urbanSTL

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Because of this action, I am officially boycotting SLU. Except for soccer games, volleyball matches, and the occasional basketball game. And some interesting lectures. And perhaps in the future, a class or two. But other than that, nothing. So there!

Me too. I won't be getting any more degrees from there.

DeBaliviere wrote:

newstl2020 wrote:Considering that it is St. Louis University and not St. Charles University, I'm not so sure they had too much motivation to leave the city...I'm not sure how much the fact that they "stayed in the city" really has to do with anything at all.

When I was in school, I remember hearing that the university was offered land in West County when Fr. Reinert was president, but made the commitment to stay in Midtown.

DeB, I believe this discussion once came up on another board we haunt -- and I believe I dispelled it as a well-circulated urban myth.

^I don't know what kind of truth it has behind it, but even representatives of SLU will tell that story. I'm not talking administrative level reps, but reps none the less.

MattnSTL wrote:^I don't know what kind of truth it has behind it, but even representatives of SLU will tell that story. I'm not talking administrative level reps, but reps none the less.

In brief: Tall Paul became president in 1949. Pius library was proposed in 1950 -- one of the largest single development projects at the University. During the course of Reinert's presidency, the U subsequently expanded by a total of 10 buildings and 20 acres.



Now, perhaps, when he first got there, some suburban developer pitched land out by what's now Town & Country, much the same way the non-college operations of the Principia moved from near Goodfellow out to T&C. But the timeline in question would make absolutely no sense. During the 50s and early 60s, Midtown was still highly desirable, and the bulldozing of Mill Creek Valley allowed the U to expand eastward. Plus its identity was an urban, highly commuter college, which never would have worked in the distant burbs in those days.



So I call BS. Urban myth.

That definitely makes sense. I've never really given much thought to it either way.

I just figured the possibility of Saint Louis University moving to West County was some sort of pathetic attempt at a bluff, not unlike the Cardinals owners and their obviously empty threats to move to Illinois if the city and state didn't pitch in to build Busch Stadium III.



I've tried to boycott the Cardinals since their owners haven't exactly busted their behinds trying to get Ballpark Village off the ground, and because they've been (relatively speaking) cheapskates since the new stadium was built (ostensibly to make the team more competitive). However, my boycott didn't work out so well since (1) I'm just an average bloket that goes to a few games each year and drinks a few beers each time and (2) I still enjoy myself there anyway. So I expect that I'd do just as well if I decide to boycott Saint Louis University.



That said, I think our city should re-evaluate its relationships with institutions like Saint Louis University. Whatever Lord Biondi wants, Lord Biondi gets, and it's about time that our leaders realize that doesn't always result in a net gain for St. Louis.

i don't understand why Biondi is not a fan of preservation. why does he promote the destruction of historic buildings for SURFACE LOTS?! i can understand the loss of the historic house on campus for a new law school, but the loss of these buildings for vacant lots is mind boggling. where is the mayor on this!?

Biondi has preserved plenty of historic buildings in the area. A drive down Lindell will testify to that. However he has a responsibility to the trusties and future students of the institution to be fiscally prudent and unfortunately sometimes that involves not spending resources to preserve buildings that can't always be used efficiently. If you really want to hold on to these structures then feel free to gather a group of individuals together to donate enough money for their continued preservation. I am sure he would gladly accept the donations and even place your name on one of them.

Grover wrote:My disappointment is in what often replaces demolished buildings. Surface parking lots, fields and fountains should not be part of the plan. The campus east of Grand is just ridiculous. So although I wish the building that was torn down for the Law School expansion had been left standing, at least it's being replaced with a large, dense building.

And it's disappointing that there has never been a masterplan for the area east of Grand - it's all been developed in a hodgepodge fashion. The Busch Center is okay, as is Ritter Hall (the two buildings fronting Grand), and I like Chaifetz Arena.



I would like to see a signature building of some sort behind the fountain at Grand and Lindell - that corner just seems so empty - and Tegler Hall (the orange brick building on Lindell) given a new facade like the law school building will be receiving, to make it consistent with the gothic-style architecture of DuBourg Hall and the business school.



Macelwane and Monsanto - behind the Busch Center - are hideous.