IN DEPTH: REAL ESTATE: A QUARTERLY REPORT

From the April 29, 2005 print edition



<A HREF="http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... .html">150 residential units in the works at Gaslight Square</A>

John Terry



Development in St. Louis' Gaslight Square -- mostly condominiums, plus a smattering of single family homes -- continues to pick up steam. A total of about 150 units are planned, some 50 percent of which will be developed in the next six months and the remainder as the market unfolds.



<A HREF="http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ocus2.html">>>> read more</A>

It's great that Gaslight Square is going to connect with the Westminster apartments.



The area west of Boyle holds so much potential and several buildings that would be perfect for lofts. I'm surprised that nothing has happened in that area. If/when the Field School redevelopment ever gets off the ground, that should help encourage other developments.

DeBaliviere wrote: ?a garage for every bedroom,? O?Bryant said.

that makes me sick to my stomach. that mentality does not make this city better.

As long as the garages are hidden in the back, I don't really have a problem with it.

I just think that a "garage for every bedroom" is not the way to go about making this city better. It expresses the wrong values. I mean this is a developer working a project that we are hoping is one more piece to the puzzle of advancing StL.



Yes, it is good that this project is happening even if the garages are visible. Yes, it would be good if the garages were designed to not be seen from the street. But, IMO we as a city and as a region need to get past the idea that every bedroom needs a garage.



I cant really express how frustrated that thought process makes me. It's just wrong. He took it farther than merely saying 'every person needs a car" or "every person needs a parking place" (both of which in and of themselves are the antithesis of urban vitality)- he said "every bedroom needs a garage"!!!



sorry if I rambled on like a lunatic.

I see your point, but the developers have to do what they can to rent the units and eventually sell them. Upscale renters/buyers typically will have more than one car.

DeBaliviere- thanks for the comments.



I dont have a big problem with developers doing what they have to do to rent/sell the unit. I do think their assumptions about the amount of required parking is wrong. I also think the public perception of the amount of parking they need/want is wrong. I don't really have a solution other than to wish/hope/pray that both developers and buyers will begin to shift their thinking. If developers scale down the parking other stuff (square feet, pedestrian quality etc) will increase and the buyers wont complain. Also, if the buyers begin to demand less parking the developers will make more money (right? rent/prices are more in vibrant areas & underground parking is expensive to build).



Upscale buyers may have more than one car, but one per bedroom? If a single guy buys a 3BR house should he have a 3 car garage? No way.





When people think about where they are going to live they usually list out (at least in their heads) the top 5 or 10 pros and cons. IMO parking is put too high on many people's lists. If you live in NYC or DC or SF then yes it should crack the top five, but not here in StL. Furthermore, builders list parking too often as one of the top amenities when advertising on radio or in print. Parking shouldnt be an amenity and listing it as such just perpetuates the collective mindset of the St Louisian.



damn, I'm rambling again. sorry.

I feel they were giving the perception that the cars will be safer in a garage. This is a major concern and it's a warranted concern as well with autos in the city.

I just think that it's a good idea for a 2BR place to have two parking spaces. I personally would not shell out big bucks for a condo only to have to park on the street.



I think that once people move into the city and realize that they have other options for transportation, they may lessen their dependence on automobiles. I'm sure that's happened with many loft dwellers - a two-car couple purchases a loft and finds that they can get by with only having one car.

par wrote:Upscale buyers may have more than one car, but one per bedroom? If a single guy buys a 3BR house should he have a 3 car garage? No way.

You are right, he probably could have chosen a better choice of words than a "garage for every bedroom". You are also right that statment in itself is not the way to go about making this city better, however his development will only be one- and two-bedroom apartments/condos. He is not building three- and four-bedroom units. We have all been put on the spot now and again, said something that came to mind during a conversation and then when looking at it from another perspective, wish we hadn't said it or worded it differently.

Let me start by saying I love the fact we are having a discussion rather than the normal- This is being built. Wow great, I love it- threads.



First, I think the developer meant what he said, he might have chosen different words but the total number of spaces he is refering to would be the same. He even says "closed garages around the perimeter" of the project for another insight into how parking is important here.



We're talking 50 parking spots here- assuming 50/50 split of the 1BR/2BR units. That is 50 spots for 34 units. I dont like that. And if that is the reality of the St Louis real estate market I think we are farther away from turning the corner than I'd like to believe.



And I dont think parking on the street is a terible thing -granted I'm not shelling out big bucks and I dont drive a nice car- but again that mentality is a sign of lager problems.

With regards to the garages around the perimeter, I'm picturing a horseshoe-shaped garage structure behind the schoolhouse with an electric gate for access.



I think that downtown developments can get by with a reduced number of parking spaces, but not one like this. The developers are taking a chance on a somewhat risky area (although it's a calculated risk - that area's comeback is inevitable), so they have to be able to provide garage space.

Tonight on Channel 2 news, there was a story on the Gaslight Square and Botanical Heights developments. It was pretty much a fluff piece, but there was a quick interview with Greg Vatterott who said that they (the GS developers) have/had been trying to acquire land north of GS for additional development, but have been struggling - so instead they acquired the land to the east. If they've been successful in acquiring some of the parcels to the north (and I'm not exactly sure how much developable land is there), perhaps we'll see another phase of GS in the future.

Does anybody know what is being build on the corner of McPherson and Sarah?

Anyone notice that they've closed off Olive at Whittier with those ugly concrete planters? So to celebrate the rebirth of one of St Louis most lively streets we've decided to close it off. Genius.



And I'm only a Junior Member? Come one! I was the 4th person to sign up!

Why do they always do that? North City is the worst for the barriers. Drive into Hyde Park and you might get stuck forever. I've just never understood the need for those clunky barriers.

I don't get it either. I know it reduces speeders, but I think moreso it reduces people in general on a street, which I think adds a feeling of lifelessness and uneasiness. If I had just bought one of those new townhouses, I'd be upset.

By the way, the new condos (I think) at the corner of Olive and Boyle are coming along nicely. There is really so much potential along this corridor and further north and west. Go onto cbgundaker.com (it has a nice map search feature) and just check out some of the older homes in this area. They rival those in the CWE and are just waiting to be discovered and brought back to life.

I'm pretty sure the main reason for blocking off streets is to minimize auto theft and "drive-through" crimes such as drug dealing. It just makes the streets harder to access. Obviously, it has both good and bad effects.

I've heard the old "drug dealer stopper" reasoning beofre. I have always questioned that though. It could be an old wives tale. If you want to go get some crack from your dealer, I don't think those barriers are going to stop you. I would love to hear the official city position on why these things exist.



As far as poential development sites around Gaslight Square; there are tons. Not only are there great single and multi-family homes, but really amazing commercial buildings. There are quite a few nice ones on Grand between Page and Natural Bridge. I only hope redevelopment reaches the area before these things start to decay.

^ I remember back when they started putting these barriers in - maybe late 70s or early 80s. Like Gasm said, it has to do with crime. I guess the idea is to make the streets more like cul-de-sacs, or private places. I can remember people in the Shaw neighborhood being pleased. Suddenly their streets became quiet, rather traffic free, private, strangers could more easily be spotted.



They are meant to be a criminal baffle. The way they put squirrel baffles on backyard bird feeders. However, if you have a backyard bird feeder, you know the squirrels will outsmart any baffle. Probably the worst result is creating a right and wrong side. One good result may be slowing traffic and stopping commuters from cutting through narrow residential streets. Overall I am against them.

A concept implemented in the 70's and 80's has about zero support from me. These were times of mass exodus from the City. Clearly we didn't have the best people making decisions back then. Things might be improving in the City, but it seems that many decisionmakers like to keep old mistakes running strong.



I just sent an email to the Street Department asking for the official justification for such barriers. If I get a reply I will pos it here.