looking at the floor plans, i'm not seeing how they would add retail later. certainly not along morganford due to the garage entrances. maybe along Juniata, but they would have to forego a quarter of their parking and completely reconfigure the side of the building. that's not gonna happen.Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024...but I understand from the developer’s post that a retail bay can be added in later (which is good).
- 3,762
They are on Juniata.imran wrote: ↑Sep 20, 2024Oh and are those two curb cuts on Morganford? Yeeesh. How much urban insult/injury can one proposal pack?
SMH
The Preseration Board is bound by opinions, hence why 1 of your colleagues disagreed with the majority. And your opinion was terrible. Quite happy you're not on the board anymore, hopefully someone who understands that the city can't be rejecting projects like this replaced you. I also know it had nothing to do with retail, the board's decision was text book NIMBY and you even restated that right here.preservation.research.office wrote: ↑Sep 20, 2024As the Preservation Board member who made the motion to deny the previous application, I know that I did not "dog whistle." I don't think that my fellow commissioners did, either, and one even voted in favor of the project. (I was not living in Tower Grove South -- Dutchtown, although I no longer live in St. Louis -- and if you have paid attention to the Board, often have been critical of neighborhood organizations' trying to impose an interpretation on applicants.) I took an oath to uphold the laws of the City, which extend protection to the three buildings on the corner. The Board can decide that the new project warrants waiving the protections, but the design that we saw was generic, out of scale with Morganford and came across as "plop" architecture. The applicant's testimony did not address the ordinance or the concerns of the majority of Board members, and in fact, he spoke more about what kinds of buildings people want in other cities than the particular facets of the preservation ordinance that may have swayed our opinion. Street-level retail was not the crux of the matter for me, especially as the corner historically has never had a retail building. We'll see what a second turn looks like, but people need to remember that the Preservation Board is bound by laws, and arguments need to address the actual powers of the Board.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024The Preservation Board specifically used terms like "character of the neighborhood" and "historical significance". Those are both NIMBY dog whistles. Their ruling had nothing to do with retail bays.
Also, anyone complaining about "historical significance" or rehabilitating the old vacant buildings aren't talking about retail bays. Granted, most of the opposition from last year on here was more worried about retail bays, but not recently.
- 3,762
i also thought the long side was morganford. wow, the ground floor just keeps getting worse. and makes the storefront demo even shittier—basically to squeeze in 8 parking spaces.quincunx wrote: ↑Sep 20, 2024They are on Juniata.
It's to squeeze in 36 apartment units.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Sep 20, 2024i also thought the long side was morganford. wow, the ground floor just keeps getting worse. and makes the storefront demo even shittier—basically to squeeze in 8 parking spaces.quincunx wrote: ↑Sep 20, 2024They are on Juniata.
- 2,430
fwiw, I'm not sure about what immediate neighbors may have voted on regarding 1:1 parking but I don't think that was a Neighborhood Ass'n requirement. My guess though is getting a variance for a project seeking a lower parking ratio would not be the easiest venture... hopefully the city can build on the parking reform it recently passed for properties w/in 1/2 mile of the proposed Green Line stations and relax requirements citywide.legendrey wrote: ↑Sep 19, 2024I'm failing to see the problem here, and truthfully please tell me where I am wrong as I'm not very well-versed on any of this. The surrounding area supposedly voted that 1:1 parking was required, there is very recent/strong evidence that retail might be struggling in this area a bit more than years past, and they've left the door open for future retail additions to the building. It's, in my opinion, a good looking building using high quality materials and AHM seems to be forthcoming with their current predicament and appreciation for the concerns of those in the neighborhood.
Re retail, the commercial strip actually had pretty strong occupancy with several new business openings/soon openings and with only one or two actively leased properties available. (I don't think the oddball Til Sunrise spot has been actively leased in years.) Of course the coming closures of the 3 LIttle Monkeys and Black Sheep/Mama 2's are unfortunate but spots turn over and even if it takes some time to re-lease I wouldn't say that retail will be any less vibrant than in recent years. The future looks bright for Morgan Ford regardless of what happens with the apartment proposal.
- 9,539
I’ve lost count but by at this point multiple dead horses are being mercilessly beaten in this thread.
The appeal was denied.
- 488
This suggests more than anything to me there needs to be a real review of what the preservation board is for, if we actually need it and what it should be doing. I dont know when it was created but the dynamics of investment in St Louis I'm sure have changed a lot since it's creation.
Stopping demolition of buildings for parking lots? Sure. This? Nope count me out on that.
@font-face { font-family: Tiempos Headline; font-weight: 300 400; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/1QUeEUkw.woff2); } @font-face { font-family: Apercu; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/BUXqczCf.woff2); } @font-face { font-family: Apercu; font-weight: 500 700; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/D2PxWqOF.woff2); }
Stopping demolition of buildings for parking lots? Sure. This? Nope count me out on that.
@font-face { font-family: Tiempos Headline; font-weight: 300 400; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/1QUeEUkw.woff2); } @font-face { font-family: Apercu; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/BUXqczCf.woff2); } @font-face { font-family: Apercu; font-weight: 500 700; font-style: normal; font-display: swap; src: url(chrome-extension://lggdbpblkekjjbobadliahffoaobaknh/assets/D2PxWqOF.woff2); }
- 2,419
Honestly, it's a depressing result.
I love it when people block progress on sites like this or the Engineer's Club or Optimist.
I love it even more when developers walk away and those sites sit without solutions for years at a time.
Good job, St. Louis.
I love it when people block progress on sites like this or the Engineer's Club or Optimist.
I love it even more when developers walk away and those sites sit without solutions for years at a time.
Good job, St. Louis.
Developer should let the buildings rot for years, then get condemned, then build what they want to build. I think the Board of Aldermen can vote to overturn the decision though, could be wrong.
Entire preservation board should be fired. Useless waste of money and resources to employ them making decisions like this.
Entire preservation board should be fired. Useless waste of money and resources to employ them making decisions like this.
AHM can appeal to the Planning Commission.
Preservation Board members are not city employees.
Preservation Board members are not city employees.
- 9,539
They are not city employees, current members have been appointed by various mayors over the years.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 24, 2024Developer should let the buildings rot for years, then get condemned, then build what they want to build. I think the Board of Aldermen can vote to overturn the decision though, could be wrong.
Entire preservation board should be fired. Useless waste of money and resources to employ them making decisions like this.
State historic tax credit projects with over 1.1M in qualified costs must go through a scoring system to be awarded credits. It provides the developer with a pretty clear idea early on in the due diligence process if their project is likely to qualify. A similar scoring system for historic demo would be a more objective and transparent approach to the decision-making process.
The historic architecture and urban fabric of our City should be protected. In fact, it is a big part of the reason that Tower Grove South and many other southside neighborhoods have seen a resurgence in popularity. Urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s is part of the reason that we have some of the issues we have today. Also, in my experiences, it is still the easiest place to do business as a real estate developer in the metro. NIMBYs and bureaucracy are a lot worse in the county.
The historic architecture and urban fabric of our City should be protected. In fact, it is a big part of the reason that Tower Grove South and many other southside neighborhoods have seen a resurgence in popularity. Urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s is part of the reason that we have some of the issues we have today. Also, in my experiences, it is still the easiest place to do business as a real estate developer in the metro. NIMBYs and bureaucracy are a lot worse in the county.
Is that why Tower Grove has lost 2,000 people since 2000? I think it's more because the PB is more worried about the "vibe" of the neighborhood than actual tangible growth.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Sep 24, 2024State historic tax credit projects with over 1.1M in qualified costs must go through a scoring system to be awarded credits. It provides the developer with a pretty clear idea early on in the due diligence process if their project is likely to qualify. A similar scoring system for historic demo would be a more objective and transparent approach to the decision-making process.
The historic architecture and urban fabric of our City should be protected. In fact, it is a big part of the reason that Tower Grove South and many other southside neighborhoods have seen a resurgence in popularity. Urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s is part of the reason that we have some of the issues we have today. Also, in my experiences, it is still the easiest place to do business as a real estate developer in the metro. NIMBYs and bureaucracy are a lot worse in the county.
Population loss has been a result of four families being converted to townhomes and two families being converted to single family residences. Because the neighborhood has become popular it is profitable for developers to convert housing. There is very little vacant housing stock. Also, I am not aware of any proposals that were denied where demo was proposed for larger multi-family infill.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 25, 2024Is that why Tower Grove has lost 2,000 people since 2000? I think it's more because the PB is more worried about the "vibe" of the neighborhood than actual tangible growth.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Sep 24, 2024State historic tax credit projects with over 1.1M in qualified costs must go through a scoring system to be awarded credits. It provides the developer with a pretty clear idea early on in the due diligence process if their project is likely to qualify. A similar scoring system for historic demo would be a more objective and transparent approach to the decision-making process.
The historic architecture and urban fabric of our City should be protected. In fact, it is a big part of the reason that Tower Grove South and many other southside neighborhoods have seen a resurgence in popularity. Urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s is part of the reason that we have some of the issues we have today. Also, in my experiences, it is still the easiest place to do business as a real estate developer in the metro. NIMBYs and bureaucracy are a lot worse in the county.
That as well.quincunx wrote: ↑Sep 25, 2024Household size shrinkage is a factor.
Yep, and family sizes continue to decline, especially for college educated families (such as the ones gentrifying TGS).STLAPTS wrote: ↑Sep 25, 2024Population loss has been a result of four families being converted to townhomes and two families being converted to single family residences. Because the neighborhood has become popular it is profitable for developers to convert housing. There is very little vacant housing stock.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 25, 2024Is that why Tower Grove has lost 2,000 people since 2000? I think it's more because the PB is more worried about the "vibe" of the neighborhood than actual tangible growth.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Sep 24, 2024State historic tax credit projects with over 1.1M in qualified costs must go through a scoring system to be awarded credits. It provides the developer with a pretty clear idea early on in the due diligence process if their project is likely to qualify. A similar scoring system for historic demo would be a more objective and transparent approach to the decision-making process.
The historic architecture and urban fabric of our City should be protected. In fact, it is a big part of the reason that Tower Grove South and many other southside neighborhoods have seen a resurgence in popularity. Urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s is part of the reason that we have some of the issues we have today. Also, in my experiences, it is still the easiest place to do business as a real estate developer in the metro. NIMBYs and bureaucracy are a lot worse in the county.