I think Lux has gotten to the point where there absolutely zero trust and no matter what steps could be taken, they'd still say "f*ck it" and break the rules. I absolutely agree these buildings are a complete embarrassment. But Lux is soooo bad, that keeping these undeveloped shells is the preferable option.framer wrote: ↑Mar 22, 2023Isn'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.
I can attest to this. I am an owner in this building and these leaks, both in the lobby and in certain units were reported last week, nothing from CITY WIDE/LUX, no repair or even assessment was down for days. Finally, a resident called the STLFD to assess the water rushing through light fixtures, the STLPD was able to get an inspector out on Monday to check it. LUX has until Monday to repair, or the units will be condemned. As of this am, they are still leaking.dweebe wrote: ↑Mar 22, 2023I think Lux has gotten to the point where there absolutely zero trust and no matter what steps could be taken, they'd still say "f*ck it" and break the rules. I absolutely agree these buildings are a complete embarrassment. But Lux is soooo bad, that keeping these undeveloped shells is the preferable option.framer wrote: ↑Mar 22, 2023Isn'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.
What do you mean by that? Governments have used their power to take land from private individuals for all kinds of crazy reasons, and the government sometimes grants private entities the right to use it for specific purposes. Note the use in several local commercial developments, most recently the U. City Costco. I do believe the city also handed SLU that authority in the Midtown redevelopment district. The fifth amendment purports to require "due process" and requires "just compensation" for any property taken for "public use" but there's a lot of fuzzy there and the taking of private property for private developments (as in the Costco case) was upheld at the Supreme Court right around 2000. It is a rather frightening precedent, and I am not terribly comfortable with the way it's been used lately, but I think that cat has been out of the bag for a while. I don't really see anything that would prevent the city from seizing any property they wanted, so long as there was reasonable compensation and at least some good argument you could use in court to defend it as a public benefit. Now all that said, there are probably cheaper and easier ways to keep Lux from doing horrible things. We do have a building code for that. (If only we enforced the thing, for instance.) We already have perfectly nice laws saying the city can go in and address the code violations, for instance, and then bill Lux for it afterwards. Or we could fine them for weeds, trash, litter, or any number of hazardous conditions. I don't think eminent domain is really necessary here. But . . . I'm also not at all sure a city would honestly be prevented from using it anymore. (Though obviously it's easier to use it against poor people without lawyers than rich people with them.) I'd love to see some real public use requirements, but I think those went out the window a quarter century ago now.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2023That 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.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.
No, Chapter 353 redevelopment corporations formed after Dec 31, 2006 do not have eminent domain powers.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2023I do believe the city also handed SLU that authority in the Midtown redevelopment district.
I could come up with a public benefit for almost every vacant neglected property in St. Louis. A majority of which are in much worse condition than Lux's properties on Kingshighway. If they are violating city code the or the law, the proper agency / authority should enforce. The selective use of a governmental power because of someones reputation or business practices is a bad road to go down.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2023What do you mean by that? Governments have used their power to take land from private individuals for all kinds of crazy reasons, and the government sometimes grants private entities the right to use it for specific purposes. Note the use in several local commercial developments, most recently the U. City Costco. I do believe the city also handed SLU that authority in the Midtown redevelopment district. The fifth amendment purports to require "due process" and requires "just compensation" for any property taken for "public use" but there's a lot of fuzzy there and the taking of private property for private developments (as in the Costco case) was upheld at the Supreme Court right around 2000. It is a rather frightening precedent, and I am not terribly comfortable with the way it's been used lately, but I think that cat has been out of the bag for a while. I don't really see anything that would prevent the city from seizing any property they wanted, so long as there was reasonable compensation and at least some good argument you could use in court to defend it as a public benefit. Now all that said, there are probably cheaper and easier ways to keep Lux from doing horrible things. We do have a building code for that. (If only we enforced the thing, for instance.) We already have perfectly nice laws saying the city can go in and address the code violations, for instance, and then bill Lux for it afterwards. Or we could fine them for weeds, trash, litter, or any number of hazardous conditions. I don't think eminent domain is really necessary here. But . . . I'm also not at all sure a city would honestly be prevented from using it anymore. (Though obviously it's easier to use it against poor people without lawyers than rich people with them.) I'd love to see some real public use requirements, but I think those went out the window a quarter century ago now.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2023That 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.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.
Agreed. Selective use of government power is a lawsuit in the waiting. The City can only take significant legal action when it's too late. The City needs preventative tools, like:STLAPTS wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2023I could come up with a public benefit for almost every vacant neglected property in St. Louis. A majority of which are in much worse condition than Lux's properties on Kingshighway. If they are violating city code the city code or law, the proper agency / authority should be enforce. The selective use of a governmental power because of someones reputation or business practices is a bad road to go down.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2023What do you mean by that? Governments have used their power to take land from private individuals for all kinds of crazy reasons, and the government sometimes grants private entities the right to use it for specific purposes. Note the use in several local commercial developments, most recently the U. City Costco. I do believe the city also handed SLU that authority in the Midtown redevelopment district. The fifth amendment purports to require "due process" and requires "just compensation" for any property taken for "public use" but there's a lot of fuzzy there and the taking of private property for private developments (as in the Costco case) was upheld at the Supreme Court right around 2000. It is a rather frightening precedent, and I am not terribly comfortable with the way it's been used lately, but I think that cat has been out of the bag for a while. I don't really see anything that would prevent the city from seizing any property they wanted, so long as there was reasonable compensation and at least some good argument you could use in court to defend it as a public benefit. Now all that said, there are probably cheaper and easier ways to keep Lux from doing horrible things. We do have a building code for that. (If only we enforced the thing, for instance.) We already have perfectly nice laws saying the city can go in and address the code violations, for instance, and then bill Lux for it afterwards. Or we could fine them for weeds, trash, litter, or any number of hazardous conditions. I don't think eminent domain is really necessary here. But . . . I'm also not at all sure a city would honestly be prevented from using it anymore. (Though obviously it's easier to use it against poor people without lawyers than rich people with them.) I'd love to see some real public use requirements, but I think those went out the window a quarter century ago now.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2023That 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.
Very well said.doellingd wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2023Agreed. Selective use of government power is a lawsuit in the waiting. The City can only take significant legal action when it's too late. The City needs preventative tools, like:STLAPTS wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2023I could come up with a public benefit for almost every vacant neglected property in St. Louis. A majority of which are in much worse condition than Lux's properties on Kingshighway. If they are violating city code the city code or law, the proper agency / authority should be enforce. The selective use of a governmental power because of someones reputation or business practices is a bad road to go down.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 23, 2023What do you mean by that? Governments have used their power to take land from private individuals for all kinds of crazy reasons, and the government sometimes grants private entities the right to use it for specific purposes. Note the use in several local commercial developments, most recently the U. City Costco. I do believe the city also handed SLU that authority in the Midtown redevelopment district. The fifth amendment purports to require "due process" and requires "just compensation" for any property taken for "public use" but there's a lot of fuzzy there and the taking of private property for private developments (as in the Costco case) was upheld at the Supreme Court right around 2000. It is a rather frightening precedent, and I am not terribly comfortable with the way it's been used lately, but I think that cat has been out of the bag for a while. I don't really see anything that would prevent the city from seizing any property they wanted, so long as there was reasonable compensation and at least some good argument you could use in court to defend it as a public benefit. Now all that said, there are probably cheaper and easier ways to keep Lux from doing horrible things. We do have a building code for that. (If only we enforced the thing, for instance.) We already have perfectly nice laws saying the city can go in and address the code violations, for instance, and then bill Lux for it afterwards. Or we could fine them for weeds, trash, litter, or any number of hazardous conditions. I don't think eminent domain is really necessary here. But . . . I'm also not at all sure a city would honestly be prevented from using it anymore. (Though obviously it's easier to use it against poor people without lawyers than rich people with them.) I'd love to see some real public use requirements, but I think those went out the window a quarter century ago now.
- A Tenant's Bill of Rights
- A way to track tenant issues and tenant’s rights are ensured
- A way to ensure that landlords who violate renters rights are held accountable
- A way to track who owns our city’s housing so folks like Lux can't hide behind LLCs
- Properly staffing and equipping the building division to ensure a standard of housing quality and enforce code violations
I think that the only way the existing properties become attractive places to live (and therefore command the prices that would make renovation economically viable) is if Kingshighway goes through a massive street diet. I don't think they're at a scale that can accommodate fronting a 6-8 lane stroad, it would take the sound insulation and Grove-orientated entries that would come with a new apartment building to be a pleasant place to live. I would love if that road corridor was reshaped, but unfortunately I don't see that happening in the near future.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 22, 2023Ald. Browning was on KMOX this morning talking about the letters sent to Lux demanding they stabilize the buildings or the city will do it and bill them. He said $200k per building to stabilize. Sounds like a lot.
He said demo is not an option. I figured, perhaps mistakenly, that a different proposal by a different developer that razed the buildings might get support from the neighborhood. I get being clear to Lux. I hope they sell. I worry the city puts in over a $1M to stabilize, and still no one wants to buy them for rehab. Maybe there is someone who would buy to rehab, idk. Didn't Imran say he tried to buy for rehab? I think it's certain there's market interest to build something bigger here.
I'd like to see these funds spent to stabilize buildings like 5200 Cates and 1000 Morrison where the market is weaker where the stabilization helps fill the gap.
https://www.audacy.com/podcast/total-in ... at-64-3a42
I am in absolute agreement, absent a complete rebuild of Kingshighway I'd give any decent developer almost carte blanche to redevelop the parcels. Whether it be a standard 5 over 1, a taller tower, or something more creative, there are few developments that wouldn't improve the area assuming they aren't including a sea of surface parking. The only issue with the Lux proposal was Lux.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Jun 22, 2023I don't think demolition should be allowed ... for LuxLiving.
But I absolutely think that demolition should be allowed for the next developer that takes over these buildings.
I agree with anyone that thinks these buildings as-is would not be attractive for prospective developers.
My genuine hope is that a $1M stabilization price tag encourages LuxLiving to give up these properties and allows the ball to finally start rolling at that spot.
2. The neighborhood essentially used the Preservation Board to block LuxLiving, rather than some other method. As written, the Preservation Board ruling has nothing to do with LuxLiving, and as a result its ruling stands for any other developer willing to take on the project in the future. But, redevelopment of the existing buildings isn't consistent with the neighborhood plan.The area along Kingshighway Boulevard was identified as an opportunity for greater height and larger scale buildings to re-image the front door of the neighborhood. Buildings could be setback just a bit to allow for a separate, multi-use trail along the east side of the roadway; and building height minimums could be 3 stories in the northern areas, and 6 stories in the south areas. Building height maximums would need to be sensitive to the neighborhood area immediately east of these sites.
I mean I know why. But its really hard to run a city with having different rules for different companies though, based on "vibes".RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Jun 22, 2023I don't think demolition should be allowed ... for LuxLiving.
But I absolutely think that demolition should be allowed for the next developer that takes over these buildings.
I agree with anyone that thinks these buildings as-is would not be attractive for prospective developers.
My genuine hope is that a $1M stabilization price tag encourages LuxLiving to give up these properties and allows the ball to finally start rolling at that spot.
After seeing the build quality of Hudson, I completely and vehemently disagree. I’d be impressed if that building is doing well in 20 years. Plus the way they treat tenants is predatory so again no. Shut Lux out till they fix themselves.mjbais1489 wrote:I mean I know why. But its really hard to run a city with having different rules for different companies though, based on "vibes".RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Jun 22, 2023I don't think demolition should be allowed ... for LuxLiving.
But I absolutely think that demolition should be allowed for the next developer that takes over these buildings.
I agree with anyone that thinks these buildings as-is would not be attractive for prospective developers.
My genuine hope is that a $1M stabilization price tag encourages LuxLiving to give up these properties and allows the ball to finally start rolling at that spot.
Stopping this project at the Preservation Board level is completely wrong even if its happening to the worst developers. Lux Living has pretty consistently delivered on actually building things right? They clearly are vindictive and play hardball and I personally wouldn't do business with them, but the city shouldn't be picking which developers succeed and which ones fail in the city.
Enforce safety standards, enforce rules, make the rules better, but Lux Living should absolutely be allowed to tear these buildings down and build their proposal as currently outlined under current rules
I’m not talking about finishes I’m talking about material failure already happening. The way it’s sited and water goes back against the building. I’m talking about visible building membrane that has no protection from elements and will fail quicker.mjbais1489 wrote:Unless there was something unsafe or illegal about how they built that, thats a bad way to run a city.
I dont like how Green Street has finished some buildings. I dont like how Brian Hayden's properties look. We should stop them from building until they clean it up.
Not good for either IMO. Both under 4 stars with 60+ reviews. I’ve always felt if you can’t maintain 4 stars you’re doing enough wrong for people to post poorly.STLrainbow wrote:I know Lux built at least two new apartment buildings that they then sold... one on Pershing that I believe is/was called The Tribeca and there's also the Steelyard in Soulard. I guess it's possible Lux still manages those, but does anyone know how they are faring in terms of condition and tenant reviews?
