One Block of Cherokee Street Took 17 Years to Build
My friend suggested we meet for lunch at Tower Tacos on Cherokee. I knew that meant I’d have to drive there and he could walk, but I rarely pass up lunch on Cherokee.
This side of Cherokee between Compton Ave on the west and Michigan Ave on the east contains seven buildings. At a casual glance I didn’t give much thought to them, they all looked like they were from the same period. Out of curiosity I decided to find out using Geo St. Louis, “a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis.” What I found out was these seven buildings were built over a 17-year period (1896-1913):
- The first, 3137 Cherokee, was built in 1896 , a two-flat originally. This was the second lot from the east, not the corner.
- In 1905 a brick one story house was built to the lot to the west, at 3139 Cherokee. For nine years the other house stood alone, unless previous structures existed on this block.
- In 1909 a corner storefront was built next door to the east at 3133 Cherokee. This is the corner at Michigan Ave. Now we’ve got three buildings in a row.
- Also in 1909 a 2-story with first floor storefront space was built at 3147 Cherokee. This skipped a lot. This is now Tower Tacos
- A year later, 1910,brick 4-family was built at 3143-45 Cherokee filling in the gap left the previous year. Five buildings now in a row.
- In 1911 2-story with two storefronts and two flats was built on the next lot at 3151 Cherokee.
- Finally in 1913 a large 2-story  building with storefronts & flats was built at 3155-59 Cherokee, finishing the block at Compton Ave.
It’s possible earlier frame or soft brick buildings existed on this block but I have no knowledge of such. The point? Development, residential & commercial, used to be done a building at a time based on demand. The financing package was limited to buying the lot and building a single structure.
Today all 42 buildings on city block 1502 would have been built at once — or at least in the same development package. After the first developer goes under someone else would come in to finish building on the remaining vacant lots. All the buildings would have the same basic look, the exact same brick color and the same setback from the sidewalk. Boring.
The days of people buying lots and building their own home are long gone but in parts of the country it’s not uncommon for a developer to create building lots and then have many builders buy those lots. Some would get built on a speculative basis and some would be custom for a specific buyer. For filling in vacant parts of the city I’d like to see us try the idea of separating the development of build-able lots and the construction of new buildings.
– Steve Patterson
Please clarify. I think I get the big picture (variety in the finished product), but I’m not sure I get the need for “the development of build-able lots . . . in vacant parts of the city”. We already have a large number of vacant sites, of all sizes, in the city, with infrastructure (roads and utilities) already in place, and few greenfield sites. The real hurdles seem to be finding financing and a market (buyers or tenants) for what’s already out there for “the construction of new buildings”, and not a need for large-scale land development / speculation.
Please clarify. I think I get the big picture (variety in the finished product), but I’m not sure I get the need for “the development of build-able lots . . . in vacant parts of the city”. We already have a large number of vacant sites, of all sizes, in the city, with infrastructure (roads and utilities) already in place, and few greenfield sites. The real hurdles seem to be finding financing and a market (buyers or tenants) for what’s already out there for “the construction of new buildings”, and not a need for large-scale land development / speculation.
Tower Tacos – serving Romanian food, St. Louis barbeque, and Mexican food. Something for everyone!
Tower Tacos – serving Romanian food, St. Louis barbeque, and Mexican food. Something for everyone!
My thoughts exactly regarding Northside. If the City (or McKee) had a development plan in place that balanced a consistency of development types with wiggle room for individual building styles, the plots could be sold off to willing builders/designers to rebuild a true city neighborhood — not a cookie-cutter, suburban-y subdivision.
I’m thinking, as a reference, of other areas of the city, still relatively intact, and the mix of old/new flats, townhouses and courtyard apartments on Chicago’s northside.
My thoughts exactly regarding Northside. If the City (or McKee) had a development plan in place that balanced a consistency of development types with wiggle room for individual building styles, the plots could be sold off to willing builders/designers to rebuild a true city neighborhood — not a cookie-cutter, suburban-y subdivision.
I’m thinking, as a reference, of other areas of the city, still relatively intact, and the mix of old/new flats, townhouses and courtyard apartments on Chicago’s northside.
I might be reluctant to purchase a residential lot, build a nice home on it, then wait around and not know exactly they type and style of house that might be build across the street or next door. The value of my home is largely determined by the value of my neighbor’s home. Rentals and even two-family buildings have been known to adversely affect property values in a St Louis  neighborhood. I think residents of Southhampton Neighborhood know all too well that this is a major issue. Avoiding this potential nightmare may be why local developers decide to redevelop entire neighborhoods vs the pot-luck approach that you suggest.
I might be reluctant to purchase a residential lot, build a nice home on it, then wait around and not know exactly they type and style of house that might be build across the street or next door. The value of my home is largely determined by the value of my neighbor’s home. Rentals and even two-family buildings have been known to adversely affect property values in a St Louis neighborhood. I think residents of Southhampton Neighborhood know all too well that this is a major issue. Avoiding this potential nightmare may be why local developers decide to redevelop entire neighborhoods vs the pot-luck approach that you suggest.
The current method is still pot-luck since many new home developments often don’t get finished. With a developer actively marking an area and several builders offering a variety of houses the end result is more more diverse and stronger over time.
The current method is still pot-luck since many new home developments often don’t get finished. With a developer actively marking an area and several builders offering a variety of houses the end result is more more diverse and stronger over time.