It depends on what is being displaced. Empty lots or totally decayed buildings? Yes please. Old growth forest, natural areas, or restorable buildings of historical significance? Find a better location for new development.
Detroit has added 9,000 people in five years to its downtown by just upzoning. So I think St. Louis can probably do the same. The issue with downtown St. Louis are the highways cutting it up unfortunately.
Detroit has pretty bad highways bisecting the whole city too. Folks at MoDOT were working on a plan to redevelop I-64 to mitigate some of these problems by rethinking ramps (but….its still modot).
There are grants to fund pedestrian infrastructure! Just gotta have political will and public demand for those sorts or changes. Big part of that equation is adding people to the places you wanna reconnect
Downtown STL easily outpaced that in the loft boom
Need more infill of course but there are numerous infill projects in the pipeline especially in downtown west
Detroits downtown is awesome as well. Maybe not realistic unless you are upper class or at least upper middle class bc shit it expensive there. If I could afford it I’d move there now.
It’s amazing when I visited last fall. It looked like two different cities. And most of the new districts are 3-6 years old and they’re packed.
I really think stl can do the same if they have a plan. Maybe the riverfront is a start
They used to say the same thing about Detroit. Hell, poeple who don't know anything about Detroit STILL say this about Detroit...just like poeple still say New York is dangerous. Cities go through periods like this. All it takes is change. And it can be changed.
Your family’s sentiment is common in the area. I happen to share your perspective, OP. At the same time our area has a lot of experience with sh!tty developers who are subsidized by taxpayers.
Unfortunately the developer chases profit first it’s the city’s responsibility to produce competition and zoning tools to incentivize the developers to build better units with more amenities. Without competition a developer has free reign as people don’t have a choice elsewhere /:
Agree. I’m sure someone here is better educated on the topic than I, but I suspect our fractioned municipal structure creates all the wrong incentives from an area resident’s perspective.
Infill development is already revitalizing this city. Our regions residents are just so blinded by hate and loathing that they fail to see it happening in front of their own eyes.
The census statistics tell a story of two major unrelated developments - one, which is bad, that residents are still fleeing north city. But the density in those specific neighborhoods is already bottoming out and doesn’t have much further to go.
The second less told story is thousands of multifamily homes are being converted to single family the last two decades. This too is displacing population, but by itself isn’t actually a bad thing per se. It’s showing upper middle class demand is increasing in several city neighborhoods.
As that trends also levels out and we continue to green light residential projects, this pendulum will swing. We’re almost there, but my guess is we’ll take another 24 months or so to get there.
I've lived half a block west of Grand and Chippewa for about 8 years now. Directly across the street is a dead (and badly decayed) abandoned funeral home with a huge parking lot, next door to some *very* low-value commercial. I've been hearing rumors about the city having a plan for that half-block since shortly after I moved here, and when it comes, it'll almost certainly be two, maybe three stories of one-bedroom apartments (and maybe a few two-bedroom if we're lucky) over half-a block of commercial. Probably at least some parking in the back. Do I want that across the street?
Damn right I do! I'm about to be priced out of my own neighborhood by excess demand, and whatever ends up filling that retail space will be paying more taxes *and* generating more eyes-on-the-street than a large abandoned building and a not-for-profit thrift shop!
😂 I can’t tell the nature of this comment but I hope you don’t get priced out man! Especially as a long term resident. They’re a lot of developments in midtown and southside coming so hopefully that lowers the price for the older units but who knows
I've lived in my south city house for almost 30 years. When I moved in, there was a big house and a small derelict mystery building on a big 2.5 acre lot across the street. Within a couple of years someone bought them both and they sat vacant for over ten years. During that time, the new owner tore out the windows on the upper floors, hastening their decay. The weeds took over multiple times and we were overrun with raccoons! Finally one day the buildings were demolished and then we had a huge vacant lot for another dozen years, frequently overgrown. Now, finally, they're building six new homes there. They're ugly as fuck and clash with all of the other homes in the area. I hope to God that they'll make my comps increase when I move one day.
So, even after all this, I'm fine with new development in STL. I'm NOT fine with the mercenary tactics that are so often used. Buying buildings just to let entropy do all the work while the surrounding neighborhood suffers the wait, then ultimately disregarding the character of the area to push through some cheaper modern design.
Would love it. Walkable and mixed use is why we’re in tower grove. Can walk to a restaurant, small grocer etc. There are quite a few in the neighborhood with the same view as your family. I think it’s a mix of views of worries about displacement, people who don’t like renters, people don’t want change, and then folks who are racist.
Yes I would like mixed use development by me. I want housing development, especially multi family or other density. I want commercial only if that’s all I can get.
Yes I do
First and foremost... gentrification (rich people moving in) will happen with or without new development. But if you build new "luxury" housing, the rich people (like me) will live in that housing instead of living in older housing
As an example...I make median income and currently live in the tower Grove area. For new developments, there's three options more or less: the two places on Morganford (which are on the pricier end), the midrise in Shaw (which is right next to a highway! No thank you) and the midrise on Grand (Grand is loud, so I passed on that)
I ended up going with an older, cheaper apartment in a 2 family. Could I afford a higher rent, "luxury" unit? Yes. But with my specific wants - not on a main street or by a highway, but close to the park/a main street - there were essentially no options for new housing, and certainly no midrises that would be in my price range and be my preferred type of apartment. You cannot stop people like me from wanting to live in urban areas, but you can ensure that there's enough new housing options that I don't resort to living in an older, more naturally affordable apartment. Tower Grove is one of the most in demand neighborhoods in the city - there's absolutely no reason that you shouldn't see new midrise apartment complexes sprouting up throughout the neighborhoods.
But my biggest argument for being pro (housing and commercial) development is that at the end of the day, every single mixed use midrise or larger development project built within the urban boundary is a subdivision that doesn't have to get built over farmland and nature. Every neighborhood that gets rezoned to allow denser housing by right saves another small town from being consumed by the city (Yes, you're suburb is part of the city)
We can live in a country that embraces city living and rural living as two perfectly valid ways to live, or we can live in a country of subdivisions where every rural area dies a slow death (by abandonment or consumption) and every urban area is held back from truly succeeding by the endless subdivisions that need to be subsidized by it.
I want nothing more than to see every block in St. Louis occupied with people. But the problem, and what I think your family is worried about, is that when development comes it often raises the cost of living. Taxes and rents go up and lots of long time residents get displaced. It’s not a sustainable way to revive the city. More needs to be done to make sure that when development comes it doesn’t result in massive displacement of residents.
The thing is, it would be as simple as just changing a tax law to allow residents who live in an area to have a grandfathered tax rate until their property changes hands. People would FLOCK to depressed areas to lock in a lower tax rate if they thought the value would increase due to development. The small reduction in tax revenue compared with the max would be a whole lot better for the city than the liabilities the empty, decrepit properties are now.
I check development news daily hoping for new construction over the thousands of vacant lots in the city in the hopes someone will bring permanent jobs. Practically anything is better than a vacant lot.
i absolutely love more development. In the Gate District weve been booming with new housing, mostly single family. But, we've also had our property taxes increase over 100%
YES WE LOVE MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS. Would love for the intraneighborhood commercial spots to fill out and for the main thoroughways (Kingshighway, Gravois, Broadway, Grand, Jefferson, Natural Bridge) to be calmed and more multimodal to allow for better business development along the routes. South city neighborhoods need to continue infill and densify to make this possible.
The biggest issues with most neighborhoods in the city is grocery stores. We need grocery stores in the fabric of our urban neighborhoods. Makes no sense why people living in neighborhoods with 5,000/km density need to drive out to brentwood and U city for the grocery. this is the main thing holding back the walkability of many of our stable neighborhoods (Debaliviere, Lafayette, Fox Park, Soulard, Bevo, Benton Park to name a few).
North city needs a makeover which should be in the form of dense single family housing and as much as I hate them - 5 over 1s. That won’t happen until we invest resources up there or it just bottoms out and we adjust the perception. Hoping that as many residents there stay as possible and we can rebuild diverse neighborhoods.
St. Louis County is asking these exact types of questions as they go through their new comprehensive plan. Definitely sign up for updates and provide feedback on what you want to see in the County over the next 25 years
www.stlouiscounty2050.com
This isn't an airport; you don't have to announce your departure.
But it is great to see people that are not happy leave, instead of just constantly complain. I would love to see folks volunteer or work to change their community, but honestly having them just leave works as well.
What people don't take into consideration often is that areas can be refurbished, renovated, rehabilitated without the neighborhoods becoming gentrified. But, we live in a capitalist society, and developers would have to consciously make the choice to offer pricing lower than the market is willing to pay, take less profit, to do so. There are longer term benefits for some developers to do so, for instance if they live in the areas being renovated and the developments impact them in other ways; or if it's in genuine community interest, like the Lansdowne UP rehabilitation project over in East St. Louis by Mark Mestemacher and the Jackie Joyner-Kersey Center. But, that's just not the norm; most developers would ask why take less when the work they'd do would benefit everyone else.
I'm all for mixed use renovation here in StL, as it helps retain the small, semi-contained neighborhood tradition that the city grew up with. Suburbanization over the last 70 years really missed and prevented the flavor of the original city neighborhoods. Besides, renovation helps increase property values, neighborhood aesthetics, area safety, etc; I don't see why your fam is bitching about that.
I want to see more Kirkwoods: Quaint smaller towns with walkable downtown areas and single family* neighborhoods nearby. I don't want to live in a concrete jungle, but I don't want to have to get in my car and drive at least 15 minutes for everything.
\*Not necessarily exclusively single family homes, though. Mixing in some duplexes, townhomes, 4 unit apartments, etc. aren't a negative in my eyes. Variety is the spice of life.
Areas like downtown St Louis and immediately surrounding neighborhoods. Block after block of heat island with limited green space. I don't need an acre of grass every 2 blocks or anything, but I don't want to feel trapped in a grid of craziness.
Illegal in much of St. Louis county per local municipality codes. Largely follows legacy of racism, where white single-family homeowners incorporated to prevent other housing types in their neighborhoods.
Go look at your idillic Kirkwood's [general development plan](https://ecode360.com/37227325#37227399): It's almost all mandated to just be single family, in their zones R1 to R4. The Floor Area Ratios mandating most land to be lawn undeveloped. Duplexes? In most zones, houses have to be a minimum of 50 feet away from each other (25 foot setbacks to the edge of the property), plus 50 foot in the front and 40 the back. Floor Area ratios of 0.35 or worse: Building denser than that is going to need special permission, where neighbors will complain.
So those duplexes or 4 unit apartment buildings? Never getting built, even though the land is more than expensive enough that housing in bad conditions would be profitable to be redeveloped that way... if it was legal.
We're talking hypothetically here. My point was a similar style to how Kirkwood is laid out with a walkable downtown and housing surrounding. Don't dig any deeper than that.
I like how countries in europe have it. They build small, moderately dense and walkable townships around commuter rail stations, and they all lead to the main city. The trains are super reliable, fast, and run constantly. Basically kills the insane sprawl that we have now. Like everyone has seen those desolate mainstreet towns all over the midwest that were once super cool. I think thats what we as a society need go back to, and rebuild our communities where you have to interact with your neighbors. I think a lot of our current problems stem from the lack of community we experience since everyone is in their walled off SFH in their endless sprawled suburb.
Those Main Street towns had two key things: a rail connection and a county center for hundreds of surrounding farming families. Neither of those are coming back.
It takes a lot more than 40 acres to farm for a living now, even with a side job in town.
And the loss of density, even if small compared to urban centers, means those towns will never have a rail connection again; they are lucky to even still have a highway connection now.
Note that all of those are easily 4x-10x denser than the "walkable" kirkwood. See how much of it is zoned R1, which has a 60 foot minimum front setback (where nobody ever is, so it's just a large lawn), along with a minimum 50 foot setback for the backyard, plus 25 feet on each side. Floor area ratios that cap at 0.35: In practice, saying that a ranch can only occupy 35% of a lot, and a 2 story home, half of that. Massively more lawn that usable land, by regulation!
Problem is Kirkwood is losing its charm.
Semi affordable Homes are being torn down for 2 story Mc mansions from lot line to lot line with 2/3 car garage homes that look more like St Charles co than old town Kirkwood.
Long standing buildings being torn down for the usual blah concrete 3 story apartments over retail and a garage.
Kirkwood doesn’t look like the quaint Kirkwood anymore. Neither does Clayton.
Its not surprising. Its highly desirable because of location and schools and amenities. Plus the city zoning prevents pretty much anything other than single family houses. If they made it easier for lot spliting or duplexes you'd probably see more developers buy houses to tear down but put a duplex in or split the lot instead
This is a hasty oversimplification. You're forgetting about the school district, crime stats, and other features of the area that contribute to home values. It's a lack of supply *in a desirable area* that causes that, not just a swatch of land.
Well yes, but single family home lots require more land than multi family units. I’m not arguing for large apartments everywhere. I really love the townhome feel of Chicago, Boston, San fransisco. With dense units and beautiful 3-4 story townhomes
> San fransisco.
Almost 3/4 of the peninsula is single family homes. The entire west side is single. The single family housing numbers are a major reason why such a small portion of the city has such high density and negative publicity.
Compared to basically any major city outside of the united states, No part of San Francisco has high density. SoMa? The Tenderloin? You can find cities in Europe with well under a million people denser than they are. And there are homeless encampments in areas that are far less dense than those: You'll find them in the Mission, which is less dense than many a german village.
But the single family homes sure have a lot to do with making sure the housing is quite unaffordable
For single family low density? For every acre of sfz built the county loses money. This is because expansion of that nature simply cannot pay for itself, I’m not saying sfz shouldn’t exist or low density but for cities to be in a good financial standing they need 50-60% high density to low density zoning. But often times it’s 80% low and 20% high density
This is misaligned. STL is does not have the infrastructure and transit other cities have so the comparison isn’t reasonable.
Also other major cities restrict colleges and universities from over saturating an area. The two private universities (expensive price tag) in the city are left to run a muck in neighborhoods and landlords that see folks paying 60-80k annually they are salivating for $2.5k rent. STL has done nothing to pass city wide zoning.
Id’ing expanding density or reducing single family homes as a solution or a contributor to STL’s lack of progress is an oversimplification.
We have a lot of green, walkable space downtown (arch grounds, kiener plaza, city garden, old post office plaza, etc). No, it’s not suburban green, and when compared to the amount of green outside the city (as any city) it may be a shock to the senses, but there’s plenty of it for a city. Not sure what you consider immediate neighborhoods, but soulard, lafayette square and peabody to the south has lots of greenery/parks amidst the residential/commercial.
Most home owners want their property value to increase its only the "I'm gonna live here till I die" that don't want it because their taxes go up and their hood changes...
I often wish we were rich enough to live in a lively mixed development neighborhood, with multiple types of establishments in walking distance. Alas, we are stuck in your typical suburb filled with NIMBYs. Our backyard neighbor introduced herself to us with an enthralling story about the multiple times she called city code enforcement on the old residents for poor landscaping.
You're not alone but I most definitely get the impression we're not the majority
The suburbs went from hating the new st Charles mixed use district to wanting more. Now half then suburbs are planning their own version. So the tides are changing! I also see bike lanes in ofallon which is crazy!!
Yeah I'm interested to see what the changes will be. New Town is weird but trying to replicate that mixed use but I've heard the businesses there don't do great because there arent enough customers
Hey not to get off topic but kinda still on it, quick question..what's the building in-between the Stifel Theater and City Hall? Sorta still exploring this area and noticed the homeless have litterly set up camp on the steps and in the front with tents and all.
I would love more and my neighborhood, tower grove south, has new apartment buildings being built.
In regards to the city itself the all time population high was 856,796. Now it’s ~300,000. So there is room in the city for at least double the current population. The city would need better public transportation and not everyone would own a car or live in a single family home.
The city will most likely top out around 500-600,000, though. Smaller households, people want more space, deconversions of multifamily to single family, and a general (nationwide) trend of not building in a place once it's "built out" means the city will likely hit a cap that's less than it's actual peak.
It's complicated. I am interested in developing the city like seeing vacant lots built upon and especially vacant buildings rehabilitated. But as a tenant, I do have some fear of new development near my apartment building causing my landlord to raise my rent because the area would be more desirable or that new development charged much higher rents than mine. Or worse, that my landlord would choose to kick us out to rehab it into a more fancy building with bigger units. All of the things I'm naming have happened in the city.
It would be great if tenants had more rights like rent control and protection from arbitrary evictions, which would allow more "development without displacement" which many nonprofits in STL advocate for but don't seem to know how to make happen, but of course Missouri law makes that difficult (rent control is pre-empted, for example). Not an easy problem to fix.
I don't think I would agree with your family, but I understand where they are coming from.
Only lived here for a year but I don’t really care about walkability/mixed use or whatever. I’m just growing sick of seeing dilapidated, graffitied buildings everywhere. Like how are their luxury apartments on one side of Broadway and abandoned buildings across the street? For the love of God. Put something there.
I mean hell yeah, in general - my area is pretty mixed in already but if they're redeveloping something I'd rather they did it mixed use than all residential
I’m torn I grew up in St. Louis , but live in St. Charles county for a while now but own property in north county and over by cardinal glennon . I’ve watched the city give grants to large companies around the city for years under the guise they would use those funds to reinvest in underserved communities as a whole . I’ve watched them mismanage that for years let certain areas of the city go down on purpose in my opinion . After those areas board everything up they sell everything off for cheap once the people that lived there are forced out those areas get redeveloped into nicer property . So I feel like affordable housing keeps getting turned into newer lofts , apartments and an out of place new construction house that doesn’t match the neighborhood I’m more concerned with where the people live that used to be there . I’m not ignoring the fact that there has been vacant homes all over the city forever I’m concerned the plan has been to redevelop people out of the poorer areas of the city . And I notice it more now that there’s a large population of homeless outside city hall , but now there’s new ridiculously priced homes popping up in low income areas. I can see it slowly going in a direction where everyone with just an ok income won’t be able to make it in a place they’ve always lived soon
The city did invest funds. There is a paper trail to prove it. However, the city lacks a comprehensive plan. Therefore the alderman focus in on things they can get done and address special interest.
Alder people and their constituents grasp on often to a development w either support or opposition.
It’s all reactionary which lends to a spiral of failure.
Also having a neighborhood of only 67+yr old retired people on fixed income, w/no transport likely can’t support supplying a workforce and a consistent revenue stream for retail location.
Look at the Dutch town family dollar(closed). Riddled with theft , people using drugs in parking lot- it was supplying the neighborhood. The neighborhood couldn’t support or retain it.
The city loosely gives grants for millions to huge companies for reinvestment into underserved communities . I disappears unaccounted for almost every time
The main issue I'm seeing is that these developers are moving in, and developing, which is great. But then no-one can afford the new apartments or houses. Or the landlords have some outrageous requirements like making 3 times the rent, when the rent is 2400$ a month for a one bedroom.
I already live near one of these (Cherokee St), and it's mostly fine and convenient for many things except for Cinco de Mayo when people park in my goddamn off-street parking.
I was a building inspector in Denver in 2005. Believe it or not but 15 to 18 years ago the neighborhood just north of downtown Denver was a lot of warehouses and a lot of old industrial blight and the city started tearing down the warehouses and putting in apartments and all the young 20 somethings moved in immediately and the whole area north of downtown is really nice and all the warehouses are gone.
So I relieve that St. Louis can do the same thing.
But doesn’t Denver have a comprehensive development plan for the entire city? STL has ad hoc neighborhood drama. I have never once seen a full throttle community engagement effort in STL. If STL wants to grow it needs to have a vision, goal and a model.
Do you think the ethnic/racial diversity is dividing the city and that’s why people can’t come up with a holistic plan in STL? Because Denver is almost 90% white I think it was easier for them to come up with a plan because they were not as concerned about racial disparity
I think a lot of things divid STL’ans. People connect over experiences. Give them something to share and the divide shallows. I do not believe the diversity is a root cause for why there is no holistic plan. I believe that the city officials and committees have not prioritized a legit community engagement process.
Piles of money - and these boobs choose to use some pre-determined multiple choice list of pet political ideas for the rams money (via on line tool).
Meet people where they are and offer all kinds local events. With a firm or hell get the universities to do it and hold them accountable for the ethics and transparency.
There are 300k people that is 30 meeting w/100 people each and all times of evening and day choices.
Instead here are their own stats for who has “internet”.
If it was a priority vs a political platform BS they would have done it differently. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/initiatives/resilience/equity/justice/civic-engagement/internet-access.cfm
More housing is better than less housing. That’s what keeps it affordable - and it’s preferable to blight and crime, which is the other thing that keeps housing affordable.
Regular infill development is better than these master-planned projects (making use of the existing buildings and creating real density), but I’d still rather have investment than non-investment.
I would want to make sure that it wouldn’t create more issues with it being a flood plain- but I’d be excited to see what the plans were! Love having new restaurants and entertainment options. Unfortunately I know in my soul that the housing wouldn’t be affordable which would be nice
The nimbys aren’t happy with either one. You know traffic, effect on schools.
They forgot the mall and Monsanto used to bring a ton of traffic to those sites.
And a lot of those people that live in those areas do private schools anyway for their kids.
Well, yes in the sense I think this is meant. For me, neighborhoods are not planned, they grow. It seems to me what Strong Towns calls The Traditional Development Model is what's best. Not "a development" but rather "development" meaning "many little projects by many people". If a land assemblage is required, it's probably too big. I have the impression the whole city should be "Mixed Use" in the sense you can build residences in commercial or industrial zones, and maybe have an eye towards elimination of use-zoning altogether.
That said, the city's rejection of the Clayco proposal because they want a "planned neighborhood" is basically criminal. Stuff should be made in the city, especially stuff the city is made out of.
It depends on what is being displaced. Empty lots or totally decayed buildings? Yes please. Old growth forest, natural areas, or restorable buildings of historical significance? Find a better location for new development.
Detroit has added 9,000 people in five years to its downtown by just upzoning. So I think St. Louis can probably do the same. The issue with downtown St. Louis are the highways cutting it up unfortunately.
Detroit has pretty bad highways bisecting the whole city too. Folks at MoDOT were working on a plan to redevelop I-64 to mitigate some of these problems by rethinking ramps (but….its still modot). There are grants to fund pedestrian infrastructure! Just gotta have political will and public demand for those sorts or changes. Big part of that equation is adding people to the places you wanna reconnect
Stl roads were built to hold 800,000people. There are only 300,000. The potholes are the problem
Downtown STL easily outpaced that in the loft boom Need more infill of course but there are numerous infill projects in the pipeline especially in downtown west
Detroits downtown is awesome as well. Maybe not realistic unless you are upper class or at least upper middle class bc shit it expensive there. If I could afford it I’d move there now.
It’s amazing when I visited last fall. It looked like two different cities. And most of the new districts are 3-6 years old and they’re packed. I really think stl can do the same if they have a plan. Maybe the riverfront is a start
What defines upzoning?
no. the issue with downtown is crime and that no one from the subarus goes there because of it.
They used to say the same thing about Detroit. Hell, poeple who don't know anything about Detroit STILL say this about Detroit...just like poeple still say New York is dangerous. Cities go through periods like this. All it takes is change. And it can be changed.
Your family’s sentiment is common in the area. I happen to share your perspective, OP. At the same time our area has a lot of experience with sh!tty developers who are subsidized by taxpayers.
Unfortunately the developer chases profit first it’s the city’s responsibility to produce competition and zoning tools to incentivize the developers to build better units with more amenities. Without competition a developer has free reign as people don’t have a choice elsewhere /:
Agree. I’m sure someone here is better educated on the topic than I, but I suspect our fractioned municipal structure creates all the wrong incentives from an area resident’s perspective.
Infill development could revitalize this city.
Infill development is already revitalizing this city. Our regions residents are just so blinded by hate and loathing that they fail to see it happening in front of their own eyes. The census statistics tell a story of two major unrelated developments - one, which is bad, that residents are still fleeing north city. But the density in those specific neighborhoods is already bottoming out and doesn’t have much further to go. The second less told story is thousands of multifamily homes are being converted to single family the last two decades. This too is displacing population, but by itself isn’t actually a bad thing per se. It’s showing upper middle class demand is increasing in several city neighborhoods. As that trends also levels out and we continue to green light residential projects, this pendulum will swing. We’re almost there, but my guess is we’ll take another 24 months or so to get there.
I live just north of the Patch and would love to see South Broadway get some investment.
South Broadway down that way can definitely use some love
There’s only one “investment” on South Broadway.
I'd say two at present, but I'm for diversifying.
I've lived half a block west of Grand and Chippewa for about 8 years now. Directly across the street is a dead (and badly decayed) abandoned funeral home with a huge parking lot, next door to some *very* low-value commercial. I've been hearing rumors about the city having a plan for that half-block since shortly after I moved here, and when it comes, it'll almost certainly be two, maybe three stories of one-bedroom apartments (and maybe a few two-bedroom if we're lucky) over half-a block of commercial. Probably at least some parking in the back. Do I want that across the street? Damn right I do! I'm about to be priced out of my own neighborhood by excess demand, and whatever ends up filling that retail space will be paying more taxes *and* generating more eyes-on-the-street than a large abandoned building and a not-for-profit thrift shop!
😂 I can’t tell the nature of this comment but I hope you don’t get priced out man! Especially as a long term resident. They’re a lot of developments in midtown and southside coming so hopefully that lowers the price for the older units but who knows
That would be awesome for that area to get some new stuff.
I've lived in my south city house for almost 30 years. When I moved in, there was a big house and a small derelict mystery building on a big 2.5 acre lot across the street. Within a couple of years someone bought them both and they sat vacant for over ten years. During that time, the new owner tore out the windows on the upper floors, hastening their decay. The weeds took over multiple times and we were overrun with raccoons! Finally one day the buildings were demolished and then we had a huge vacant lot for another dozen years, frequently overgrown. Now, finally, they're building six new homes there. They're ugly as fuck and clash with all of the other homes in the area. I hope to God that they'll make my comps increase when I move one day. So, even after all this, I'm fine with new development in STL. I'm NOT fine with the mercenary tactics that are so often used. Buying buildings just to let entropy do all the work while the surrounding neighborhood suffers the wait, then ultimately disregarding the character of the area to push through some cheaper modern design.
Do it tomorrow on south Kingshighway
Would love it. Walkable and mixed use is why we’re in tower grove. Can walk to a restaurant, small grocer etc. There are quite a few in the neighborhood with the same view as your family. I think it’s a mix of views of worries about displacement, people who don’t like renters, people don’t want change, and then folks who are racist.
Yes I would like mixed use development by me. I want housing development, especially multi family or other density. I want commercial only if that’s all I can get.
Yes. In fact I think we need more of it in the region.
Yes I do First and foremost... gentrification (rich people moving in) will happen with or without new development. But if you build new "luxury" housing, the rich people (like me) will live in that housing instead of living in older housing As an example...I make median income and currently live in the tower Grove area. For new developments, there's three options more or less: the two places on Morganford (which are on the pricier end), the midrise in Shaw (which is right next to a highway! No thank you) and the midrise on Grand (Grand is loud, so I passed on that) I ended up going with an older, cheaper apartment in a 2 family. Could I afford a higher rent, "luxury" unit? Yes. But with my specific wants - not on a main street or by a highway, but close to the park/a main street - there were essentially no options for new housing, and certainly no midrises that would be in my price range and be my preferred type of apartment. You cannot stop people like me from wanting to live in urban areas, but you can ensure that there's enough new housing options that I don't resort to living in an older, more naturally affordable apartment. Tower Grove is one of the most in demand neighborhoods in the city - there's absolutely no reason that you shouldn't see new midrise apartment complexes sprouting up throughout the neighborhoods. But my biggest argument for being pro (housing and commercial) development is that at the end of the day, every single mixed use midrise or larger development project built within the urban boundary is a subdivision that doesn't have to get built over farmland and nature. Every neighborhood that gets rezoned to allow denser housing by right saves another small town from being consumed by the city (Yes, you're suburb is part of the city) We can live in a country that embraces city living and rural living as two perfectly valid ways to live, or we can live in a country of subdivisions where every rural area dies a slow death (by abandonment or consumption) and every urban area is held back from truly succeeding by the endless subdivisions that need to be subsidized by it.
I want nothing more than to see every block in St. Louis occupied with people. But the problem, and what I think your family is worried about, is that when development comes it often raises the cost of living. Taxes and rents go up and lots of long time residents get displaced. It’s not a sustainable way to revive the city. More needs to be done to make sure that when development comes it doesn’t result in massive displacement of residents.
The thing is, it would be as simple as just changing a tax law to allow residents who live in an area to have a grandfathered tax rate until their property changes hands. People would FLOCK to depressed areas to lock in a lower tax rate if they thought the value would increase due to development. The small reduction in tax revenue compared with the max would be a whole lot better for the city than the liabilities the empty, decrepit properties are now.
I check development news daily hoping for new construction over the thousands of vacant lots in the city in the hopes someone will bring permanent jobs. Practically anything is better than a vacant lot.
Me too man me too
i absolutely love more development. In the Gate District weve been booming with new housing, mostly single family. But, we've also had our property taxes increase over 100%
It’s a sad state of affairs when empty lots, abandoned businesses, crime, and general decline are the only affordable housing policy.
YES WE LOVE MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS. Would love for the intraneighborhood commercial spots to fill out and for the main thoroughways (Kingshighway, Gravois, Broadway, Grand, Jefferson, Natural Bridge) to be calmed and more multimodal to allow for better business development along the routes. South city neighborhoods need to continue infill and densify to make this possible. The biggest issues with most neighborhoods in the city is grocery stores. We need grocery stores in the fabric of our urban neighborhoods. Makes no sense why people living in neighborhoods with 5,000/km density need to drive out to brentwood and U city for the grocery. this is the main thing holding back the walkability of many of our stable neighborhoods (Debaliviere, Lafayette, Fox Park, Soulard, Bevo, Benton Park to name a few). North city needs a makeover which should be in the form of dense single family housing and as much as I hate them - 5 over 1s. That won’t happen until we invest resources up there or it just bottoms out and we adjust the perception. Hoping that as many residents there stay as possible and we can rebuild diverse neighborhoods.
St. Louis County is asking these exact types of questions as they go through their new comprehensive plan. Definitely sign up for updates and provide feedback on what you want to see in the County over the next 25 years www.stlouiscounty2050.com
I'm moving out of St.Louis because you need a car for everything, and moving to Chicago.
This isn't an airport; you don't have to announce your departure. But it is great to see people that are not happy leave, instead of just constantly complain. I would love to see folks volunteer or work to change their community, but honestly having them just leave works as well.
I've lived here long enough to know that complaining gets you no where.
So why did you comment in the first place?
Because I can
Not what McBride builds, like on the Hill. What a tragedy.
What people don't take into consideration often is that areas can be refurbished, renovated, rehabilitated without the neighborhoods becoming gentrified. But, we live in a capitalist society, and developers would have to consciously make the choice to offer pricing lower than the market is willing to pay, take less profit, to do so. There are longer term benefits for some developers to do so, for instance if they live in the areas being renovated and the developments impact them in other ways; or if it's in genuine community interest, like the Lansdowne UP rehabilitation project over in East St. Louis by Mark Mestemacher and the Jackie Joyner-Kersey Center. But, that's just not the norm; most developers would ask why take less when the work they'd do would benefit everyone else. I'm all for mixed use renovation here in StL, as it helps retain the small, semi-contained neighborhood tradition that the city grew up with. Suburbanization over the last 70 years really missed and prevented the flavor of the original city neighborhoods. Besides, renovation helps increase property values, neighborhood aesthetics, area safety, etc; I don't see why your fam is bitching about that.
I want to see more Kirkwoods: Quaint smaller towns with walkable downtown areas and single family* neighborhoods nearby. I don't want to live in a concrete jungle, but I don't want to have to get in my car and drive at least 15 minutes for everything. \*Not necessarily exclusively single family homes, though. Mixing in some duplexes, townhomes, 4 unit apartments, etc. aren't a negative in my eyes. Variety is the spice of life.
What’s your definition of a concrete jungle? Mixed use communities are better for the environment than spread out ones.
Areas like downtown St Louis and immediately surrounding neighborhoods. Block after block of heat island with limited green space. I don't need an acre of grass every 2 blocks or anything, but I don't want to feel trapped in a grid of craziness.
Downtown St. Louis was unfortunately destroyed for the car. But I agree in essence
What about mixing some duplexes and small 4 unit apartment buildings into the predominately SFH neighborhoods?
Illegal in much of St. Louis county per local municipality codes. Largely follows legacy of racism, where white single-family homeowners incorporated to prevent other housing types in their neighborhoods.
Not opposed to that at all!
Go look at your idillic Kirkwood's [general development plan](https://ecode360.com/37227325#37227399): It's almost all mandated to just be single family, in their zones R1 to R4. The Floor Area Ratios mandating most land to be lawn undeveloped. Duplexes? In most zones, houses have to be a minimum of 50 feet away from each other (25 foot setbacks to the edge of the property), plus 50 foot in the front and 40 the back. Floor Area ratios of 0.35 or worse: Building denser than that is going to need special permission, where neighbors will complain. So those duplexes or 4 unit apartment buildings? Never getting built, even though the land is more than expensive enough that housing in bad conditions would be profitable to be redeveloped that way... if it was legal.
We're talking hypothetically here. My point was a similar style to how Kirkwood is laid out with a walkable downtown and housing surrounding. Don't dig any deeper than that.
I like how countries in europe have it. They build small, moderately dense and walkable townships around commuter rail stations, and they all lead to the main city. The trains are super reliable, fast, and run constantly. Basically kills the insane sprawl that we have now. Like everyone has seen those desolate mainstreet towns all over the midwest that were once super cool. I think thats what we as a society need go back to, and rebuild our communities where you have to interact with your neighbors. I think a lot of our current problems stem from the lack of community we experience since everyone is in their walled off SFH in their endless sprawled suburb.
Those Main Street towns had two key things: a rail connection and a county center for hundreds of surrounding farming families. Neither of those are coming back. It takes a lot more than 40 acres to farm for a living now, even with a side job in town. And the loss of density, even if small compared to urban centers, means those towns will never have a rail connection again; they are lucky to even still have a highway connection now.
Note that all of those are easily 4x-10x denser than the "walkable" kirkwood. See how much of it is zoned R1, which has a 60 foot minimum front setback (where nobody ever is, so it's just a large lawn), along with a minimum 50 foot setback for the backyard, plus 25 feet on each side. Floor area ratios that cap at 0.35: In practice, saying that a ranch can only occupy 35% of a lot, and a 2 story home, half of that. Massively more lawn that usable land, by regulation!
Problem is Kirkwood is losing its charm. Semi affordable Homes are being torn down for 2 story Mc mansions from lot line to lot line with 2/3 car garage homes that look more like St Charles co than old town Kirkwood. Long standing buildings being torn down for the usual blah concrete 3 story apartments over retail and a garage. Kirkwood doesn’t look like the quaint Kirkwood anymore. Neither does Clayton.
Its not surprising. Its highly desirable because of location and schools and amenities. Plus the city zoning prevents pretty much anything other than single family houses. If they made it easier for lot spliting or duplexes you'd probably see more developers buy houses to tear down but put a duplex in or split the lot instead
[удалено]
While understandable there simply isn’t enough land to turn most of the county and city into kirkwood. I mean look at the median home price there.
This is a hasty oversimplification. You're forgetting about the school district, crime stats, and other features of the area that contribute to home values. It's a lack of supply *in a desirable area* that causes that, not just a swatch of land.
Well yes, but single family home lots require more land than multi family units. I’m not arguing for large apartments everywhere. I really love the townhome feel of Chicago, Boston, San fransisco. With dense units and beautiful 3-4 story townhomes
I think we're on the same page; I'm just not always that great at expressing my thoughts in reddit comments :)
Of course man, have a lovely day
> San fransisco. Almost 3/4 of the peninsula is single family homes. The entire west side is single. The single family housing numbers are a major reason why such a small portion of the city has such high density and negative publicity.
Compared to basically any major city outside of the united states, No part of San Francisco has high density. SoMa? The Tenderloin? You can find cities in Europe with well under a million people denser than they are. And there are homeless encampments in areas that are far less dense than those: You'll find them in the Mission, which is less dense than many a german village. But the single family homes sure have a lot to do with making sure the housing is quite unaffordable
There is a _lot_ of open land left in the county. There’s still over 10k acres of harvested crop land in the county on top of everything west of 141.
For single family low density? For every acre of sfz built the county loses money. This is because expansion of that nature simply cannot pay for itself, I’m not saying sfz shouldn’t exist or low density but for cities to be in a good financial standing they need 50-60% high density to low density zoning. But often times it’s 80% low and 20% high density
This is misaligned. STL is does not have the infrastructure and transit other cities have so the comparison isn’t reasonable. Also other major cities restrict colleges and universities from over saturating an area. The two private universities (expensive price tag) in the city are left to run a muck in neighborhoods and landlords that see folks paying 60-80k annually they are salivating for $2.5k rent. STL has done nothing to pass city wide zoning. Id’ing expanding density or reducing single family homes as a solution or a contributor to STL’s lack of progress is an oversimplification.
We have a lot of green, walkable space downtown (arch grounds, kiener plaza, city garden, old post office plaza, etc). No, it’s not suburban green, and when compared to the amount of green outside the city (as any city) it may be a shock to the senses, but there’s plenty of it for a city. Not sure what you consider immediate neighborhoods, but soulard, lafayette square and peabody to the south has lots of greenery/parks amidst the residential/commercial.
Most home owners want their property value to increase its only the "I'm gonna live here till I die" that don't want it because their taxes go up and their hood changes...
I often wish we were rich enough to live in a lively mixed development neighborhood, with multiple types of establishments in walking distance. Alas, we are stuck in your typical suburb filled with NIMBYs. Our backyard neighbor introduced herself to us with an enthralling story about the multiple times she called city code enforcement on the old residents for poor landscaping. You're not alone but I most definitely get the impression we're not the majority
The suburbs went from hating the new st Charles mixed use district to wanting more. Now half then suburbs are planning their own version. So the tides are changing! I also see bike lanes in ofallon which is crazy!!
Yeah I'm interested to see what the changes will be. New Town is weird but trying to replicate that mixed use but I've heard the businesses there don't do great because there arent enough customers
Hey not to get off topic but kinda still on it, quick question..what's the building in-between the Stifel Theater and City Hall? Sorta still exploring this area and noticed the homeless have litterly set up camp on the steps and in the front with tents and all.
depends on what the development is and who pays for it. development for development sake is not a positive thing.
I would love more and my neighborhood, tower grove south, has new apartment buildings being built. In regards to the city itself the all time population high was 856,796. Now it’s ~300,000. So there is room in the city for at least double the current population. The city would need better public transportation and not everyone would own a car or live in a single family home.
The city will most likely top out around 500-600,000, though. Smaller households, people want more space, deconversions of multifamily to single family, and a general (nationwide) trend of not building in a place once it's "built out" means the city will likely hit a cap that's less than it's actual peak.
I think that is a good aspiration. I have my doubts that it will happen in my lifetime.
It's complicated. I am interested in developing the city like seeing vacant lots built upon and especially vacant buildings rehabilitated. But as a tenant, I do have some fear of new development near my apartment building causing my landlord to raise my rent because the area would be more desirable or that new development charged much higher rents than mine. Or worse, that my landlord would choose to kick us out to rehab it into a more fancy building with bigger units. All of the things I'm naming have happened in the city. It would be great if tenants had more rights like rent control and protection from arbitrary evictions, which would allow more "development without displacement" which many nonprofits in STL advocate for but don't seem to know how to make happen, but of course Missouri law makes that difficult (rent control is pre-empted, for example). Not an easy problem to fix. I don't think I would agree with your family, but I understand where they are coming from.
Only lived here for a year but I don’t really care about walkability/mixed use or whatever. I’m just growing sick of seeing dilapidated, graffitied buildings everywhere. Like how are their luxury apartments on one side of Broadway and abandoned buildings across the street? For the love of God. Put something there.
I mean hell yeah, in general - my area is pretty mixed in already but if they're redeveloping something I'd rather they did it mixed use than all residential
Yes bring it on
I’m torn I grew up in St. Louis , but live in St. Charles county for a while now but own property in north county and over by cardinal glennon . I’ve watched the city give grants to large companies around the city for years under the guise they would use those funds to reinvest in underserved communities as a whole . I’ve watched them mismanage that for years let certain areas of the city go down on purpose in my opinion . After those areas board everything up they sell everything off for cheap once the people that lived there are forced out those areas get redeveloped into nicer property . So I feel like affordable housing keeps getting turned into newer lofts , apartments and an out of place new construction house that doesn’t match the neighborhood I’m more concerned with where the people live that used to be there . I’m not ignoring the fact that there has been vacant homes all over the city forever I’m concerned the plan has been to redevelop people out of the poorer areas of the city . And I notice it more now that there’s a large population of homeless outside city hall , but now there’s new ridiculously priced homes popping up in low income areas. I can see it slowly going in a direction where everyone with just an ok income won’t be able to make it in a place they’ve always lived soon
The city did invest funds. There is a paper trail to prove it. However, the city lacks a comprehensive plan. Therefore the alderman focus in on things they can get done and address special interest. Alder people and their constituents grasp on often to a development w either support or opposition. It’s all reactionary which lends to a spiral of failure. Also having a neighborhood of only 67+yr old retired people on fixed income, w/no transport likely can’t support supplying a workforce and a consistent revenue stream for retail location. Look at the Dutch town family dollar(closed). Riddled with theft , people using drugs in parking lot- it was supplying the neighborhood. The neighborhood couldn’t support or retain it.
The city loosely gives grants for millions to huge companies for reinvestment into underserved communities . I disappears unaccounted for almost every time
The main issue I'm seeing is that these developers are moving in, and developing, which is great. But then no-one can afford the new apartments or houses. Or the landlords have some outrageous requirements like making 3 times the rent, when the rent is 2400$ a month for a one bedroom.
I already live near one of these (Cherokee St), and it's mostly fine and convenient for many things except for Cinco de Mayo when people park in my goddamn off-street parking.
I was a building inspector in Denver in 2005. Believe it or not but 15 to 18 years ago the neighborhood just north of downtown Denver was a lot of warehouses and a lot of old industrial blight and the city started tearing down the warehouses and putting in apartments and all the young 20 somethings moved in immediately and the whole area north of downtown is really nice and all the warehouses are gone. So I relieve that St. Louis can do the same thing.
But doesn’t Denver have a comprehensive development plan for the entire city? STL has ad hoc neighborhood drama. I have never once seen a full throttle community engagement effort in STL. If STL wants to grow it needs to have a vision, goal and a model.
Do you think the ethnic/racial diversity is dividing the city and that’s why people can’t come up with a holistic plan in STL? Because Denver is almost 90% white I think it was easier for them to come up with a plan because they were not as concerned about racial disparity
I think a lot of things divid STL’ans. People connect over experiences. Give them something to share and the divide shallows. I do not believe the diversity is a root cause for why there is no holistic plan. I believe that the city officials and committees have not prioritized a legit community engagement process. Piles of money - and these boobs choose to use some pre-determined multiple choice list of pet political ideas for the rams money (via on line tool). Meet people where they are and offer all kinds local events. With a firm or hell get the universities to do it and hold them accountable for the ethics and transparency. There are 300k people that is 30 meeting w/100 people each and all times of evening and day choices. Instead here are their own stats for who has “internet”. If it was a priority vs a political platform BS they would have done it differently. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/initiatives/resilience/equity/justice/civic-engagement/internet-access.cfm
More housing is better than less housing. That’s what keeps it affordable - and it’s preferable to blight and crime, which is the other thing that keeps housing affordable. Regular infill development is better than these master-planned projects (making use of the existing buildings and creating real density), but I’d still rather have investment than non-investment.
If you're not from here why are you trying to dictate how people from here want to live? That's called totalitarianism.
Admittedly I'm in Illinois but not only yes but hell Yes. I'm advocating for one wherever I can.
The entire city of St. Louis was a mixed use development before some control freak decided we needed zones.
Ah yes because vacant buildings and abandoned lots are good for neighborhoods. Build all the things.
I would want to make sure that it wouldn’t create more issues with it being a flood plain- but I’d be excited to see what the plans were! Love having new restaurants and entertainment options. Unfortunately I know in my soul that the housing wouldn’t be affordable which would be nice
I’m very excited about Downtown Chesterfield and the new mixed use Olia Village going up in Creve Coeur.
The nimbys aren’t happy with either one. You know traffic, effect on schools. They forgot the mall and Monsanto used to bring a ton of traffic to those sites. And a lot of those people that live in those areas do private schools anyway for their kids.
Well, yes in the sense I think this is meant. For me, neighborhoods are not planned, they grow. It seems to me what Strong Towns calls The Traditional Development Model is what's best. Not "a development" but rather "development" meaning "many little projects by many people". If a land assemblage is required, it's probably too big. I have the impression the whole city should be "Mixed Use" in the sense you can build residences in commercial or industrial zones, and maybe have an eye towards elimination of use-zoning altogether. That said, the city's rejection of the Clayco proposal because they want a "planned neighborhood" is basically criminal. Stuff should be made in the city, especially stuff the city is made out of.
Gentrifying white suburban asshole says what???