Home » Featured »Planning & Design »Real Estate »Sunday Poll » Currently Reading:

Poll: Thoughts On The Aventura Apartments South Of BJC/Cortex

October 12, 2014 Featured, Planning & Design, Real Estate, Sunday Poll 10 Comments

For the poll this week I want to know what readers think of the Aventura apartments.  The site, 4431 Chouteau, previously had a gasometer.

Aventura apartments at 4431 Chouteau, click for website
Aventura apartments at 4431 Chouteau, click for website
The former gasometer, May 2007
The former gasometer, May 2007, the building on Chouteau remains, is for sale.

The poll is in the right sidebar, mobile users need to switch to the desktop layout.

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "10 comments" on this Article:

  1. guest says:

    It’s fine.

  2. Terence D says:

    Really trying to not be a snob here but I cringe each time I pass it and feel embarrassed for our city.

  3. Sean McElligott says:

    I do not like the design of the development but when I drive on 64 with people that would not

    consider living in the city and they love it. So I do think there is a market for this kind of development but we should not just build it any were.

  4. joe says:

    It could have had a more urban look, but its nice, it’s an improvement to the overall area.

  5. guest says:

    Did the project receive a cash subsidy? Is it a redevelopment area with strict design codes? Did it meet those codes? Was it supported by the neighbors, Washington University Medical Center, and Park Central Development Corporation? Whatever the answer to these questions, the new Aventura development is a far sight better than an abandoned Laclede Gas utility installation. Please. I’ll take 400 market rate apartments (or however big it is), to two or three hulking abandoned “gasometers”.

  6. KevinB says:

    If the apartments were situated so that walk-ups faced the street (with individual wrought-iron gate entrances), I think the Aventura would pass muster. Materials are obviously a mis-match, but that simple recognition of living ON a street couldve made a world of difference.

    Ultimately, I guess, if people are moving in you have to call it a success though…

  7. Mike F says:

    “Architecturally out of place”? That is too kind. Much, much, too kind. They are the type of banal, cookie-cutter design which cheapens the life of every citizen who must suffer through viewing them. Suburban or urban, this bowdlerized “colonial” pile of concrete fiber plank and stick-built, frame carpentry and paper-thin gypsum-board is an insult to the words design and architecture. It is an insult to human dignity, nothing more than a cheap warehouse for humans. It sickens me every time I drive by, either on Chouteau/Newstead or I64. This assemblage of ugly is indicative of the pathetic and backwards view of many in the City who believe that any type of development–no matter how poorly designed, or out of context with the extant built environment–is an important step to regaining the population and respectability we once possessed as a Great City. It is not. It is a stinging slap in the face, an insult to those who came before us, and who built structures which were designed to last, and impart at least a small portion of dignity to their occupants. It is the product of a society which sees human life and the integrity of the residents as nothing more than a commodity. As such, it is very American.

    The one down the street, also on Chouteau–and situated on a corner lot, no less–is no better. It looks like someone accidentally dropped a suburban tract development house on top of a brick wall. I’d rather have the vacant lot.

    • Mike Brady says:

      Mike F, I think this is a case of knowing your target audience. Most of the general public chooses to live in these types of developments. The challenge for architects is to contextualize these projects to appease the masses and the critics. To compare the project as some sort of blight to city is extreme. The developer knows this market, and this is what they wanted. This hopefully provides housing options to residents at the med campus or young people in the area. It will be interesting to see how the project holds up over time, (these types of projects require maintenance and ‘tax paying’ residents)

      • JZ71 says:

        The challenge for the architect is to also meet the developer’s budget. Vinyl siding, wood-framed construction and drywall is cheaper, at least initially, than structural masonry and hand-trowelled plaster, and repetition is cheaper than creating hundreds of unique living units. Bottom line, are you willing to pay 25% or 50% more in rent for the same square footage? Or, do you people actually being able to afford to live in the city, in new construction? Yes, visually the design COULD be better, but success here should result in better future efforts!

  8. wimple says:

    Its a low point for the City, hopefully the lowest of the low


Comment on this Article: