Renderings Shared for SOHA Lofts Project at Former Credit Union on Hampton

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook33Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn1Print this pageEmail this to someone

4650-hampton-rendering

We reported last month that the former American Eagle Credit Union building at 4650 Hampton will become apartments. The developer has now released more information via Hilliker Corporation, which represented to building’s buyer, Salviccio Properties.

From Hilliker:

Salviccio Properties’ owner and developer Matt Salviccio purchased a more than 14,000-square-foot two-story building at 4650 Hampton for $620,000. The South City resident plans to renovate the property for approximately $1 million to convert the building into 15 modern loft apartments. The apartment building will be named SOHA Lofts, a reference to the Southampton neighborhood.

The high-efficiency apartments, which will range in size from 650 to 800 square feet, will include a high-end kitchen with granite countertops and stainless steel appliances, a master bedroom and one-and-a-half baths. There will be a full loft roof top deck featuring an outdoor kitchen, exterior seating, fire pits, and an expansive view of downtown. The parking lot holds 44 cars, and rent will range from $750 to $950 per month per unit.

4650-hampton-rendering-2

Our previous story: Apartments Planned for Vacant American Eagle Credit Union on Hampton Avenue

4650-hampton_4

The trend toward repurposing commercial buildings in St. Louis for apartments continues. A redevelopment plan for the former American Eagle Credit Union at 4650 Hampton in the city’s Southampton neighborhood would be converted to 15 apartments.

Projects such as 4242 Lindell (as well as 3744 Lindell, and 4100 Lindell), are following the many historic rehabs, and transformation of many prior school buildings (Mack Lofts and Lafayette School, St. Pius V, and others) to meet the demand for housing in the city.

From the City of St. Louis Planning Commission meeting:

Summary Submittal: Proposed amendment of the Zoning District Map 1) by petition for Planning Commission review and recommendation and 2) for Planning Commission initiation and recommendation.Site: 1.40-acre site, consisting of 2 parcels — 4650 Hampton Ave. and 4601-21 Sulphur Ave. — located along or near Hampton Ave. in the Southampton neighborhood. Proposal: Rezoning

Site: 1.40-acre site, consisting of 2 parcels — 4650 Hampton Ave. and 4601-21 Sulphur Ave. — located along or near Hampton Ave. in the Southampton neighborhood.

Continue reading: Apartments Planned for Vacant American Eagle Credit Union on Hampton Avenue

 

(Visited 2,205 times, 4 visits today)
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook33Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn1Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Alex Ihnen

    This is a post about a vacant bank being transformed into apartments. No problem having the discussion move beyond that, but this just became another back and forth that was neither informative or interesting.

  • Pingback: Renderings Released for SOHA Lofts Project - ConstructForSTL()

  • tbatts666

    Cool. Interesting rehab!! Wish there was a better way to make the building *seem* to address the street and other buildings.

    I commend the developers! I’ll admit I’m not very familiar with this pry of the city. I only bike out there to go to target.

  • Scott Pluff

    SOHA and St. Louis Hills are great places to raise a family, walkable neighborhoods with dozens of locally-owned restaurants, bars, and shops at our doorstep. Hampton, Chippewa, and Macklind have seen many new businesses, new construction, and extensive rehab projects in the past several months with several more in the planning stages. I wouldn’t choose to live anywhere else, city or county.

    • markgroth

      Agree, and don’t forget the parks. They have very active, safe and vibrant parks.

    • Riggle

      St Louis Hills is a pedestrian death trap, SoHa would be too without the macklind ave strip. Either you don’t know what the word walkable means, or you have never gotten out of your car

      • Scott Pluff

        Well, we frequently walk to the grocery store, to restaurants and coffee shops, to church, to the bank, to the cleaners, to the library, and more. Our kids walk the dog and ride their bikes around our neighborhood, and my wife and I jog around Francis Park and the streets of St. Louis Hills. Pedestrian death trap? You’re talking out of your ***.

        • Riggle

          Few cross walks and walk signs, many surface lots and swipe thrus, many intersections where pedetrians can’t even cross (chippewa and landsdowne) cars dont yield even with a walk sign (chippewa and jamieson). Its built for cars. There is no pedetrian scaled commercial district at all. You sir, are the A$$ talker.

          • HawkSTL

            C’mon, Scott’s right. The streets around Francis Park are among the best in the City. And, yes, plenty of people are walking around there. Alex may have to lock this thread soon too, Riggle (agreed with Alex on that).

          • Riggle

            There is no reason to go to those streets unless you live on them, the streets that draw people, with shopping, are atrocious (see Hampton, chipppewa, Watson rd). Case closed; lock it down. Nothing more to say.

          • HawkSTL

            Sure – Hampton & Chippewa is not the leading sales tax corner in the City (it is), Watson does not have good restaurants (it does – Trattoria Marcella, yum), and no one uses Francis Park for anything (they do). LOL

          • Riggle

            Atrocious for pedestrians, you said it was great for walkability, thats what we are talking about, and its terrible for pedestrians

          • JB

            Let’s agree that if your most valued criteria for living in the city is a walkability score approaching 90 then you’re probably better off living somewhere besides St. Louis Hills, SoHa, Clifton Heights, Lindenwood Park, etc. But stop with the rhetoric that these are awful, boring places just because the people who live their use their car more than you. These residents probably have vastly different priorities than you but still elect to stay within the city and support it.

            Considering the mass exodus out of STL, I would consider these neighborhoods that St. Louis city residents should be proud of.

          • STLrainbow

            Somewhat of an aside but It’ll be quite interesting to see what the next census shows regarding South City nabes… all of those you mention lost population last decade, and SoHa and Clifton Hts. actually lost more than the citywide average.

            My thought is like a lot of South City these four won’t lose as many people this decade as last but I’m not sure how they’ll perform in comparison to other SC neighborhoods.

          • Riggle

            Thats fine. But if the people that live there are going to say they are walkable and ped friendly they will be called out. Because they are not. They are in suburban form ans provide a suburban lifestyle.

          • JB

            That’s a pretty simplistic definition you’re using – Urban = walkable and anything not walkable = suburban. Basically, if you don’t want to live in an apartment above a retail storefront, you’re a hopeless suburbanite.

          • Tired of Riggle

            Get over yourself, Debbie Downer

          • John Polansky

            Well, let’s see. Where to begin. There is no crosswalk at Chippewa and Lansdowne? I guess the neighborhood just jaywalks in between those two white lines at that intersection on a daily basis.

            Lived in this neighborhood for 10 years. My family walks to school, church, pediatrician, grocery store, park, restaurants both local and chain (kids like Lion’s Choice), Target, Library, insurance agent, auto repair shop… As well as friends houses around the neighborhood. No problem with cars.

            So BORING…

          • Riggle

            There is no crosswalk at chipoewa and landsdowne

          • John Polansky

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1a6a275e4c63b33c5f9c673f9358caa489132cb06f367213d001dc69df16f0e.png

            Sure looks like a crosswalk to me!

            To your bigger point that St. Louis Hills is not “walkable”. I guess it depends on what you consider “walkable”. For me and my family’s purposes the neighborhood is EXTREMELY walkable.

            But it is SO BORING…

          • STLrainbow

            I think there are two issues here; one is the larger neighborhood character of these two nabes, including the variety of amenities/offerings within them; and the connectivity of areas across the expanse of the major roads/stroads like Hampton. Chippewa and Watson. While there may be crosswalks, etc. I don’t think there is any question that these major roads could use serious bike/ped/”great streets” treatments.

            Whether one prefers say Southhampton over Tower Grove East is no big deal to me — to each his own – but there is no dispute that South Grand has many, many more daily pedestrian crossings than Hampton or Chippewa. We can throw in Gravois as a street east of Grand that could use major improvements; Jefferson, too.

          • HawkSTL

            Fair enough. But, I’d like to point out that the bike/ped/great streets treatments have been made in my neighborhood. The concept is good. The execution is very poor. The neighborhood is mad about the execution. Yet, little has been done to address the issue.

          • Riggle

            Look at the picture. There is no way to cross at all if traveling west on the north sode of the street. There is no crosswalk there

          • Riggle

            Yup, no crosss walk on three of four sides, thats is “no crosswalk”

          • John Polansky

            Wrong again. There is also a crosswalk across the east side of Lansdowne. Can’t admit that you are wrong, huh? Must be tough going through life like that.

          • Riggle

            What in gods name are you talking about? You aren’t allowed to go west as a pedestrian here, period, this is where the sidewalk ends.

          • Adam

            I’m only seeing one crosswalk on Google Maps.

          • John Polansky

            It is fated but you can cross at Lansdowne on the east side, also.

            The real Point here, is who gets to Define what walkable means? St.Louis Hills neighborhood is extremely walkable, in my opinion. Why is this Riggle character arguing with people who live in the neighborhood over whether it is walkable or not?

            The answer can be found in the rest of his comments on this thread. He finds the neighborhood boring. That’s okay with us. Obviously, a lot of other people don’t think so, as houses typically are sold in this neighborhood before they ever have a sign in front of their house.

          • Adam

            Well, I think one can pretty easily compare “walkable” in St. Louis to “walkable” in other cities where many many more people walk on a daily basis and conclude that St. Louis’ pedestrian amenities are severely lacking, including St. Louis Hills. That’s not to say that some people don’t walk in St. Louis Hills, but that moving cars is prioritized just like everywhere else in St. Louis.

          • John Polansky

            And I wouldn’t disagree, though again it depends on what part of any city you are talking about. Downtown? More residential? All factors in “walkability”.
            I used to live in a house in Chesterfield. I spent 10 years getting in my car to do, well, everything. Today, I can walk to almost every necessity including doctors, school, grocery, etc. and many non-necessities, like restaurants, bars, exercise classes. Could it be better? Of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that an extremely residential part of the city is also relatively “walkable”.

          • Riggle

            If you compared walkable parts of st louis with walkable parts of other cities you wouldn’t include stl hills. Becasue its not a walkable part of st louis

          • Riggle

            You can’t travel west, on foot. At all.

          • John Polansky

            On Lansdowne? What are you talking about? You can cross by the Bread Company and continue WEST to Jamieson and beyond. You can walk to the Metro station, or Mom’s Deli.

          • Riggle

            You can’t cross by the bread co

          • John Polansky

            I see your problem (yes, your problem)- Chippewa runs Southeast to Northwest and vice versa (this is not a squared-off intersection). Lansdowne runs EAST TO WEST. You can cross Chippewa on Lansdowne going WEST and continue. Now, if you are wanting to walk SOUTHEAST along Chippewa you would have a point.

            I’m done with this conversation- you seem to think you have made a point. Even though a crosswalk is “a marked part of a road where pedestrians have right of way to cross.” You changed the definition to fit your purpose after being proven wrong.

            Enjoy arguing with yourself.

          • Riggle

            So you cant cross here on foot, its illegal based on the markings, that was my point, all along, no crosswalk and landsowne and chippewa. Thanks for coming to grips with reality, I’m now done with this conversation

          • Riggle

            Im using the normal definition of walkable, not the HawkFam made up definition

          • Riggle

            That has to be one of the worst pedestrian intersections ive ever seen. And you are using it as an example of why sltl hills is GOOD for pedestrians. That is whats wrong with st louis hills

          • John Polansky

            No, you said “there is NO “crosswalk” at Chippewa and “Landsdowne”. You are wrong. I didn’t use it as an example of anything. You brought it up, I refuted it.

          • Riggle

            Three of four crossings have no crosswalk, that is the same as no cross walk. Its useless

          • Adam

            Well, a single crosswalk at a busy 4-way intersection isn’t exactly pedestrian friendly.

        • Alex Ihnen

          Well said.

          • Riggle

            You’ve clearly never tried to walk around st louis hills. Its not well said. Its made up

  • Adam

    I don’t understand the giant boxes affixed to the front of the building.

    • Guest

      Amen…! Lol…they remind me of dumpsters.
      Nor do I understand the significance of this structure and why it’s essential it be be repurposed. Aesthetically, it doesn’t say much to me. And with that huge expanse of grass in front I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be a far better idea to replace the structure with a larger one that meets the sidewalk…and fittingly urban with street level retail.

      This project looks like someone who’s aware of the importance of architectural preservation and urban lifestyle, but doesn’t quite get either.

      • John

        The building structure is most likely sound and perhaps less expensive to rehab vs. new construction. I like the repurposing, since there is plenty of new construction happening in town. The Art Deco concept doesn’t bother me, and I am interested in seeing the final rendering sans purple boxes.

        • Guest

          Hey, I’m with ya on repurposing…but sorry, I question the validity of understanding when to rehab and when to rebuild in this project. This neighborhood (just as many others in the city) needn’t worry about cost of new construction vs. rehab (I think maybe that’s become somewhat of a (potentially destructive) meme around town)..
          P.S. Art Deco? In this existing structure? Where? I don’t see any Art Deco whatsoever here. Perhaps Moderne, but even that’s stretching it. I see purely, simply mid twentieth century modernist. (And, whether Art Deco, Moderne, Mid Century Modern, Victorian…I love them all…I love architecture…and our city has excellent examples of all of those plus more).

          • Dominic Ricciotti

            No, certainly this structure is not at all Art Deco! In fact it’s a very, very poor example of mid-century modern, so almost any change would be an improvement. But there ARE many fine examples of Art Deco in the neighborhood.

    • Framer

      Those represent balconies. In a different article, the developer said he’s already re-thinking them, and that this is just an early conceptual rendering.

    • Dominic Ricciotti

      From a piece by Tim Bryant if the PD, a few days ago: “Renderings show purple balconies on the front of the building. Those are mere renderings, said Salviccio [the developer], adding that he believed purple on a building “is a little too aggressive” for that part of the city. Instead, the brick building will be painted “deco” white and outfitted with black-framed casement windows, he said.”

      Speaking of deco, see the Groth Guide on St. Louis Hills, some wonderful photos of Art Deco buildings, homes, and apts.

      • Adam

        Yeah, I assumed they were balconies or sun rooms or something to that effect but the rendering is hilariously bad. They didn’t even attempt to size the boxes appropriately.

  • Jakeb

    $1M to convert the building to 15 loft apartments seems a bit modest.

    • Db

      That’s the public number that they’ll put on the building permit app and pay the 1% fee. It’s probably much higher

      Even $1m/15 is $66,666 per unit in a building that’s already built, so you’re just moving some non structural walls, cosmetics and plumbing.

  • John

    It looks like an interesting repurposing and a unique residential concept. I don’t “get” the negative commentary, when potentially gaining more City residents and having creative loft-living options are net positives. I wish the developers much success, and I hope the end result is high quality. Perhaps this will spur more redevelopment of commercial properties into residential.

  • Riggle

    This is a really boring part of st louis

    • Framer

      ^Then you should be glad that developers are trying to bring new residents and new life to the area.

      • Riggle

        True. But most likely car slaves that will drive to Brentwood for everything(except target).

        • JB

          Much to Riggle’s chagrin, not everyone who lives in the city of St. Louis views it’s relationship with the County like Berlin in the 70’s/80’s. Some residents (myself included) do in fact patronize businesses and places in the county and still pledge loyalty to the city. And sometimes we…drive cars (gasp!)

          • Nick

            I wish more people only sometimes drove cars. An awful lot of people never go anywhere except by driving.

          • Riggle

            More so for this neighborhood than probably any in St Louis

          • Riggle

            Interesting that you still feel the need to “pledge loyalty” then

    • mc

      St. Louis Hills is actually a wonderful neighborhood. It’s a very nice place to live.

      • Riggle

        And so boring

      • HawkSTL

        Don’t worry mc. I’m beginning to think that Riggle never moved out of his parents’ basement . . .

        • Riggle

          I don’t think you’ve ever gotten out your car

          • HawkSTL

            Love walking to the park like most of the folks on the board, but leaving the basement does allow me to afford a car.

    • DB

      Stop by Macklind Ave any time after 4pm during the week

      • Riggle

        Point taken. Probably the only walkable commercial district on the south side west of kingshighway, save the Hill. #LiveEastofGrand!

    • RyleyinSTL

      You must be kidding

    • Imran

      I have to agree. I am also guilty of writing off Hampton Avenue. It’s the best stroad in the city and a great example of what not to do to a city street.

      • HawkSTL

        It seems like many redevelopment threads such as this one include criticisms about wide streets/boulevards. Without them, you can’t readily leave your neighborhood and go to another party of the city (south to north, west to east, etc.). If you eliminate Hampton as a boulevard, that traffic simply spills onto Kingshighway and McCausland. I don’t understand how eliminating boulevards helps or is an improvement. The traffic moves elsewhere and increases along the alternate routes. So, what is your ideal plan?

        • Alex Ihnen

          Maybe it’s instructive to think in the reverse: Has widening streets into higher-speed roads made neighborhoods and community better places to walk? Has it increased the number of businesses? At the largest scale, has it been good for St. Louis City?

          I’d argue that there is zero evidence of net benefits, and that’s not even accounting for the cost, and opportunity cost. So I don’t mean to discount your repeated objections about traffic in the city, but it simply hasn’t worked. Where we have slowed traffic, investment has followed. The Delmar Loop, South Grand Business District, The Grove, and Washington Avenue are but just three such examples.

          • HawkSTL

            There used to be planning involved. For instance, 39th Street was the slower, smaller street with shops and commerce while Grand was the major N-S corridor. The Delmar Loop was the slower, smaller street with shops and commerce while the Parkway was the major E-W corridor. Now, the plan is do the same thing over and over again without thinking about the collateral impact. Can’t get ambulances through Grand quickly to SLU Hospital? Too bad. Can’t get downtown without using 70, 40, 44 or 55? Too bad. That is the complete absence of engineering and planning.

          • Alex Ihnen

            First of all, you don’t address any point I made. Streets from Broadway to Natural Bridge to Jefferson, Hampton, Grand, Gravois, and more were designed for slower speeds, and mostly remained that way for 50-100yrs. The decision to favor a single mode of transportation changed this.

            Again, if one is in favor of these urban arterials, then show how they have benefitted the city. Show an increase in residents or property value along them. Show examples from other cities where not widening streets have muted development.

            And the complete absence of planning was to simply widen everything we could afford in order to favor a single (of many) forms of transportation.

          • HawkSTL

            C’mon – only certain roads were designed as through routes. Broadway/Hall St., Grand, Vandeventer, Kingshighway, Harmpton/Union, Skinker/McCausland, Big Bend/Pennsylvania, Hanley, River Des Peres Blvd, Gravois,Chippewa/Watson, Manchester/Chouteau, Olive/Lindell, Delmar/Parkway, Page, Dr. MLK, the Rock Rd, and Natural Bridge. Almost everything else is a neighborhood street. When you look at a map, it (mostly) makes sense and is well-planned. Property values haven’t plummeted in, for example, St. Louis Hills because the streets are too wide. The Grove was long on the road to redevelopment before the road diet. Another example – Grand was restricted, so Spring Ave. became the reliever (that’s the inevitable result). Then SLU is allowed to vacate Spring, which takes away the reliever. Traffic then spills onto Compton and Vandeventer. You guys aren’t creating a better, safer environment. All that is doing is moving and enlarging the traffic jam. It springs a safety hazard on someone else. It is the very definition of a lack of planning.

          • Adam

            “Grand was restricted, so Spring Ave. became the reliever (that’s the inevitable result).”

            and that’s the entire point of a street grid.

            “You guys aren’t creating a better, safer environment.”

            care to back that up with some numbers?

          • HawkSTL

            The road diets don’t make traffic vanish. It goes to the quickest alternate route. Case in point: Hwy. 40 has more volume because the surrounding roads like Manchester have been reduced to two lanes, slower speeds, and more stoplights. That increases speeds and volumes elsewhere, which diminishes safety.
            Writes MODOT:

            “We have twice as many people using I-64 now than we did three years ago,” said MoDOT I-64 Project Director Lesley Hoffarth. “Obviously everyone is trying out the new highway. The other interstates and alternate roads around the region are flowing at or near the speed limit during the rush hours. We advise people to spread out which roads they are using and avoid the peak times of 7:30-8:30 a.m. and 4:30-5:30 p.m.”

            Traffic on the arterial roads was down on all major alternate routes, including Page, Olive and Manchester. Forest Park Parkway volumes were less than before the I-64 construction started, which is a 50-60 percent reduction in volume compared to last month.

          • Adam

            So even if traffic-free routes are available people will blindly choose the one route with the fastest speed limit despite worse traffic. Sounds to me like the problem is people’s poor judgement, not road diets. Either way it’s not a reason to make streets unsafe for pedestrians.

          • HawkSTL

            Again, my criticism of the road diet approach is a lack of planning. A road diet is okay if there is a plan for a reliever close by. It is not okay when there is no plan for providing a safe route to the impacted traffic. Saying “drivers will figure it out” is not planning.

          • Riggle

            You are cracked

    • Scott Pluff

      Too bad we can’t all live in whatever trendy hipster hangout that you inhabit!

      • Riggle

        SoHa has more hipsters than any neighborhood in St Louis.

  • Alex P

    Oooo everything is so shiny. Also, when are developers going to realize the potential of Modernist Architecture.