Latest Design on Lindell Tower A Major Imporvement
Opus Northwest presented a revised Lindell Tower to a packed room at the Schlafly Library. The public forum was orchestrated by 28th Ward Alderwoman Lyda Krewson. After making a few brief remarks Lyda did a very smart thing, she handed the meeting over to a moderator, long-time West End fixture Rudy Nickens (owner of the former Sunshine Inn).
Opus took the first half hour for presentation and then questions and comments were solicited from the audience. It should be noted that nobody was made to feel unwelcome if they were not a resident of the 28th Ward or this neighborhood.
The best argument against this project is it violates the height requirements of the historic district and therefore requires a variance. The question becomes is this project worthy of a variance on its merits or is this well-funded developer getting special treatment? I happen to think, with the revised design, this project most definitely deserves a variance.
As for the special treatment, perhaps so. I think a better statement would be this developer is wiling to bring in consultants to refine the project as needed and has shown a willingness to respond to prior criticisms. This is much different than recent cases before the Preservation Board where I’ve seen home owners (the small guy) install windows that violate the ordinances without any building permit. If we are going to give out variances I’d much rather them go to a developer that is willing to take the time to work through a designs of a project than to someone that willfully violates the ordinance and then asks for forgiveness afterwards. Sometimes the big guy gets “special treatment” simply because he did things through the right way.
When so many of our local historic district standards were written the idea of lots of new construction just wasn’t considered. At best the standards were trying to prevent the type of new construction that was conceived, fast-food restaurants with drive-thrus, short little ranch houses and strip malls with parking in front. The standards were not written to prevent highly urban forms. As one resident said, we should not keep granting variances. We should have a discussion about what we want and change the codes. Agreed! This really should apply to both historic districts and the overall zoning code.
Opus literally went back to the drawing board with this project. While at first glance it might look similar to the previous version it is a radical departure in my view. First, they’ve done the right thing by place two levels of parking underground. Their architect indicated this reduced the height of the base from roughly 60ft to 42ft. Along Euclid the facade drops again to about 32ft. This relates in scale quite well to the adjacent buildings along Euclid.
They still have about 1.5 garage spaces per unit. I’d like to see this drop to 1.2 or 1.4. One resident suggested to me they sell spaces separately so buyers will feel the true cost of the parking. I like that idea but it might screw up some people’s financing if they chose not to buy a space. Damn conservative bankers…
One of the opponents of the project’s height suggested it be built across Lindell so that it is not in the historic district. So across one street it is OK? Lindell is a diverse corridor.
I do have a few minor issues. I’m not thrilled about having a circle drive for dropping off people as that will require a second curb-cut on Lindell close to Euclid. I also don’t like losing 4-6 on-street parking spaces along Lindell. I mentioned bike racks to Lyda Krewson and Opus’s John Picher. Lighting and paving still need to be worked out as well.
They’ve done an outstanding job with the revisions. If only their Park East Tower had as nice of a base. In a joint report with PubDef click here for more information and photos from the meeting.
Isn’t there any way to preserve some of the on-street parking there on Lindell?
I’m still annoyed that you’re not allowed to park anywhere along the Lindell frontage of the Schlafly Library/garage. I guess that’s the Treasurer’s Office at work. Yeah, there’s a bus stop and a WashU shuttle stop there, but those could be combined at one location as they are on the residential sections of the Lindell / Gold Line routes along Pershing and Waterman.
Also, as of July 1 the WashU shuttle route will be eliminated anyway, I think, replaced by the restructured bus service in the area and free student/faculty/staff bus passes. So that would free up some space on that blockface for on-street parking.
The real issues in this debate about the Opus project at Lindell and Euclid are being ignored.
Everyone is caught up in the moment with NO serious thought about tomorrow, and the troubling unintended consequences of this Opus project.
Some of those issues include:
1) Why is the CWE Historic District ordinance (a real law) being ignored?
2) Why hasn’t the CWE Historic District ordinance been amended or even repealed IF that is the voice of the people?
3) Will this action affect the other Historic District ordinances in the city? Will they be enforced or changed in an ad-hoc manner?
4) In line with the Opus project thinking, Why not permit a Bed & Breakfast in a Lindell mansion or in a Hortense single-family home? A “variance” could be allowed for a higher and better economic use of the property?
5) What does it take to get aldermanic support to violate the CWE Historic District Ordinance?
Most important, when will there be a Master Plan for the neighborhood so that we will have a rational approach to growth in this important real estate area?
Has the Forest Park Master Plan worked? Is it taken seriously? If not, why not?
1) Why is the CWE Historic District ordinance (a real law) being ignored?
^It’s not. The Historic District guidelines provide for variances.
2) Why hasn’t the CWE Historic District ordinance been amended or even repealed IF that is the voice of the people?
Because until now it hasn’t been an issue. Now that this proposal has been made public, it exposes the flaws in the Historic District Guidelines.
3) Will this action affect the other Historic District ordinances in the city? Will they be enforced or changed in an ad-hoc manner?
Who knows? But it’s important to consider the fact that absolutely NO historic buildings are being destroyed or compromised as a result of this project. The CWE is different than other historic districts in the city because it’s one of only very few neighborhoods that already has a number of highrises. Of course a highrise is out of place in Lafayette Square or Soulard. They are not out of place in the CWE.
4) In line with the Opus project thinking, Why not permit a Bed & Breakfast in a Lindell mansion or in a Hortense single-family home? A “variance” could be allowed for a higher and better economic use of the property?
I don’t see what would be so detrimental to allowing a B&B in one of those mansions. It’s that mentality “there goes the neighborhood” that irks me so. Some people just have a problem with EVERYTHING.
5) What does it take to get aldermanic support to violate the CWE Historic District Ordinance?
^A reasonable, sensible, logical position. For the first time in DECADES, there is outside investment in our CITY neighborhoods. In this case, it is in the form of a contemporary, attractive highrise. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that having 200 units of new middle-class homeowners in a city that has been bleeding tax revenue, jobs and residents for half a century is a GOOD thing for the overall health and viability of the city at large. Common sense is your answer there.
I love the city for its dynamic, ever-changing landscape. It is a characteristic I value in an urban neighborhood. A new highrise at Lindell & Euclid is going to look great, and it will add a great deal of vitality to a now-dead corner.
the people fighting this building had their minds made up before they even went to the meeting on saturday. they knew they were going to oppose anything that was presented, it didnt matter how much opus revised the plans. there are always going to be those people i guess.
“200 units of new middle-class homeowners”
How much will these units cost? Under $100K? I thought that the starting price would be $200K, which is already on the upper side of middle class by any measure that includes the entire city.
The prices are just one more indication that this project is more in line with the opponent’s vision of their neighborhood than they will let on. This is not affordable housing for most of the city’s residents — and that is a bigger issue than the height.
To Educate the Readers From Those Who Support Legal Development and are Pro-Growth and Pro-Green
Step 1 – All readers should go to the Historic District Ordinance and read it instead of repeating opinions they hear. CENTRAL WEST END HISTORIC DISTRICT Ordinance 56768 (B.B. No. 9)
There is no authority in the ordinance to authorize a violation of a specific standard for height, any more than there is any authority to violate specific language in all of the other Historic Districts in the city, including but not limited to the following:
• Certified Local Districts in the City of St. Louis
Central West End (Certified: 11/15/79; expanded 1989 and 2002)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Maps identifying buildings in western and eastern portion of district determined contributing at certification
Compton Hill (Certified: 01/29/82)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Map identifying buildings in district determined contributing at certification
Fox Park (Certified: 07/01/85)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Map identifying buildings determined contributing at certification
Hyde Park (Certified: 03/15/82)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Map identifying buildings determined contributing at certification
Shaw Neighborhood (Certified: 06/28/85)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Map identifying buildings determined contributing at certification
Skinker-DeBaliviere/Catlin Tract/Parkview (Certified: 08/01/84)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Map identifying buildings determined contributing at certification
Soulard Neighborhood* (Certified: 06/09/82)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Maps identifying buildings in northern and southern portion of district determined contributing at certification
* Please note that the Soulard Certified Local District encompasses a substantially larger geographic area than the Soulard National Register District. Buildings theat contribute to either certified local or National Register districts are certified historic structures for the purpose of historic rehab tax credits.
Visitation Park (Certified: 01/12/79)
• Establishing Ordinance
• Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards
• Map identifying buildings determined contributing at certification
Step 2 – A routine way for those in the City of St Louis to attempt to get around the specific height restrictions is to end-run the Historic District law and attempt to rezone the property on which the building is built. In order to avoid the law, the individual/developer goes to the alderman and gets a PUD created in the local Historic District.
The PUD will give some satisfaction to the individual/developer because it appears to give an opportunity to do what is wanted.
However, it should be noted that anyone can do the same thing if they have enough money or a relationship with the alderman, and there will be no effective Historic District protection that the property owners wanted when they bought the property in the Historic District. Most people like the Historic District ordinance because it helps maintain the value of the property.
Step 3 – All readers need to have a better understanding of the Historic District guidelines and their flaws and create a comprehensive planning process in the CWE to change the Historic District ordinance if necessary.
If it is appropriate, perhaps the alderman or any citizen could begin a an initiative to repeal the ordinance and then there wouldn’t be a Historic District ordinance at all.
Would that be a better way to go?
^I don’t think anyone is saying that. But come on– this is the CENTRAL WEST END. There are highrises everywhere! A variance is appropriate in this case. It’s a high-quality development. I am a preservationist who values the historic character of my neighborhood as much as anyone else, and I think this project will enhance the existing charm of the CWE. Let’s give other people a chance to take as much pride in this neighborhood as we do. Maryland, Hortense, Lennox, McPherson and all the other historic peripheral streets will still be historic after this tower is built, I can assure you. New buildings don’t automatically make old buildings new as well. Not everything has to stay exactly the same as it was in 1904. Progress can actually complement historic infrastructure.
The starting price for a 895 sq/ft 1 bd/1 b apartment, is $295k. There are 21 planned units for that price, and it only goes up from there.
When did this become an issue of the price of the units? I thought we were discussing the design of the building.
Although I can’t afford one of these units, I am not angry that somebody else can. Bringing more money into the neighborhood means more tax revenue and business at the local establishments. More business and tax revenue means more of a possibility of helping lower income people in the longer run.
I can’t wait for this urban building to anchor a busy corner in a wonderful neighborhood. I am a fan of the design.
“When did this become an issue of the price of the units? I thought we were discussing the design of the building.”
The price is part of the social design of the building, as important an urban consideration as architecture.
I was also pointing out that if the CWE residents opposed to this project are supposedly wealthy and insulated, the new residents will be demographically similar to them. Therefore, the building is no social revolution in disguise. It’s a rather conservative project.
I can’t afford to live there either, but I think it’s a great thing for the neighborhood. There are many neighborhoods that are very affordable in St. Louis. I do not support mass gentrification by any means, but this project is going to offer a product not currently available in the city: new, modern highrise living. We are doing a disservice to our city if we don’t allow these projects to happen. These buildings will continue to be built in Clayton, and the City will be the loser for it. I’d rather get prospective buyers on the market for these buildings to consider the city, which projects like this are certain to accomplish. Is there no place for developments like this, just because it happens to attract upper middle-class people? What neighborhood in the city has a richer tradition of being a wealthy neighborhood than the CWE? Is it really “conservative” to construct a tower that is not affordable to everyone?