ways to go to provide resident services. More food access, drug stores, convenience...Which makes me wonder where a large retail presence would center itself. Even spaces that provide businesses with 5,000 SF are sparse

 ^Yeah I think the biggest thing missing for FPSE is a full service grocery store. When I was apartment hunting the fact there was no grocery store I could walk to was the main reason I didn't consider the neighborhood. 

Do the demos and new construction have neighborhood and alder support?

imran wrote:

Suds wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

dylank wrote:This may be it. Found on the architect's website. Notice the brick storefront on the left. 

This is practically a carbon copy of Chelsea on Pershing. Not incredible, but hey I'll take it.

Gotta agree with CHI here. I hate tearing down buildings but those houses, even if kept in good shape, don't serve as a noticeable entrance into the area. Houses are great on the main strip but they do little for activation or the density the Grove can accomplish. Hopefully this can do what Chroma did to the East entrance.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Really? I’m surprised you also believe that these Historic houses if rehabbed would not activate the street ‘at all’ (quoting here)
As for the entrance to a neighborhood, Both large and small scale buildings can be effective if designed right.

Imran more density is good. Not everything is about historical preservation- there are other goals worth achieving too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I'm in the minority here - I think it would be great to see these buildings renovated for commercial and/or residential use.  They could even become kind of like a mini version of Rainey Street in Austin.  There are still plenty of other places in and around The Grove where big, generic apartment buildings can be built.

The buildings west of Handlebar shown in Imran's picture are are together with no toothless gaps.  None are single story like the two small homes on the east side of the proposed tear downs.  Apples and oranges.  I would only advocate for removal if the new building is financed and sure to be built.  Adjacent buildings on both sides of the project are built right up to the sidewalk.  Continuity of the streetscape would be a real plus.  As it stands, this section of The Grove is a no-man's land.     

imran wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

STLinCHI wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

The buildings west of Handlebar shown in Imran's picture are are together with no toothless gaps.  None are single story like the two small homes on the east side of the proposed tear downs.  Apples and oranges.  I would only advocate for removal if the new building is financed and sure to be built.  Adjacent buildings on both sides of the project are built right up to the sidewalk.  Continuity of the streetscape would be a real plus.  As it stands, this section of The Grove is a no-man's land.     

So much to respond to in that. Let me just leave a couple pictures here. You can study them for number of stories, consistent setbacks etc. it’s okay to say you’re excited by new development and willing to sacrifice legacy architecture. Let’s  try to avoid forced rationalizations.

If you still cannot see it, I’d be happy to mock up a rendering of how these could be brought back as a stunning collection of small businesses to anchor this ‘no man’s land’

Nothing forced.  I'm a 40-year preservationist.  Not just in words, but actual work.  Rehabbed an 1876 alley flounder in Soulard for my first home in 1982.  Was the only inhabitant on the block at the time.  Rehabbed the farthest west commercial space in the Tivoli building in 1992 for my first retail business.  It's the only storefront in the building with the original plaster still intact and was the only one to stay open through the gut rehab project.  Rehabbed a 1914 two flat in 2004 for my first home in Chicago.  None of these were gut rehabs.  All were restorations.  With that said, I do believe bringing the street wall up to the sidewalk would stitch the south side of Manchester together and the residential density would be beneficial to the entire neighborhood.  Wasn't saying the building setbacks were inconsistent as a group, but certainly with regard to adjacent structures.  In my opinion, three of the six houses have little merit.  The other three are quite beautiful with amazing brickwork and would be a loss.  None of the six should demoed unless the new project proves financing in place.       

quincunx wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

Looks to me like he acquired these 2015-18. Where do you see 20 years? Austin Barzantny has been rehabbing buildings in the neighborhood for many years. He did 4101 Laclede. Here's an article about his activities from 2016.

Barzantny, 38, is in the middle of it. Grove Properties has rehabbed nearly 50 buildings to produce about 125 apartments. Occupancy is steady at 95 percent, said Barzantny, adding that most tenants are students or workers at the nearby Cortex tech district or the BJC complex.

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 46cb6.html

Looking at the sales history, 4556 last sold in 2003 and 4552 in 2006. Maybe there's a transaction missing, as 4542 (one of the vacant lots) seems to have last sold in 1989. Maybe all three properties were bundled with something else and Groveland LLC picked them up in transactions that aren't showing, but that's where I got the idea they've been slowly collecting them with the intent to eventually demo them and do something big. And the fact they've been in the neighborhood at least that long makes it believable. I'm thrilled that they've done good work elsewhere in the neighborhood, but I am infuriated they've simply let this entire strip slowly fall down. It's very much the Drury problem. I don't hate Drury. They've done some solid preservation work. (Saving the International Fur Exchange was no small feat.) But the way they just let the strip on Kingshighway rot, because it didn't fit their vision bugs me. This feels identical. And I find it especially perplexing when they have an office down the street.

This guy isn't Drury. Drury did nothing for the neighborhood. They held onto properties not even in the footprint of what they wanted to do. Like 4559 Oakland, which was lost due to their complete absence of care for the neighborhood or the buildings they owned. And what they wanted to do was a drive-to island. 

According to Geo St. Louis 4556 was owned by 
EIGHTEEN INVESTMENTS INC  in 2003
FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST RESTORATION LLc in 2005 until at least 2015
Frustratingly Geo St. Louis doesn't have ownership data 2016-2021
4552 was owned by
MAURA INVESTMENT CO INC  in 2003
FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST RESTORATION LLC in 2006 until at least 2015
4542 was owned by the LRA since at least 1998 until just recently.

The other buildings have similar histories.

FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST RESTORATION LLC was organized by a David P Hart in 2004 from the Articles of Organization found on the SoS website. You can buy an LLC instead of the properties it owns and that avoids whatever leads to a entry in the "sales history" on the property lookup website. Like how Drury packaged up the properties it sold to Lux in an LLC. You don't see an entry in the Sales History of that purchase.

Peoples sitting on properties sucks for sure. No disagreement here. It has different flavors though. Some think they are sitting on lottery tickets, like Delmar and Goodfellow. Some have a dream that they will rehab it themselves, but never have the resources/time/skills to do it, like the pair of board ups on 5700 DeGiverville. Then there's the family drama like 5200 Cates or 1401 Arlington. There's the endowment effect/delusion involved too. Some think the land is valuable and want to get rid of the building, like the iconic building in Fountain Park. Then there's McKee and the like who get stuck, and/or think the key is large parcels. Some hold on out of spite, like at Delmar and Hamilton, where we had to wait for the owner to die in order for something to happen. Or buy property to box someone else out like QT does. What happened at 7200 S Broadway, infuriating.

Whatever the path, we loose buildings or vacant lots sit in places seeing investment where you scratch your head as to why nothing has been built, so I understand being furious no matter how it got to this state.

^ Definitely disappointing that geostl doesn't have ownership records (except for current) post-2015, but you can check basic info on deed transactions on the fidlar site. It's accessible via the property address lookup site, but here's a direct link: https://mostlouiscity.fidlar.com/MOStLo ... h/#/search

For these Manchester properties, it looks like they were mostly acquired 2016ish, so not a Drury situation.


^^ Imran, I'm with you with my preference being renovating the existing buildings there and moving on to the next rehab or true infill project. If it's a quality replacement project and doesn't seek tax abatement (or is inclusionary housing if it does) then I wouldn't oppose it; but in general having a strong preservation ethos while focusing new construction on our city's vast collection of vacant parcels is the way to go for the city. 

imran wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

brianadler6545 wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2022

imran wrote:
Really? I’m surprised you also believe that these Historic houses if rehabbed would not activate the street ‘at all’ (quoting here)
As for the entrance to a neighborhood, Both large and small scale buildings can  be effective if designed right.

Imran more density is good. Not everything is about historical preservation- there are other goals worth achieving too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Density built on an empty parking lot is great. Replace a gas station? all day!
But density without historic preservation to me is warehousing of people while losing the soul of a community.

And St. Louis is not yet at a level of infill and population growth that we should feel forced to make difficult choices. We Can have both historic restoration and dense infill. Remember this City at one time housed 800k people within it without everything being boxy towers.

Sure, in 1950 when families 5-10 bodies deep were living in 2-3 bedroom flats. Even if we still had all of our 1950 housing stock, no way it could support 850K people in 2022.