urbanSTL

I'm conflicted about this site. 

On one hand, yeah, Lux Living is a garbage company; on the other, are we guaranteed that the next owners of the property are going to be good stewards of it? 

Before garbage Lux, we had garbage Drury. What guarantees that Lux sells to someone with good intentions? 

A good chunk of me would rather see this developed than watch it sit for another decade or two. 

framer wrote: ↑

Mar 04, 2023

Lux has taken a helluva beating in the press lately (deservedly so). Presumably they've learned from all of this, and realize that they've got to improve their business practices and build a better product. At what point do we trust that they'll do that? Or do we never allow them to build anything again? That seems rather harsh, and probably illegal.

They have not changed their management practices; they continue to ruin buildings and do not perform routine cleaning or maintenance. I own property in one of their buildings and it is the worst situation. They do not respond timely and those that do rent from them (at least in my building) are attempting to move out. 

midcoaststl wrote: ↑

Mar 07, 2023

framer wrote: ↑

Mar 04, 2023

Lux has taken a helluva beating in the press lately (deservedly so). Presumably they've learned from all of this, and realize that they've got to improve their business practices and build a better product. At what point do we trust that they'll do that? Or do we never allow them to build anything again? That seems rather harsh, and probably illegal.

They have not changed their management practices; they continue to ruin buildings and do not perform routine cleaning or maintenance. I own property in one of their buildings and it is the worst situation. They do not respond timely and those that do rent from them (at least in my building) are attempting to move out. 

For me at this point, it's about more than building something that may be shoddy in construction or management. They need to be run out of town before they hurt our city more than they already have. Every rejected project of theirs helps as far as I'm concerned. 

There are a lot of NIMBY-eque opinions on this issue for such a progressive forum. As far as I'm concerned, if LUX wants to build here, they should be able to. Yes, LUX builds/ manages poorly and is surrounded by controversy, but if people don't like that, then they shouldn't rent from them. I understand that their ownership of historic buildings has been malicious, but this is a new construction where they're not adopting residents who rented from a different landlord and thus expect more. I think this is a much different issue than that.

LUX has gone through a number of design iterations for this project, working with the neighborhood to satisfy their requests. All that work has culminated in a strong, attractive proposal (as attractive as modern construction can be). Looking past who the developer is/ their history, do people think that the current state of the parcel is better than the proposed construction? 

This is just my perspective on the issue. 

^^^^The only *consistent* group of people who rent from Asprient

sorry, I mean CityWide

sorry, I mean Lux

are people moving in from out of town who don't know any better - and end up in our city with a terrible living situation for at least a year because of it.
They have consistently ignored safety and maintenance. Not at one, or even a couple of their buildings. But at damn near all of them, for years, going on decades.
This isn't a "they screwed up once and should be given another shot" situation. This is a "we know what they are going to do because they have done it, over and over and over again" situation.

I am not willing to sacrifice safety and prey upon newcomers to our city on the alter of some free market in rental units that may or may not even really exist.

I also don't like that many of their renters are new to town. people we might like to stay here, and have a horrible living  experience on top of the stress of starting a new degree or a new job in a new city far away from their support networks.

Elek.borrelli wrote: ↑

Mar 07, 2023

There are a lot of NIMBY-eque opinions on this issue for such a progressive forum. As far as I'm concerned, if LUX wants to build here, they should be able to. Yes, LUX builds/ manages poorly and is surrounded by controversy, but if people don't like that, then they shouldn't rent from them. I understand that their ownership of historic buildings has been malicious, but this is a new construction where they're not adopting residents who rented from a different landlord and thus expect more. I think this is a much different issue than that.

LUX has gone through a number of design iterations for this project, working with the neighborhood to satisfy their requests. All that work has culminated in a strong, attractive proposal (as attractive as modern construction can be). Looking past who the developer is/ their history, do people think that the current state of the parcel is better than the proposed construction? 

This is just my perspective on the issue. 

This is a pretty ridiculous assertion. Forest Park Southeast has seen the development of hundreds if not thousands of new apartments in recent years, developments which received pretty much universal support on this forum. So like:
1) FPSE isn't a NIMBY poster child, even without this project it has probably altered its built environment to accomodate more housing more than any other neighborhood in the City over the last 10 years
2) There's obviously plenty of demand from other developers with better records than Lux Living has, the existing apartment buildings won't just sit vacant if this isn't built 

^ Thank you sc4 for clarifying. I guess I didn't consider that most of their renters are new to the area, which is unfortunate. Of course, that's just my take on the issue, so it doesn't have to correspond with how everyone else feels. I guess we can all agree that this is a case of a good proposal/ design but a bad developer. 

I'm curious to see where this one goes.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously not to consider the appeal of the denial of the demolition by the Preservation Board.

Good job St. Louis.

For your viewing displeasure. How convenient that this starts happening less than two weeks after the appeal to the planning commission failed.

^^^uh huh. Exactly what they said they'd do.

^In complete fairness, has anyone at all said they'd preserve or restore those buildings? I'd love to see them restored, but I think that's been out of the conversation almost since the day Drury bought them. And hell, at this point I don't care what goes there so long as it's something that doesn't look like diseased buttocks or hurt the neighbors.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

^In complete fairness, has anyone at all said they'd preserve or restore those buildings? I'd love to see them restored, but I think that's been out of the conversation almost since the day Drury bought them. And hell, at this point I don't care what goes there so long as it's something that doesn't look like diseased buttocks or hurt the neighbors.

That is a very good point.  I can fairly confidently say that Lux Living will hold onto and let the properties rot for as long as needed until they get to build on the site.  At some point, the NIMBYS will have to deal with them or face the realty that the buildings will continue to be an eyesore and slowly rot.  

^Uh, no. We can't be rewarding bad behavior like if the City actually were willing to be proactive they could cite Lux for code violations and take them via eminent domain. 

Also, call me a NIMBY but I'd literally rather have a vacant lot than have Lux build any more crappy apartments laid like a trap to abuse tenants in buildings that probably won't last that long. 

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

^Uh, no. We can't be rewarding bad behavior like if the City actually were willing to be proactive they could cite Lux for code violations and take them via eminent domain. 

Also, call me a NIMBY but I'd literally rather have a vacant lot than have Lux build any more crappy apartments laid like a trap to abuse tenants in buildings that probably won't last that long. 

That is not how eminent domain works and would be a gross abuse of power setting a very scary precedent.  I'm not sticking up for Lux, but what is with the conviction that everything they build is crap?  I am also a developer in the same general areas as Lux and the City / County building codes effectively ensures that comparable buildings are built to similarly. 

STLAPTS wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

^Uh, no. We can't be rewarding bad behavior like if the City actually were willing to be proactive they could cite Lux for code violations and take them via eminent domain. 

Also, call me a NIMBY but I'd literally rather have a vacant lot than have Lux build any more crappy apartments laid like a trap to abuse tenants in buildings that probably won't last that long. 

That is not how eminent domain works and would be a gross abuse of power setting a very scary precedent.  I'm not sticking up for Lux, but what is with the conviction that everything they build is crap?  I am also a developer in the same general areas as Lux and the City / County building codes effectively ensures that comparable buildings are built to similarly. 

It's not the design, which is pretty on par for better or worse, but their build quality and finishes are crap. Bad workmanship, leaving out details like endcaps, misalignments all contribute to diminish the durability and attractiveness of their construction. Just look at the Hudson and compare it to the Expo right across the street, it's a lot of little things that add up.

_nomad_ wrote:

STLAPTS wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

^Uh, no. We can't be rewarding bad behavior like if the City actually were willing to be proactive they could cite Lux for code violations and take them via eminent domain. 

Also, call me a NIMBY but I'd literally rather have a vacant lot than have Lux build any more crappy apartments laid like a trap to abuse tenants in buildings that probably won't last that long. 

That is not how eminent domain works and would be a gross abuse of power setting a very scary precedent.  I'm not sticking up for Lux, but what is with the conviction that everything they build is crap?  I am also a developer in the same general areas as Lux and the City / County building codes effectively ensures that comparable buildings are built to similarly. 

It's not the design, which is pretty on par for better or worse, but their build quality and finishes are crap. Bad workmanship, leaving out details like endcaps, misalignments all contribute to diminish the durability and attractiveness of their construction. Just look at the Hudson and compare it to the Expo right across the street, it's a lot of little things that add up.

Can confirm. Hudson is poorly constructed in a variety of ways compared to Expo. Expo still has its issues but nothing (yet) as glaringly obvious as Hudson. I guess that’s the difference between a top 5 Architecture firm (HOK) vs whoever did the Hudson and several other Lux buildings.

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

STLAPTS wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2023

^Uh, no. We can't be rewarding bad behavior like if the City actually were willing to be proactive they could cite Lux for code violations and take them via eminent domain. 

Also, call me a NIMBY but I'd literally rather have a vacant lot than have Lux build any more crappy apartments laid like a trap to abuse tenants in buildings that probably won't last that long. 

That is not how eminent domain works and would be a gross abuse of power setting a very scary precedent.  I'm not sticking up for Lux, but what is with the conviction that everything they build is crap?  I am also a developer in the same general areas as Lux and the City / County building codes effectively ensures that comparable buildings are built to similarly. 

It's not the design, which is pretty on par for better or worse, but their build quality and finishes are crap. Bad workmanship, leaving out details like endcaps, misalignments all contribute to diminish the durability and attractiveness of their construction. Just look at the Hudson and compare it to the Expo right across the street, it's a lot of little things that add up.

Who is doing the actual design and construction?

The architect is VE Design.

https://vedesigngroup.com/

Construction is Big Sur run by Sid Chakraverty

https://bigsurconstruction.com/

quincunx wrote:The architect is VE Design.

https://vedesigngroup.com/

Construction is Big Sur run by Sid Chakraverty

https://bigsurconstruction.com/

Found the issue. Builder ends up being the owner and operator of the apartment. That blatantly shows they most likely cut costs on every way possible. Makes sense considering at The Hudson the brick mortar is failing in some areas and for several months the building wasn’t even fully waterproofed. Plus they have a situation of drainage toward the building with no drain right at the doorway.

Isn't there some way the project could be approved, but make Lux agree to some kind of extra, independent inspection to assure better quality? I know the legalities would be a hassle, but I really want to get this site developed.