With the north-south section covered, I’ll resume heading west on Olive starting at 18th. For information on properties I checked city records on GEO St. Louis, it is generally reliable.
1800 Olive, built in 1962, contributes nothing. It is owned by the Salvation Army, which owns the Railton Apartments next door.The one-story White Knight Diner at 1801 Olive dates to 1954, but it makes a positive contribution to the public realm. This place was featured in the 1990 film “White Palace” with Susan Sarandon & James Spader, click image for more information on this film.MERS/Goodwill owns much of this city block
b
The Currency Exchange owns the building at 1809 Olive, it has no off-street parking despite being surrounded by parking. It was built in 1926.The surface parking lot between the Currency Exchange and 19th Street belongs to the police, came with the building that’ll be the new HQ next year. This reduces development potential unless they can get by with the parking located within the building.This building faces Olive, 19th, & Pine. It was most recently a charter school.It should become occupied and hopefully altered, see below.A doorway could be added to to enter the ground floor from Olive without a need for a ramp or steps. This could be for retail and/or restaurant.Four buildings, four owners. Three from 19th century, one 20th century. The beige one-story building is from 1896, but it has been significantly altered.The large parking lot fronting Olive, 20th & Pine is owned by an out of state entity, it should be more valuable developed.2001 Olive was actually built in 1892, as a one-story building with 4 storefronts facing Olive and 3 facing 20th. By 1909 it was surrounded by taller buildings. Click image to view 1909 Sanborn map.The narrow building at 2011 Olive was built in 1919. The empty lot on the east (right) is owned by the owner of the previous building.This space at 2015 Olive is west of the previous building and has the same owner. This would make s nice patio/beer garden.The rest of this block-face to 21st is these two buildings with the same ownership. The one on the left was built in 1903, the former Hamilton-Brown Shoe Factory. The one-story building on the right is from 1955. A taller building could replace the one on the right.The 3rd floor is for lease but offices occupy the ground floor. The owner occupies much of the building, perhaps they can reconfigure so the ground floor becomes restaurant/retail space.The remaining buildings on the south side of Olive, west of 20th, were built in 1926. This is within another proposed Northside Regeneration job center.The block bounded by Olive, Pine, 21st, & 22nd, was cleared for the unbuilt 22nd Street Parkway. 21st & 22nd were vacated, these should be reopened.St. Louis Brewery, owner of the Tap Room, owns this parking lot at 21st & Olive. Easily developed or turned into a beer garden.Both of these buildings have the same owner and have been renovated within the last 5-10 years. Not sure if additional floors are an option.The State of Missouri owns the vacant land at 22nd, part of the 22nd Parkway right-of-way.I’ve long thought 22000 Locust was ripe for redevelopment. May 2010 photo.It’s getting renovated into apartments right now, click image for more information.Unfortunately the corner lot at 2201 Olive, just cleared of a non-urban building, will become a new surface parking lot for the apartment development.The building at 2209 Olive (right) was built in 1906, but you can’t tell it. Expect lots of changes in this block.The 1922 building at 2231 Olive contributes to the Locust Olive Historic District, click image for nomination.
b
2200 Olive occupies a large parcel of land. The largely blank walls were common in 1963 when it was built.The Lincoln Arms Hotel, built in 1928, provides low rent rooms by the week, serving a niche market. Walk by in the summer and the smell is awful. The physical form is ideal along a streetcar line.Firestone owns this location built in 1964, not sure if they’d cash out the real estate.I’d long assumed this surface parking lot belonged to the company in the building across the alley.This 1968 building at Olive & Jefferson is interesting, but also low-density.
There are many more development sites, to the north & south, between 18th & Jefferson. I expect this to be a high activity area for development.
Currently there are "18 comments" on this Article:
The defining physical characteristic for this stretch of Olive is surface parking, so, yes, there are multiple potential development sites. And, yes, many of the existing structures are single story, utilitarian structures that can be easily replaced, as the new surface parking lot at 2201 illustrates. The real discussion that needs to take place isn’t so much which buildings to save as what form any new construction should take? The current dynamic seems to be following one of three paths – a) continued historic, mostly non-public, commercial uses, mostly in non-descript structures, b) renovation and reuse of older, existing, “more-interesting” structures and c) surface parking that supports a) & b). The newer structures (built post WW II) seem to be primarily of the one-story variety, and few, of any sort, seem to have been constructed in the last 30 or 40 years.
You seem focused on 3-4 story structures as the “ideal” urban solution, and you continue to wonder “if additional floors are an option” on existing 1 or 2 story structures? The answer is both yes and no – with enough money and enough motivation, yes, anything is “possible”, “an option”. The reality is that most of the older structures won’t see additional floors added to them. The costs would be simply too high for structures that are likely in fair-to-poor shape to start with – it will be easier, quicker and cheaper to just knock them down and start over. That doesn’t preclude the urban form you desire, it just opens up a wider range of potential, appropriate architectural finishes and detailing.
The real question is how do we incentivize development to take the form you/we desire? The current dynamic in new construction in the corridor (as it is in much of the rest of the region) is one-story commercial with adjacent surface parking – how do we change that? Do we adopt (and enforce) comprehensive regulations? Do we create financial incentives for building multiple stories and providing (and maintaining) ground-floor retail? Or, do we rely on “the market” to lead the way? And, most importantly, how do we find the tenants who will pay the freight for the new space on both the ground floors and the upper floors? Will a streetcar truly be enough? (And no, multiple subsidies paid for with taxes imposed on businesses and residents outside the corridor are not a viable “option”!)
No, I think 7-9 floors would be ideal on the block face immediately adjacent to the streetcar line, 3-4 floors is good 3 blocks away. But Olive will be a mix of heights given the existing building stock. Hopefully as the new form-based code is developed for the route it’ll require new construction to be at least 5 floors.
I also know a developer that owns property further west, when he renovated a 1-story building on Olive he planned for the ability to add a couple of floors in the future. He planned ahead and will be able to increase his rentable square footage easier than others who renovated without such a future plan.
Form based zoning, just like traditional, Euclidean zoning, only “works” if and when development actually happens. So while we can go through the gymnastics of adopting form-based zoning (and saying that new construction shall be “at least 5 floors”), if the market says that one story or two stories is the only current, viable option, guess what? We won’t be seeing “bad” development and we certainly won’t be seeing “good”, “urban”, form-based development, we’ll just be seeing NO development! It’s no different than “demolition through neglect – http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/money/business_news/Cincinnatis-3CDC-charged-with-demolition-by-neglect-in-historic-Over-the-Rhine – the city can’t force private property owners to build something they don’t want to build, just because it’s a good thing or the right thing to do, all the city can do is to force the property owner to pay their taxes, keep the weeds cut and the site safe! And don’t get me wrong, I think that your vision is both viable and a good one for this corridor. I’m just afraid that your push for perfection could very well stifle significant development before it even gets off the ground. Urban living is messy – we need to focus on making all development happen, and trust that the good will eventually push out the bad.
The district has yet to be formed, the code hasn’t been created. The beauty of form-based codes is it assures a developer that when they do a nice dense project that the owner of the property across the street will have to do the same. It is better to sit vacant for a decade than create low-rise development that doesn’t take advantage of the infrastructure investment.
If you demand instant gratification, then yes. Great cities aren’t built overnight, St. Louis took decades to develop. As our population increased low-rise buildings gave way to taller buildings. We’re never going to see such increases again, so what will build today won’t be replaced for decades and then only because condition, not a need to accommodate more people.
Streetcar routes don’t fill up instantly, it’ll take 20 years. Better to have vacant lots to work with over this period. An exception could be temporary/shallow “liner buildings” to help define some streets. These could be used in places where needed then moved to other locations until all sites get developed.
“Streetcar routes don’t fill up instantly, it’ll take 20 years.” vs “what will build today won’t be replaced for decades”… There’s not such a difference between “20 years” and “decades”.
You always like to cite the Portland streetcar as a precedent, didn’t the developers there tear down small buildings in order to put up tall ones?
Some smaller buildings may have been razed but they routed through largely vacant areas. If they did raze small buildings, they wouldn’t have been ones built after the line opened.
The architecture is more interesting/appealing to people. The design draws you in and large windows let you see in as you pass by on the sidewalk. The lot immediately surrounding it can be filled in.
There are lots of potential development spots here. This area was once thriving–full of offices, warehouses, apartments, etc and it can be again. I think the priority for development should be on filling in the missing teeth first. As much of the historical fabric (I’m thinking pre-war) should be preserved even if it’s only 1-2 stories.
My concern is that there’s nothing here I’d want to go to CURRENTLY except the Tap Room. It’s a chicken and egg scenario.
On the 2200 block of Olive you say: “EXPECT LOTS OF CHANGES IN THIS BLOCK.” Are you aware of something specific for this block, or is that just a guess? Thanks.
Just an educated guess based on lots of vacant land and being adjacent to existing rehabs, Tap Room, etc. Still, I’m thinking long-term so 10-20 years.
This is a great tour down city streets. It is fun to speculate what buildings can become. Certainly a type of zoning that encourages 6 to 9 story buildings and real density is a step in the right direction.
Still, the central problem is connectivity and a city planning system that supports transit. The route chosen should rely on an efficient transit system as an overlay. Olive may be it, I don’t know, but without context it misses the point of connecting everything together.
There is now and has been for many years a bus running up and down Olive and Lindell. Perhaps a streetcar
will carry some additional passengers than a bus now does. The question is how many more? That, in turn
will determine what impact these additional transit users will have on develoment. My guess is not much more,
but who knows? The streetcar will be nice and interesting, I agree–back to the old days when the Delmar car
went out to the delmar loop and the university car went to clayton
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
The defining physical characteristic for this stretch of Olive is surface parking, so, yes, there are multiple potential development sites. And, yes, many of the existing structures are single story, utilitarian structures that can be easily replaced, as the new surface parking lot at 2201 illustrates. The real discussion that needs to take place isn’t so much which buildings to save as what form any new construction should take? The current dynamic seems to be following one of three paths – a) continued historic, mostly non-public, commercial uses, mostly in non-descript structures, b) renovation and reuse of older, existing, “more-interesting” structures and c) surface parking that supports a) & b). The newer structures (built post WW II) seem to be primarily of the one-story variety, and few, of any sort, seem to have been constructed in the last 30 or 40 years.
You seem focused on 3-4 story structures as the “ideal” urban solution, and you continue to wonder “if additional floors are an option” on existing 1 or 2 story structures? The answer is both yes and no – with enough money and enough motivation, yes, anything is “possible”, “an option”. The reality is that most of the older structures won’t see additional floors added to them. The costs would be simply too high for structures that are likely in fair-to-poor shape to start with – it will be easier, quicker and cheaper to just knock them down and start over. That doesn’t preclude the urban form you desire, it just opens up a wider range of potential, appropriate architectural finishes and detailing.
The real question is how do we incentivize development to take the form you/we desire? The current dynamic in new construction in the corridor (as it is in much of the rest of the region) is one-story commercial with adjacent surface parking – how do we change that? Do we adopt (and enforce) comprehensive regulations? Do we create financial incentives for building multiple stories and providing (and maintaining) ground-floor retail? Or, do we rely on “the market” to lead the way? And, most importantly, how do we find the tenants who will pay the freight for the new space on both the ground floors and the upper floors? Will a streetcar truly be enough? (And no, multiple subsidies paid for with taxes imposed on businesses and residents outside the corridor are not a viable “option”!)
No, I think 7-9 floors would be ideal on the block face immediately adjacent to the streetcar line, 3-4 floors is good 3 blocks away. But Olive will be a mix of heights given the existing building stock. Hopefully as the new form-based code is developed for the route it’ll require new construction to be at least 5 floors.
I also know a developer that owns property further west, when he renovated a 1-story building on Olive he planned for the ability to add a couple of floors in the future. He planned ahead and will be able to increase his rentable square footage easier than others who renovated without such a future plan.
Form based zoning, just like traditional, Euclidean zoning, only “works” if and when development actually happens. So while we can go through the gymnastics of adopting form-based zoning (and saying that new construction shall be “at least 5 floors”), if the market says that one story or two stories is the only current, viable option, guess what? We won’t be seeing “bad” development and we certainly won’t be seeing “good”, “urban”, form-based development, we’ll just be seeing NO development! It’s no different than “demolition through neglect – http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/money/business_news/Cincinnatis-3CDC-charged-with-demolition-by-neglect-in-historic-Over-the-Rhine – the city can’t force private property owners to build something they don’t want to build, just because it’s a good thing or the right thing to do, all the city can do is to force the property owner to pay their taxes, keep the weeds cut and the site safe! And don’t get me wrong, I think that your vision is both viable and a good one for this corridor. I’m just afraid that your push for perfection could very well stifle significant development before it even gets off the ground. Urban living is messy – we need to focus on making all development happen, and trust that the good will eventually push out the bad.
The district has yet to be formed, the code hasn’t been created. The beauty of form-based codes is it assures a developer that when they do a nice dense project that the owner of the property across the street will have to do the same. It is better to sit vacant for a decade than create low-rise development that doesn’t take advantage of the infrastructure investment.
Better to have continuous low-rise development than high-rise development interspersed with vacant lots.
For instance: the Loop in U-City.
If you demand instant gratification, then yes. Great cities aren’t built overnight, St. Louis took decades to develop. As our population increased low-rise buildings gave way to taller buildings. We’re never going to see such increases again, so what will build today won’t be replaced for decades and then only because condition, not a need to accommodate more people.
Streetcar routes don’t fill up instantly, it’ll take 20 years. Better to have vacant lots to work with over this period. An exception could be temporary/shallow “liner buildings” to help define some streets. These could be used in places where needed then moved to other locations until all sites get developed.
“Streetcar routes don’t fill up instantly, it’ll take 20 years.” vs “what will build today won’t be replaced for decades”… There’s not such a difference between “20 years” and “decades”.
You always like to cite the Portland streetcar as a precedent, didn’t the developers there tear down small buildings in order to put up tall ones?
Some smaller buildings may have been razed but they routed through largely vacant areas. If they did raze small buildings, they wouldn’t have been ones built after the line opened.
“1800 Olive, built in 1962, contributes nothing.”
BUT
“The one-story White Knight Diner at 1801 Olive dates to 1954, but it makes a positive contribution to the public realm.”
Both buildings are 1 story high, the latter is on a lot mostly filled with parking, the former fills its lot.
So why is the latter more valuable? Only because it was in a movie?
The architecture is more interesting/appealing to people. The design draws you in and large windows let you see in as you pass by on the sidewalk. The lot immediately surrounding it can be filled in.
For anyone who hasn’t been paying attention Steve is talking about the proposed downtown Streetcar line from the “Partnership for Downtown St. Louis” ( http://www.downtownstl.org/docs/StreetcarFeasDraftStudy.pdf and https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/29746/streetcar_downtown_partnership ). This is just a draft proposal, and, as far as I know, there are no concrete plans to build it yet.
There are lots of potential development spots here. This area was once thriving–full of offices, warehouses, apartments, etc and it can be again. I think the priority for development should be on filling in the missing teeth first. As much of the historical fabric (I’m thinking pre-war) should be preserved even if it’s only 1-2 stories.
My concern is that there’s nothing here I’d want to go to CURRENTLY except the Tap Room. It’s a chicken and egg scenario.
On the 2200 block of Olive you say: “EXPECT LOTS OF CHANGES IN THIS BLOCK.” Are you aware of something specific for this block, or is that just a guess? Thanks.
Just an educated guess based on lots of vacant land and being adjacent to existing rehabs, Tap Room, etc. Still, I’m thinking long-term so 10-20 years.
This is a great tour down city streets. It is fun to speculate what buildings can become. Certainly a type of zoning that encourages 6 to 9 story buildings and real density is a step in the right direction.
Still, the central problem is connectivity and a city planning system that supports transit. The route chosen should rely on an efficient transit system as an overlay. Olive may be it, I don’t know, but without context it misses the point of connecting everything together.
There is now and has been for many years a bus running up and down Olive and Lindell. Perhaps a streetcar
will carry some additional passengers than a bus now does. The question is how many more? That, in turn
will determine what impact these additional transit users will have on develoment. My guess is not much more,
but who knows? The streetcar will be nice and interesting, I agree–back to the old days when the Delmar car
went out to the delmar loop and the university car went to clayton
We in Midtown Alley (Garrison west to Theresa) are looking forward to hearing what you think about our little district.
See the later posts on Jefferson to Compton and Compton to Vandeventer.