You guys, we need to nail down an agenda for next week's meeting. What should our goals be? How should we present them? I think we can expect a contingent from CRD to be present.
Wait, next week? Agh. I'll probably be home for a bit, the week after next. I get a break from work.
I am going to be focusing on the historical standards, the wording etc. Can someone post an up-to-date rendering of the building in this tread?
- 835
Sunday, March 19
1:00pm
St. Louis Bread Co @ Forest Park & Euclid
1:00pm
St. Louis Bread Co @ Forest Park & Euclid
I have invited Antonio French and one of my former College Professors, who is active in many of the Tower Grove issues. She is a resident and seems very well versed on her neighborhoods problems, and political struggles.
We need a rendering of the development posted here. Can someone post an up-to-date rendering? If I recall correctly, Opus is modifying the plan? Are they done?
We need a rendering of the development posted here. Can someone post an up-to-date rendering? If I recall correctly, Opus is modifying the plan? Are they done?
This is the initial rendering.
![]()
There are a few more somewhere in the Lindell Condos thread.
I have not seen any news of updated renderings. Anyone have any contacts within Opus that could give us the latest info? I know ArchMadness works in the office in Minneapolis. Any info there is you are reading this?
There are a few more somewhere in the Lindell Condos thread.
I have not seen any news of updated renderings. Anyone have any contacts within Opus that could give us the latest info? I know ArchMadness works in the office in Minneapolis. Any info there is you are reading this?
- 835
I used to work with Antonio French, and I respect him so much. He is a true revolutionary. I would be so honored to have him support this effort.stlpcsolutions wrote:I have invited Antonio French and one of my former College Professors, who is active in many of the Tower Grove issues.
- 835
Here is what I propose for an agenda for this meeting:
I. Introduction
Summarize the nature of the controversy
II. Our perspective on what makes cities tick
With this particular project in mind, we need to convey the proven success of greater density in urban neighborhoods, especially with regard to middle-class homeowners. We need to express all the good things that can result from a 28-story condo tower on that site.
III. Discussion of our platform and m.o.
We need to decide how political we want to get with this. Do we want to push for variances in the historic district guidelines or do we just want to be a high-sprited voice in favor of urbanist ideals?
IV. Invite comments from CRD members who may be in attendance
It is very important that we hear them out so that we can respond to their specific arguments. I do not want to be narrow-minded like they are.
V. Open it up for debate/discussion/suggestions
Should we have some examples of success stories in StL and/or other cities? Let's organize a host of retorts for the objections that we can expect: traffic, crime, shadows, views, threat to historic district, special treatment to developers, strain on infrastructure and any other frivolous argument against this sensible project.
Ideas and suggestions are welcome!
I. Introduction
Summarize the nature of the controversy
II. Our perspective on what makes cities tick
With this particular project in mind, we need to convey the proven success of greater density in urban neighborhoods, especially with regard to middle-class homeowners. We need to express all the good things that can result from a 28-story condo tower on that site.
III. Discussion of our platform and m.o.
We need to decide how political we want to get with this. Do we want to push for variances in the historic district guidelines or do we just want to be a high-sprited voice in favor of urbanist ideals?
IV. Invite comments from CRD members who may be in attendance
It is very important that we hear them out so that we can respond to their specific arguments. I do not want to be narrow-minded like they are.
V. Open it up for debate/discussion/suggestions
Should we have some examples of success stories in StL and/or other cities? Let's organize a host of retorts for the objections that we can expect: traffic, crime, shadows, views, threat to historic district, special treatment to developers, strain on infrastructure and any other frivolous argument against this sensible project.
Ideas and suggestions are welcome!
I have a couple question that we really need to consider:
1. How much of our meeting are we going to devote to reiterating the points that were made at the previous meeting? I ask this because who is going to be there that wasn't at the first meeting, and who won't be there that was at the first meeting.
2. Are you really anticipating members of CRD to show up? I ask this because I just have serious doubts that they will show up. I think they probably already understand that we are the opposition, and they will probably be reluctant to show up.
3. What are you looking to accomplish at this meeting? In my opinion, it's important to have an objective in mind that we want to accomplish, not just to organize for the sake of organizing. Is this meeting set up with the thought that we feel a CRD member or two will be there? If so, what if they don't? I realize that's several questions, but I think it's important for us to have a clear set agenda, and something that we need to get done at the meeting.
For example, at the first meeting, we all just showed up not really knowing what to expect. We were all obviously in support of the Opus project, but we need to go farther than that. How are we going to show support, other than having an article in the West End Word, and a few letters to the editor to show our support? How do we attack the real issue that Opus is even having to deal with the questions around the height of their project?
Will anyone have time to stop by the Opus office to see if we can get any clues into what they are working on as far as the next rendering? They seem to be happy to have us harping their message, but are they willing to step up and aide us in the battle? I think asking for up-to-date renderings isn't too much to ask. And maybe they should buy the coffee too!
Anyway, sorry to make this long winded, but I think we need to address this stuff before we meet, so our message, and our direction is very clear when we sit down on Sunday.
1. How much of our meeting are we going to devote to reiterating the points that were made at the previous meeting? I ask this because who is going to be there that wasn't at the first meeting, and who won't be there that was at the first meeting.
2. Are you really anticipating members of CRD to show up? I ask this because I just have serious doubts that they will show up. I think they probably already understand that we are the opposition, and they will probably be reluctant to show up.
3. What are you looking to accomplish at this meeting? In my opinion, it's important to have an objective in mind that we want to accomplish, not just to organize for the sake of organizing. Is this meeting set up with the thought that we feel a CRD member or two will be there? If so, what if they don't? I realize that's several questions, but I think it's important for us to have a clear set agenda, and something that we need to get done at the meeting.
For example, at the first meeting, we all just showed up not really knowing what to expect. We were all obviously in support of the Opus project, but we need to go farther than that. How are we going to show support, other than having an article in the West End Word, and a few letters to the editor to show our support? How do we attack the real issue that Opus is even having to deal with the questions around the height of their project?
Will anyone have time to stop by the Opus office to see if we can get any clues into what they are working on as far as the next rendering? They seem to be happy to have us harping their message, but are they willing to step up and aide us in the battle? I think asking for up-to-date renderings isn't too much to ask. And maybe they should buy the coffee too!
Anyway, sorry to make this long winded, but I think we need to address this stuff before we meet, so our message, and our direction is very clear when we sit down on Sunday.
- 835
Yes, I agree. I think we need to nail down objectives. I need to leave for a while now, but I'll write my ideas later or tomorrow.
- 1,282
Is it alright if I post the date and location of our next meeting on the blog?
- 835
Absolutely, and please post the link to that blog as well.
As for objectives:
We must determine how political we intend to get. Should we lobby for revisions in the historic district standards? Should we blanket the neighborhood with flyers? Should we go out and collect signatures in support of a highrise on that site? Should we call CWE business owners to enlist their help? Should we attempt to persuade the CWE Association to endorse our group (they have remained neutral on the issue thus far)?
These are only some of the avenues we can pursue. I'm not really sure if we are or should be just a symbolic pro-urbanist group or a bona fide coalition that strives to affect change in city development. There are pros and cons to both.
I have a feeling we will be joined by at least some members of CRD or others against the project. Just as we are, they are very passionate about their position and are probably not going to back down.
btw, I think they should change their name from Citizens for Responsible Development to Citizens for Conservative Development, because that's essentially what they're preaching. I think a building like this one from a company like Opus is incredibly responsible and community-conscious.
As for objectives:
We must determine how political we intend to get. Should we lobby for revisions in the historic district standards? Should we blanket the neighborhood with flyers? Should we go out and collect signatures in support of a highrise on that site? Should we call CWE business owners to enlist their help? Should we attempt to persuade the CWE Association to endorse our group (they have remained neutral on the issue thus far)?
These are only some of the avenues we can pursue. I'm not really sure if we are or should be just a symbolic pro-urbanist group or a bona fide coalition that strives to affect change in city development. There are pros and cons to both.
I have a feeling we will be joined by at least some members of CRD or others against the project. Just as we are, they are very passionate about their position and are probably not going to back down.
btw, I think they should change their name from Citizens for Responsible Development to Citizens for Conservative Development, because that's essentially what they're preaching. I think a building like this one from a company like Opus is incredibly responsible and community-conscious.
Should we lobby for revisions in the historic district standards?
Yes. If we feel, as I think we do, that the standards are outdated and don't really support the type of development that can benefit the area, I think this is a good place to start.
Should we blanket the neighborhood with flyers?
My personal opinion is no.
Should we go out and collect signatures in support of a highrise on that site?
I also don't think this is necessary. I think we should enlist the support of the community, do we need signatures to signify that? I don't know, if you feel we do, then maybe we should.
Should we call CWE business owners to enlist their help?
Yes, this will create a coalition in support of the project. We wouldn't be standing alone (with Opus).
Should we attempt to persuade the CWE Association to endorse our group (they have remained neutral on the issue thus far)?
Absolutely. I think we speak for many in StL when we speak up in support of this project.
These are only some of the avenues we can pursue. I'm not really sure if we are or should be just a symbolic pro-urbanist group or a bona fide coalition that strives to affect change in city development. There are pros and cons to both.
I don't think sybolism does a lot for what I hope to accomplish, personally. If anyone feels different, let me know. I think this group gives us a real opportunity to affect the outcome of projects in the city of St. Louis. Lets face it, we've already had developers and others on this forum, they know that this community is a great breeding ground for ideas and discussion. So why not make that materialize a little more?
I have a feeling we will be joined by at least some members of CRD or others against the project. Just as we are, they are very passionate about their position and are probably not going to back down.
I'm not as positive. It's not about backing down, I'm just not sure they are going to consider us the problem. I imagine they are more focused on the developer. If they show up...great!
Overall, I want to be involved in a group that is very political and gets involved in the direction of the city, from an development standpoint. I think most of the time we can get on the same page with developments, and we could build up our name and get to the point where developers would come to us looking for support. I personally think this could really be beneficial for the city, if we do it right.
- 835
Then that settles it! We're going political baby! This means attending Preservation Board meetings, hearings at City Hall (which will definitely ensue due to the opposition here), letters to the editor to all major newspapers in the metro, etc. This is starting to bring back memories of the Century Building Coalition. That was a natural high!
Should we lobby for revisions in the historic district standards?
This is the most important issue that we MUST accomplish. This will be my main arguing point.
Should we blanket the neighborhood with flyers?
I would favor mailers to each individual house, like the neighborhood associations.
Should we go out and collect signatures in support of a highrise on that site?
Since the project is already going to be built (this is true correct, Opus is going forward?), I would say this is not necessairy. If the development faces true opposition, then I we should push for an initiative in the Ward to allow the development.
Should we call CWE business owners to enlist their help?
Since they stand to gain much, this is absolute.
Should we attempt to persuade the CWE Association to endorse our group (they have remained neutral on the issue thus far)?
Yes
These are only some of the avenues we can pursue. I'm not really sure if we are or should be just a symbolic pro-urbanist group or a bona fide coalition that strives to affect change in city development. There are pros and cons to both.
Yes, I am pro urbanist and I believe we should take this message to the entire city. Our city is an Urban landscape, and we should promote Urban developments, while fighting suburban ones, like the McDonalds on South Grand.
I have a feeling we will be joined by at least some members of CRD or others against the project. Just as we are, they are very passionate about their position and are probably not going to back down.
Our city has compromised enough. It is time to take a stand.
Well, since I am not around I try not to post too much here, but these are just a few thoughts.
High Rise Development:
The St. Louis region has only 4 locations for high-rise residential development: Downtown, Clayton, CWE, and Midtown. Of those 4 only two are clearly capable of meeting market demand for new development: Clayton and the CWE. Downtown might become a viable location in the future, but as of now there is only one place in the City of St. Louis where we know high-rise residential new construction works: the CWE. If it isn?t built here, it isn?t built in the city. It really is that simple.
Historic District Standards:
Areas designated for historic district standards cover a wide range of neighborhoods and have gone a long way in many cases to ensure both the preservation and eventual revitalization of these areas. But district guidelines are not the only component to good preservation.
Currently the City of St. Louis has designated The Ville and Hyde Park as historic districts. Yet, every month these areas are confronted applications for demolition. Why? The answer is that historic districts are only one part of the preservation and redevelopment package. If residents of the CWE want to ensure increases in property values, preservation of the areas character, and incentives for redevelopment of currently underutilized sites in the community then the CWE must embrace new development that puts people on the streets and in the buildings.
Good development supports historic preservation. To that end, this tower will go a long way to ensuring that vibrant retail options fill the areas store fronts, provide more amenities for area residents, and increase demand for people looking to live in a thriving neighborhood. When people demand to live in an area, then the historic past need not be sacrificed to ensure future development.
New Development Standards:
While it is clear to me that new high-rise development should occur in the CWE and that the Lindell Project fits this to a T, none of this support means that Opus and other high-rise developers should not be held to high standards. As the current Park East Tower shows, the city must ensure that good design occur in the area. The Park East Tower fits this in many regards, but concerns over a repeat of the dead second story on this tower must be addressed with Opus on the Lindell Project.
High Rise Development:
The St. Louis region has only 4 locations for high-rise residential development: Downtown, Clayton, CWE, and Midtown. Of those 4 only two are clearly capable of meeting market demand for new development: Clayton and the CWE. Downtown might become a viable location in the future, but as of now there is only one place in the City of St. Louis where we know high-rise residential new construction works: the CWE. If it isn?t built here, it isn?t built in the city. It really is that simple.
Historic District Standards:
Areas designated for historic district standards cover a wide range of neighborhoods and have gone a long way in many cases to ensure both the preservation and eventual revitalization of these areas. But district guidelines are not the only component to good preservation.
Currently the City of St. Louis has designated The Ville and Hyde Park as historic districts. Yet, every month these areas are confronted applications for demolition. Why? The answer is that historic districts are only one part of the preservation and redevelopment package. If residents of the CWE want to ensure increases in property values, preservation of the areas character, and incentives for redevelopment of currently underutilized sites in the community then the CWE must embrace new development that puts people on the streets and in the buildings.
Good development supports historic preservation. To that end, this tower will go a long way to ensuring that vibrant retail options fill the areas store fronts, provide more amenities for area residents, and increase demand for people looking to live in a thriving neighborhood. When people demand to live in an area, then the historic past need not be sacrificed to ensure future development.
New Development Standards:
While it is clear to me that new high-rise development should occur in the CWE and that the Lindell Project fits this to a T, none of this support means that Opus and other high-rise developers should not be held to high standards. As the current Park East Tower shows, the city must ensure that good design occur in the area. The Park East Tower fits this in many regards, but concerns over a repeat of the dead second story on this tower must be addressed with Opus on the Lindell Project.
- 182
MattnSTL wrote:I have not seen any news of updated renderings. Anyone have any contacts within Opus that could give us the latest info? I know ArchMadness works in the office in Minneapolis. Any info there is you are reading this?
Unfortunately I do not have access to projects in the works. The architectural department is located in another building, so I don't even get a chance to accidently get lost in the office.
I like what you guys are organizing here. I admire the tenacity. If I'm ever around when you guys have a meeting I would love to attend.
- 835
Thought you guys might like to know that I received a call today from Fox 2 News and I'm meeting them tomorrow (Thursday) for an interview about this issue. Should be good!
F MAN, I cannot believe this is happening. We all MUST be at the meeting on Sunday.
Some things we might like to consider having on hand...
The most updated rendering possible, along with some laid out specs from the current Park East project.
Any list of other projects that might be considered equivalent from other cities, and their economic impact on the area, along with any traffic change impact that we might be able to find.
The historic district code that is in dispute. In particular, somebody should make several copies that could be handed out.
I also think that we should talk to Opus about getting any current and up to date info on the project.
Is there anyone that can step up and take care of any of this? If we are expecting media and CRD to be there, I'd like to think that we're prepared.
The most updated rendering possible, along with some laid out specs from the current Park East project.
Any list of other projects that might be considered equivalent from other cities, and their economic impact on the area, along with any traffic change impact that we might be able to find.
The historic district code that is in dispute. In particular, somebody should make several copies that could be handed out.
I also think that we should talk to Opus about getting any current and up to date info on the project.
Is there anyone that can step up and take care of any of this? If we are expecting media and CRD to be there, I'd like to think that we're prepared.