$12.75M zoning-only building permit application submitted for a 5-story 75-unit apartment building at 2125-51 Locust.
That's more units than the info from last June which was 55-65.
That's more units than the info from last June which was 55-65.
- 9,540
I am meeting Tuesday morning with one of the AHM guys if anyone has any questions that they’d want to know about
- 2,623
When will the renovations of the existing historical building stock begin? Pretty sure I remember those buildings being involved in the project.
- 2,419
I guess I have a few questions.
Their plans in Downtown West are to build three new buildings and renovate two. Is there an order in which they prefer to do these? Will the 29-story wood-framed tower be the last phase?
I'm also curious about their plans at Morgan Ford and Juniata, and for the Morgan Ford strip in general.
Their plans in Downtown West are to build three new buildings and renovate two. Is there an order in which they prefer to do these? Will the 29-story wood-framed tower be the last phase?
I'm also curious about their plans at Morgan Ford and Juniata, and for the Morgan Ford strip in general.
- 9,540
My understanding is that tower was going to be last but its generated so much interest that they're moving it up.
^ Woot! That’s great news.
Any timelines at this point for the various projects?
Any timelines at this point for the various projects?
- 9,540
The project with the zoning only permit- Jan 2024 groundbreaking, few months after that a 115-unit building with gargage facing Washington Ave and 12 months or so for Timber Tower. Obviously with tight financial and labor markets (should ease by end of year) timelines may move up or down.
reno of existing buildings is stuck in tax credit approval process at state level.
reno of existing buildings is stuck in tax credit approval process at state level.
quick visual
This is great news, I'm pleasantly surprised that the phases are currently planned in such quick succession, I was thinking they'd be staggered more. This and Butler Brothers are really going to have an impact on the area, add in the smaller projects around here and it'll be interesting to see the transformation in a couple years.
What is the expected savings per square foot building a timber structure instead of a post tension or cast in place super structure ? If I recall someone in the thread mentioned the savings was via a faster timeline so reduced carrying expenses.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 18, 2023I am meeting Tuesday morning with one of the AHM guys if anyone has any questions that they’d want to know about
From their presentation last year. They could save even more by building less parking.
▪ Building weighs 50% less, resulting in smaller less
carbon intensive foundations
▪ Can be constructed 20% faster than concrete, saving
thousands of trucking miles (80%-90% less traffic)
▪ Building weighs 50% less, resulting in smaller less
carbon intensive foundations
▪ Can be constructed 20% faster than concrete, saving
thousands of trucking miles (80%-90% less traffic)
- 9,540
Lenders won’t allow them to build less parking. You just have to get it through your head that no sane person will risk giving someone $100-200m to build housing with no parking in st.Louis or any American city outside of Chicago and NYC. You can’t force people into a 2 hour bus ride when driving takes 12 min
- 337
Scientific articles to back this up?quincunx wrote:From their presentation last year. They could save even more by building less parking.
▪ Building weighs 50% less, resulting in smaller less
carbon intensive foundations
▪ Can be constructed 20% faster than concrete, saving
thousands of trucking miles (80%-90% less traffic)
Regardless though DB is still correct. Unless reliable transit is nearby, adequate parking will always be a requirement for lenders. Any commercial real estate agent will tell you the necessary number needed for various cities to make your building viable if you decide to sell. At least in my experience from working on numerous projects.
IMO if the parking is in the building and has a first floor mixed use/activated facade on at least 80ish% I’m pleased with the outcome.
They didn't cite any in their presentation.LArchitecture wrote: ↑Jun 21, 2023Scientific articles to back this up?quincunx wrote:From their presentation last year. They could save even more by building less parking.
▪ Building weighs 50% less, resulting in smaller less
carbon intensive foundations
▪ Can be constructed 20% faster than concrete, saving
thousands of trucking miles (80%-90% less traffic)
- 991
Replace 'no' with 'less' in DB's second sentence and his point still stands. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of less parking, and I'm positive developers would also love to have to not pay for it too if they could cut those costs. But the St. Louis market just isn't there right now.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2023Who said anything about no parking?
909 Chestnut is ringing a bell...seem that less parking really helped that buildings redevelopment opportunities.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2023Lenders won’t allow them to build less parking. You just have to get it through your head that no sane person will risk giving someone $100-200m to build housing with no parking in st.Louis or any American city outside of Chicago and NYC. You can’t force people into a 2 hour bus ride when driving takes 12 min
- 6,118
I don't disagree with you, but how do we get it there? Because the model we have right now is literally killing us. It won't keep working. We need an enormous national investment in public transportation.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Jun 21, 2023Replace 'no' with 'less' in DB's second sentence and his point still stands. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of less parking, and I'm positive developers would also love to have to not pay for it too if they could cut those costs. But the St. Louis market just isn't there right now.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 20, 2023Who said anything about no parking?
- 2,623
Transit needs to be greatly expanded, both in coverage and frequency. It should also be free to lure people away from their cars. It needs to be sustained for decades to allow construction of TOD around lines and for people to orient their lives around car free living. Pedestrian and bike infrastructure also needs substantial improvement.
Like you said, it would require enormous national investment.
Like you said, it would require enormous national investment.
We can choose to build less car infrastructure, change zoning, parking minimums, etc right now at the local level. Regionally, EW Gateway says all the right things, then you see the project wishlist. Again make different choices. And somehow get the state to chip in.
We're spending a ton on MSD and shrug our shoulders because of the consent decree. Is that what it will take to build and operate more transit and infrastructure for non-car modes?
We're spending a ton on MSD and shrug our shoulders because of the consent decree. Is that what it will take to build and operate more transit and infrastructure for non-car modes?
- 6,118
^A consent decree? Maybe not, but a general change in federal policy is probably needed. I don't think there's really any way to make it happen without a change in either or both state or federal transportation spending; without a larger government with broader reach saying that they're going to invest at least half their transportation dollars directly into public transportation.
Definitely a change in federal policy. Not sure how a consent degree fits in here. MSD has a consent degree with the feds because its combined sewer system regularly overflows and dumps raw sewage into local waterways. A sprawled out suburban lifestyle is certainly unhealthy, not only for the region as a whole, but for individuals too. But there isn't anything expressly illegal about that...dumping raw sewage into a river is another matter. Hence the (expensive) agreement with the EPA.
I agree that we've spread ourselves out too much and the type of development the region has pursued has only exacerbated issues like flooding and whatnot. But even if we had developed more sustainably from the start...St. Louis would still be a city where it rains and is surrounded by rivers, creeks, streams, etc. that will flood. And the city and inner-county would still have an ancient, decrepit combined sewer system that would need to be separated and brought up to modern standards.
MSD's service area only covers the city and county. I wouldn't exactly say either of those jurisdictions are sprawling any longer. Yes, mistakes were made in the past but that ship has left the harbor. They still have to maintain what they've built. Fortunately much of the infrastructure as you move west was built correctly as separate storm and waste systems and shouldn't require the monster investment in the future that the older stuff in the core does today.
I agree that we've spread ourselves out too much and the type of development the region has pursued has only exacerbated issues like flooding and whatnot. But even if we had developed more sustainably from the start...St. Louis would still be a city where it rains and is surrounded by rivers, creeks, streams, etc. that will flood. And the city and inner-county would still have an ancient, decrepit combined sewer system that would need to be separated and brought up to modern standards.
MSD's service area only covers the city and county. I wouldn't exactly say either of those jurisdictions are sprawling any longer. Yes, mistakes were made in the past but that ship has left the harbor. They still have to maintain what they've built. Fortunately much of the infrastructure as you move west was built correctly as separate storm and waste systems and shouldn't require the monster investment in the future that the older stuff in the core does today.
I know. My point is because of the consent decree we're all just accepting spending a lot of money, on the order of $5k per person (the estimate was $4.7B in 2013), on this (important) thing. Not much controversy, no cries for federal or state help (some help would be nice of course). No talk of waste or boondoggles. We just have to suck it up and do it.
Particulate matter, ozone, GHG emissions, the car crash public health crisis are important too, at the level of crisis. So just like we're told "spend what it takes to stop sewage from overflowing up in the river," how about we get told "spend what it takes/ change policies to reduce per capita VMT by X% by year Y" or something like that, so the spending is as non-controversial as the MSD spending is?
In other words carrots are great, but in the case of MSD we're getting a stick because it took a stick, previous generations kicked the can, and it's getting done, maybe we need a stick for transit, bike, ped. Like an ADA lawsuit to compel fixing sidewalks, intersection, etc.
Sorry, we're way off topic, and I'm usually one who gets miffed about that.
Particulate matter, ozone, GHG emissions, the car crash public health crisis are important too, at the level of crisis. So just like we're told "spend what it takes to stop sewage from overflowing up in the river," how about we get told "spend what it takes/ change policies to reduce per capita VMT by X% by year Y" or something like that, so the spending is as non-controversial as the MSD spending is?
In other words carrots are great, but in the case of MSD we're getting a stick because it took a stick, previous generations kicked the can, and it's getting done, maybe we need a stick for transit, bike, ped. Like an ADA lawsuit to compel fixing sidewalks, intersection, etc.
Sorry, we're way off topic, and I'm usually one who gets miffed about that.
- 337
At the end this is capitalism and whichever method is cheapest for the consumer is what will continue. Therefore IMO taxes that support road infrastructure actually need to match what it costs to maintain them to better levels than they currently exist. If taxed appropriately people may think more carefully about the amount created and frequency of use as well as distance to common necessary parts of life.
Once public transit is faster, reliable, free(cheaper), than private transportation in major population hubs, we then may see a culture change. Till then money says you must have a certain level of car space for uses to be viable in various regions of the US.
Once public transit is faster, reliable, free(cheaper), than private transportation in major population hubs, we then may see a culture change. Till then money says you must have a certain level of car space for uses to be viable in various regions of the US.