Update:
After the February 7th city council public hearing, more details are known regarding the proposed apartments. The first thing to notice is that the apartments are actually comprised of two separate buildings. In addition to better fitting the shape of the lot, this seems to be in an effort to adhere to zoning language that approves of “garden apartments,” typically those with a courtyard. Secondly, the apartments will indeed be accessible individually by outdoor-openings. Perhaps the most regrettable aspect of the design, however, is the moat of driveway that surrounds the building on all four sides, separating it from the sidewalk. As far as positives, the preservation of the large existing post-oak in the second design, the extensive tree plantings, and the single adult target-demographic are all plusses.
Next Steps:
While the project’s initial site plan (visible below) was rejected by the Planning & Zoning Committee, it has since been revised to a superior design. The project (in both its site plan and re-zoning components) will now require two readings before the council votes. The first of these readings is likely to occur at the February 21st council meeting.
Initial Design:
Revised Design:
_________________________________________________________________
Previous Story
(1/30/2019)
Kirkwood’s collective mindset seems to be that if its not in downtown, it shouldn’t be dense. “Save Sugar Creek!” they say. “Save South Kirkwood!” the signs read. In reality however, the only thing people seem to truly want to save is their home’s property values. That wasn’t supposed to sound completely condescending. I get it. Americans’, unlike their European counterparts, primary form of savings is the equity they have in their homes and thus are understandably much more sensitive to anything that will influence the bulk of their wealth. By instituting a monopoly on residences in Kirkwood and not allowing the supply of residences to meet the strong demand, however, they are able to artificially raise prices. This constitutes an inefficiency in the market known as rent-seeking. And its basically bullshit. Its “I have mine and mine’s worth more if you don’t have yours,” taking-a-bigger-piece-of-the-pie-rather-than-growing-it, mentality. Here’s the thing though: adding more residents won’t inherently sink your home values. It hasn’t done it in Clayton, it hasn’t done it in Chicago and it hasn’t done it in New York City. As it turns out, people actually really like living in places with a lot of other people. Owning a piece of property in one of those places, where a lot of people have to rent, can make you a lot of money. Kirkwood should strive to be dense all over, not just downtown. But here we are. With the NIMBYs looking for a fight. So fight we will. Our theatre? Big Bend.
NIMBY’s rest much of their case on the argument that this development wouldn’t fit the character of the neighborhood. The site in question is currently occupied by five rental properties which are nestled between: A gas station to the East, railroad tracks to the South, a Montessori school to the West and across the quiet residential street that is Big Bend from the Mid Century Modern campus of Meramec. Many of the rental properties themselves are in shambles. (Full disclosure: One source tells me that Savoy hopes to expand the project to also include the two lots just to the West of the proposed five lots. The first of these lots is occupied by the Montessori school and a single family home West of that. These expansions would take the development’s footprint to the small residential spur off Big Bend Eastview Ave, but would be implemented incrementally thus breaking up the structure into more reasonably sized, hopefully architecturally differentiated pieces. Plans for additional development further down Big Bend were refuted by Savoy’s architect at the public hearing on the development 02/07/19).
Lot size with proposed 40 foot setback 
Lot size with 128 foot setback
Another prominent argument against is that the area is zoned the way it is for a reason. The 3 floors, 48 unit development requires a lot of exemptions from the current requirements: The allowed units per floor has to be increased from 4 to 16, minimum floor space per unit reduced from 3,000 square feet to 1,685 square feet, the minimum required parking spots reduced from 112 to 100 and the minimum setback more than halved from 128 feet to 40 (h/t Webster-Kirkwood Times). Each of these changes, (even ignoring the fact that exclusionary zoning is the single greatest contributing factor to the spreading out of the region and is a significant instrument for the implementation of segregation), are likely to increase the quality of this project, not reduce it. Reduced setback means 1) an increased likeliness that the parking lot could be hidden behind the building rather than in front of it and 2) a better street-wall (i.e. the sense of comfort gained from being in a less exposed, wide open place), the reduced parking should mean more residents that utilize public (there is a Metro Bus stop on either side of Big Bend) and alternative forms of transportation and thus fewer emissions and less traffic, the increased density is pretty objectively good from a tax revenue perspective and finally it is almost guaranteed that the number of curb cuts (pretty self-explanatory but basically the fewer of the there are the better the pedestrian experience cuz the fewer the opportunities where a car is literally allowed to drive on the sidewalk) will be reduced from the current five driveways to at most two (hopefully one).
I’m sure the proposal won’t be perfect. Our mission in not to maximize Savoy’s profits but instead to maximize Kirkwood’s potential. Taxes should be paid in full, parking needs to go in the rear, it has to look good, (No renderings yet but I’m told the complex will be serviced by exterior stairs, which i’m sure will be a point of contention but I’m willing to keep an open mind until I see some images) and it should be fine grained in nature (not just one long monotonous building, especially if the proposal is expanded). But at the end of the day, the main point is this: This project is a relatively urban development that would allow a lot of people to live in Kirkwood that otherwise wouldn’t be able to. This developer has done good work in the past with The Madison, lets do something positive instead of burying our heads in the sand until some developer comes along willing to build five nice houses for five nice families until our whole town just become just another Ladue. (Some of you might be very excited about that). We can do better.
