I didn’t know they had that many projects going on. I’m actually beginning to lose track off all the developments.
- 2,053
In the neighborhood meeting I remember them saying they hoped to break ground in October (when WYMO finishes) so the business operating in one of the demo'd buildings can move over to their newer/bigger space.
Edit: Homegrown Hair Co. for the record.
Edit: Homegrown Hair Co. for the record.
Thanks. Sometimes project quietly disappear and die. Looking at you SoGro.
Demolition of 3146-50 Morgan Ford is on the preliminary agenda of the July 24 Preservation Board meeting.
The Preservation Board voted to withhold preliminary approval 3-1.
What a crock full of sh*t. Withholding progress is the Preservation Board's specialty. I don't want to hear the worry story of "well, speak up at the meetings or send in letters" by members of the Preservation Board because their minds are already made up. I don't buy into the idea that they can be swayed.
- 6,118
^I have to be honest, I wasn't completely in favor of this project myself. I'm happy to see new development on Morganford, but they wanted to demo several sound, handsome, and occupied structures. And the new project really didn't seem to bring enough to the table to justify that. No retail. Not much in the way of architectural merit. Just more typical developer box apartments. When we have lots of vacant land and plenty of new apartment construction elsewhere. I'm not going to weep over this one. Let them come up with a better plan. Ideally one that involves buying vacant lots and building there.
Couldn't agree more. There are plenty of vacant lots elsewhere that can be developed including a bunch owned by the developers of the proposal. .symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2023^I have to be honest, I wasn't completely in favor of this project myself. I'm happy to see new development on Morganford, but they wanted to demo several sound, handsome, and occupied structures. And the new project really didn't seem to bring enough to the table to justify that. No retail. Not much in the way of architectural merit. Just more typical developer box apartments. When we have lots of vacant land and plenty of new apartment construction elsewhere. I'm not going to weep over this one. Let them come up with a better plan. Ideally one that involves buying vacant lots and building there.
- 289
^where are these vacant lots, and more importantly are the vacant lots actually for sale?
- 488
This is bad. We should welcome neighbors in our neighborhoods.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2023^I have to be honest, I wasn't completely in favor of this project myself. I'm happy to see new development on Morganford, but they wanted to demo several sound, handsome, and occupied structures. And the new project really didn't seem to bring enough to the table to justify that. No retail. Not much in the way of architectural merit. Just more typical developer box apartments. When we have lots of vacant land and plenty of new apartment construction elsewhere. I'm not going to weep over this one. Let them come up with a better plan. Ideally one that involves buying vacant lots and building there.
I wish these 36 families could move into TGS, but now they must go elsewhere. I wish we were more welcoming to neighbors!
- 2,419
I hope they come back with a new proposal, this time featuring retail.
I thought the old proposal was fine, but really didn't like that a retail district would be losing retail spaces.
I'll personally write letters of support to any department or entity that I must if they would do that.
I say this as a Tower Grove South resident.
I thought the old proposal was fine, but really didn't like that a retail district would be losing retail spaces.
I'll personally write letters of support to any department or entity that I must if they would do that.
I say this as a Tower Grove South resident.
It didn't seem like the lack of retail was the deal breaker for the Preservation Board though.
- 289
^Agreed. Even if retail was added that wouldn’t sway the board. They will not allow the demo of those buildings regardless.
This is ridiculous! The rules around this board need a complete overhaul. These houses are not important to the city at all. No one loses anything if these insignificant buildings are torn down. We lose by missing out on new residents.
There needs to be some sort of exemption allowing developers to go around preservation review for residential projects that add density. I’m fine if preservation board reviews a project that would demo buildings for things like a gas station, etc. but we need to strip them of authority to kill these types of projects.
This is ridiculous! The rules around this board need a complete overhaul. These houses are not important to the city at all. No one loses anything if these insignificant buildings are torn down. We lose by missing out on new residents.
There needs to be some sort of exemption allowing developers to go around preservation review for residential projects that add density. I’m fine if preservation board reviews a project that would demo buildings for things like a gas station, etc. but we need to strip them of authority to kill these types of projects.
- 226
Trust me I hate the preservation board, but I think they made the correct decision. I think in 50 years we would look back and like What to destroying these viable structures, especially for what’s being proposed. Many of us do that now on demolished buildings from the past. Only maybe if it had another story or two with retail, with faux historical facade.
One positive is that if AHM can’t proceed maybe they will start the Downtown West developments earlier. In my opinion, that’s way more pressing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One positive is that if AHM can’t proceed maybe they will start the Downtown West developments earlier. In my opinion, that’s way more pressing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 488
My guess is I'll look back in 50 years and think that alot of St. Louis families had to spend more money then they should have living in the TGS neighborhood. So they spent less money on vacations, education for their kids, going out & spending money at local businesses, people had to work more than they wanted, etc.
But yes I guess it will be nice to look at that house.
But yes I guess it will be nice to look at that house.
- 2,623
I am perfectly fine with tearing down these buildings for a project that increases density, I am not fine with removing retail from the center of an important and successful retail corridor and replacing with a blank wall for car storage. Street level activation is very important at this location.
I was surprised this amount of support didn't carry the day.dweebe wrote: ↑Jul 26, 2023So now TGS is NIMBYing. That's something I didn't see coming.
RFT - City Preservation Board Puts Kibosh on Tower Grove South Apartments
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/ci ... s-40533017According to Jan Cameron, a preservation administrator with the Cultural Resources Office, many letters in support of the project were submitted to the board. There was only one in opposition to it, from someone who didn't live in the historic district. Ward 6 Alderwoman Daniela Velazquez offered her approval so long as the developers meet certain conditions.
AHM's Kyle Howerton tells the RFT the project had support from 13 businesses along Morgan Ford as well as from the Tower Grove South Neighborhood Association.
- 1,794
This is such a BS take in this context. Advocating for historic preservation and responsible land use are good things.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2023This is bad. We should welcome neighbors in our neighborhoods.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2023^I have to be honest, I wasn't completely in favor of this project myself. I'm happy to see new development on Morganford, but they wanted to demo several sound, handsome, and occupied structures. And the new project really didn't seem to bring enough to the table to justify that. No retail. Not much in the way of architectural merit. Just more typical developer box apartments. When we have lots of vacant land and plenty of new apartment construction elsewhere. I'm not going to weep over this one. Let them come up with a better plan. Ideally one that involves buying vacant lots and building there.
I wish these 36 families could move into TGS, but now they must go elsewhere. I wish we were more welcoming to neighbors!
There’s no need to destroy the commercial building.
A project is wrapping up literally two blocks away at MoFo and Wyoming on a parcel of nearly identical size that saves the commercial building while welcoming all those families.
It’s ok to expect more from developers. Protecting developers does not create equitable housing.
Hopefully AHM will go back to the drawing board and do something similar to the Wyomo project that builds around the existing commercial structure. I don't see the need to save the home on the corner.
Pruitt Igoe added a lot of shiny new density too. I don't think that density should be the end all be all.
That being said, I don't understand why some demos get approved (thinking west end of The Grove along Manchester) while others get denied.
That being said, I don't understand why some demos get approved (thinking west end of The Grove along Manchester) while others get denied.
At the PB meeting the AHM guy said they had a harder time with the building at Wyoming than expected which might be why they weren't keen to try integrating an old structure again.
- 43
It was part of my consideration, certainly, and also brought up by one of the citizens who testified about the loss of the hair salon. Even fellow Commissioner Catherine Hamacher who voted against my motion asked the applicant if that long blank wall could be made better.quincunx wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2023It didn't seem like the lack of retail was the deal breaker for the Preservation Board though.
- 6,118
^Thank you for your civil service. I know things get heated on here, but I appreciate the work you're doing.
I support the board's decision. As many people on this forum know, I am all about more density and would be in favor of this proposal if it were replacing a parking lot or gas station or the 7-11. As others have said, with so many low use parcels in this district, it's such a waste to destroy the fine-grained urbanism that these existing buildings uphold. Especially because they're OCCUPIED. It's buildings like these that make the neighborhood appealing and in-demand. It would be a different story if MorganFord (MARGANFARD!) was completely built out and this was the only spot left to build upon, but we are far from that being the case. I'd support the exact same proposal on a number of other underutilized sites within the district.