Backlog of Topics to Review
Since I’ve been campaigning over the last two months my postings have trickled off more than I had expected. Well, the election is over and I am moving on. This includes returning to critiquing our built environment.
Below are just a few of the things I intend to review (in no particular order):
• SLU’s anti-urban Research Building.
• Wash U’s decimation of the edge of Forest Park Southeast.
• Disappointment over the new Target – a missed opportunity.
• Southtown Site – a little bit of Ballwin in the City.
• 5th Ward Elderly Housing Project – wait until you see this one!
• The McRee Town city clearance disaster.
• The pros & cons of converting two family buildings to one.
• A closer look at New Town at St. Charles – great idea but bad location.
• The problem with special districts like the Grand Arts Center.
• The key principals to creating great urban neighborhoods.
• How sprawl is damaging our region.
• New parking at Shaw & Vandeventer.
• How modern in-fill housing can be both urban and complimentary to historic architecture.
• The need for ordinances controlling small & big box development in the city.
• Less open space and more urban space downtown.
You get the idea, I’ve got lots of topics to cover. I will have all the biting commentary and telling photos you’ve come to expect.
– Steve
Will be curious to read your Southtown take.
RB
I can’t wait to read about Wash U’s decimation of the edge of Forest Park Southeast.
I can’t even go near there without getting upset.
I’m looking forward to you speaking about the pros & cons of converting two family buildings to one.
what are the possible cons for converting a 2 family to a single family?
A few years ago, a certain architect drew a series of prototype designs for converting city 2-families to 1-family buildings.
Her work was done for the Magdalen Community Improvement Corp.
I bet if you contact them, you can see some of her creative design ideas.
RB
Hi, Rick,
Thanks for focusing on the conversion question. I’d like to respond to it by inverting it. Like this:
Many of the houses in the area my wife and I are interested in are huge–5 to 7 bedrooms– while, stretched to the max, our needs call for only 4 bedrooms: 1 for sleeping, 2 for offices, 1 for a guestroom.
When I offhandedly mentioned the possibility of conversion to 2 units from 1 in a particularly grand building, I was told it was highly unlikely the City of StL would approve such a thing.
I understand the boundless cynicism of real estate speculators and the fact that the city has to protect its neighborhoods by restraining those speculators’ worst inclinations. I also understand that the city has a surplus of older housing units and probably doesn’t wish to add to the census.
I guess what I’d like to see is a more flexible outlook–one that acknowledges the possibility that a resident owner, not a speculator, might wish to make his/her occupancy more feasible financially by adding an income unit. I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to develop a set of guidelines for such conversions. Specifically:
–A requirement that the owner occupy the premises for a predetermined period, supported by a non-transferrable tax incentive;
–A requirement that a certain proportional relationship be followed–such as, the owner’s unit must occupy two-thirds of the total square footage; the tenant’s, one third;
–A requirement that the exterior details not be significantly altered to accommodate an additional unit;
–Etc.
As the St. Louis city market continues to improve, I think it’s important to begin to introduce some flexibility into housing codes–which were appropriate responses to a different period in the city’s history–so that they support rather than hinder revitalization, specifically, in the city’s more deteriorated neighborhoods.
And now to un-invert your question:
One reason conversion from 2- to 1-family occupancy may not always be a great idea is that, overall, it reduces the number of houses accessible to low-income and first-time homebuyers who may need the income unit to become homeowners at all.
Another less objective assessment: From what we’ve seen, many if not most of the 2-fams built as 2-fams are solid, sensible and serviceable–charming in their way, but not the sort of buildings whose aesthetics are compromised by 2-family occupancy or would be improved by conversion to 1-fam.
Further, in the aqgregate such conversions reduce the city’s ability to accommodate greater density, which most St. Louisans I’ve spoken to agree is a key goal.
One person’s opinion, anyway. Thanks for bringing this up.
this conversation is difficult to have when the basis for the discussion is “two-to-one” conversions. there is a huge variety in the types of 2-4 family buildings in the city. each one should be evaluated individually.
some two-family homes around O’Fallon Park hold a combined 3500-4000 square feet. converting one of those to a single family home results in a HUGE house. we did one in the 3rd ward at 1938 east adelaide. some folks want a place that big. other’s prefer it stay a 2-family. that’s fine too. from the outside, the buildings appear single family in nature.
then there are the thousands of two and four-family flats all around the city. typical units range from around 900 to 1200 square feet. converted from 4s to 2s, or 2s to 1s make for nice 1800-2400 living spaces.
(again i recommend any interested persons to go visit the magdalen community improvement corp on s. kingshighway for some protoype designs. for a starting point in your imagination, think of the upstairs kitchen of a former 2-family being converted into a huge bath for a newly configured master bedroom suite, and you begin to get the idea of the possibilities….)
many of these conversions can be done without any alteration to the original appearance of the building-the good ones are.
i think issues of density, rehab strategies, % rental v. ownership, etc in a neighborhood are opportunity questions moving forward that should have neighborhood voice in the decision making.
given our active neighborhood culture, that’s pretty much the case now.
RB