"Blairmont"

jivecitystl · PostJul 06, 2007#1512007-07-06T13:58+00:00

^Fair enough, although in my opinion, large-scale redevelopment is never, ever preferable to consistent, organic and diverse redevelopment, especially in an urban context. And yes, Paul McKee's silence about his intentions is certainly the most perplexing thing about this whole deal, but based on his track record, I wouldn't expect anything more than your run of the mill O'Fallon-esque schlock. I could be wrong, but I don't think McKee has an urban bone in his body.

I personally would much rather see Paul McKee rehab (or let others rehab) the properties he already owns and enlist the help of other developers with experience in urban development to fill in the gaps. Mass clearance is never the answer IMO. You don't have to destroy neighborhoods in order to "save" them. We've made that mistake way too many times. Of course, I'm a die-hard preservationist and I realize that my views are not always the most practical. But I desire more for St. Louis than just mediocre, 2nd rate approaches to redevelopment.

dweebe · PostJul 06, 2007#1522007-07-06T14:55+00:00

I'll say this: if McKee wants to bulldoze half of north city and build a large scale massive development, he needs to first prove it can work with the Pruitt/Igoe site. Going to St. Stanislaus I'm stuck many weekends looking at this massive wart that needs to be taken care of.

Pruitt/Igoe is easy: the rest of North St. Louis is tough.

tge-atw · PostJul 06, 2007#1532007-07-06T15:13+00:00

First. If you owned 600+ historic buildings and you were planning on rehabilitating them, would you...

A. do your best to secure them against weather and vandals so that they were in the best possible condition when you got around to fixing them?

B. leave them open and derelict so they decompose and occasionally be set fire by homeless people and crack heads?

The answer to the "question" of what he intends is obvious. He will clear everything he can get away with clearing.

Second. Why doesn't the state take the money that McKee has earmarked for himself to "redevelop" NSTL, and make it available to ANYBODY who wants to redevelop NSTL? Why should this massive amount of money only be available to him? There are plenty of people who are struggling financially and painstakingly restoring houses in NSTL. I guess that those folks who have already demonstrated a commitment to re-developing the north side don't matter. McKee however, who is a very rich man with no vested interest (other than financial) gets paid 100 million dollars to ride in on a bulldozer? ***** that. Everyone can agree that the North side needs help, why not keep the tax credit and allow re-habbers or anybody else (including developers) apply for it?

ecoabsence · PostJul 06, 2007#1542007-07-06T15:17+00:00

dweebe wrote:I'll say this: if McKee wants to bulldoze half of north city and build a large scale massive development, he needs to first prove it can work with the Pruitt/Igoe site. Going to St. Stanislaus I'm stuck many weekends looking at this massive wart that needs to be taken care of.

Pruitt/Igoe is easy: the rest of North St. Louis is tough.

Pruitt-Igoe is a great demonstration project -- 33 acres (HUGE by actual urban standards), already cleared, outside of residential areas and a major eyesore.

If McKee wants to demonstrate his intentions for the near north side, perhaps he should offer the city a proposal for the Pruitt-Igoe site.

If the Pruitt-Igoe site were developed with a mixed-use, high-density project, the market for smaller, organic growth around there would boom. And McKee could partake of that market alongside others.

southslider · PostJul 06, 2007#1552007-07-06T16:49+00:00

^There you go, McKee could swap his scattered sites with the City for Pruitt-Igoe and build the Winghaven of his dreams. Given how LCRA/LRA maintain their current sites, however, I'm not sure how much improvement City ownership would be over Blairmont's. Afterall, the City once owned the Century building and handed that over too to big-time political donors.

tge-atw · PostJul 06, 2007#1562007-07-06T21:40+00:00

BLUNT VETOED THE BILL

Alex Ihnen · PostJul 06, 2007#1572007-07-06T21:44+00:00

Very, very interesting. As much as I'd like to think that people with as much money (and probably a lot of smarts) as McKee would have a plan B, I feel that this may not be the case. So what now? A new bill to support historic rehabs? Maybe his properties will sit for a decade and further erode the north side . . .

PostJul 06, 2007#1582007-07-06T21:49+00:00

The story:

Blunt vetoes McKee development bill

By

Jo Mannies

POST-DISPATCH POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

07/06/2007

Gov. Matt Blunt announced today that he has vetoed a massive economic development bill that included a $100 million tax credit for large-scale developments in low income areas.

Only one developer would have qualified for the tax credit: Paul McKee, who has amassed large parcels of vacant property in north St. Louis.

But McKee wasn't mentioned in the governor's lengthy veto message. Rather, Blunt cited "excessive spending, including incentives for businesses that fail to pay average or above average wages and fail to provide employees with health coverage."

Blunt added that he was ready to call a special legislative session "if legislative leaders are willing to pass a more restrained bill that will achieve the good objectives of this legislation..."

The link:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

tge-atw · PostJul 06, 2007#1592007-07-06T21:50+00:00

I think the bill should be re-introduced as a tax credit for rehabilitation, infill, and new multi-parcel development AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE contingent upon pre-determined standards and practices of course. I don't want this thing to make those of us opposed to it look like the "cavemen" we have been dubbed. I think the conversation needs to switch gears toward positive steps toward redevelopment now that the immediate threat from Blairmont has been reduced.

jefferson · PostJul 06, 2007#1602007-07-06T22:16+00:00

^ Good idea TGE. I like the idea of splitting the $100 million up between more groups. maybe we could even stipulate certain percentages of the money go to each type of project, from individual rehabs up to some larger developments.

Now is the time to come up with a plan for this area that includes preservation/rehab, infill, and development of some of the worst blocks. Maybe the city could use eminent domain to acquire some of these blighted properties and give them to developers willing to work within the plan.

ntbpo · PostJul 06, 2007#1612007-07-06T22:33+00:00

I personally would much rather see Paul McKee rehab (or let others rehab) the properties he already owns and enlist the help of other developers with experience in urban development to fill in the gaps. Mass clearance is never the answer IMO. You don't have to destroy neighborhoods in order to "save" them. We've made that mistake way too many times. Of course, I'm a die-hard preservationist and I realize that my views are not always the most practical. But I desire more for St. Louis than just mediocre, 2nd rate approaches to redevelopment.

I agree that I would rather see redevelopment of individual properties by owner occupiers. However, sometimes mass clearance does work ie Botanical Heights.

wheelscomp · PostJul 06, 2007#1622007-07-06T22:42+00:00

jefferson wrote:preservation/rehab, infill, and development of some of the worst blocks. Maybe the city could use eminent domain to acquire some of these blighted properties and give them to developers willing to work within the plan.

Did you not read the article? One of the main objections Gov. Blunt had to the bill was that it made eminent domain too easy to apply. Even in the case that you discribe, I still dont like eminent domain. Besides, most of the blighted abd vacant property in the area is owned by the city itself. Basically almost all of McKee's land sits next to land owned by the city. The object of the bill was to make it possible for him to redevelop his land along with the city-owned land nextdoor.

I think that we will have a simiilar bill passed pretty quickly without all the added garbage that some politicians frequently try to sneak through. "Flights to Europe" on a bill for urban revitalization? C'mon. Good for Gov. Blunt.

jefferson · PostJul 06, 2007#1632007-07-06T22:46+00:00

^ probably wishful thinking on my part

ecoabsence · PostJul 07, 2007#1642007-07-07T00:14+00:00

wheelscomp wrote:I think that we will have a simiilar bill passed pretty quickly without all the added garbage that some politicians frequently try to sneak through.

I wouldn't be so sure about it. This issue as a stand-alone has some serious dirt that has not been cleaned up.

Even before the major media coverage, the dirt on the tax credit proposal was getting attention in the state legislature. If the best way to pass it was anything other than a last-minute amendment to an omnibus, the backers of the credits would have gone that better route.

A lot will have to happen at the city level before the legislature passes any version of the tax credits. Besides, with McKee himself stating he may not even be eligible there is another potential pitfall.

jivecitystl · PostJul 07, 2007#1652007-07-07T00:43+00:00

ntbpo wrote:I agree that I would rather see redevelopment of individual properties by owner occupiers. However, sometimes mass clearance does work ie Botanical Heights.

Well I will definitely disagree with you here, although I respect your opinion. I think Botanical Heights is atrocious. The new construction there is so cheap and suburban looking, it makes me want to vomit every time I see it. Especially considering that the buildings that were there before could have EASILY been renovated into really cool condos and apartments, with new landscaping and contemporary infill to redensify the neighborhood, which has been done tastefully in other parts of the city. All you have to do is look at new urban construction done well in other cities to realize that Botanical Heights is an insult to its context and the history of McRee Town. It looks like it could fit right into Maryland Heights. Gross.

marmar · PostJul 07, 2007#1662007-07-07T01:01+00:00

^I agree. McRee town stinks and doesn't fit in at all in a contemporary urban setting. For far out suburbia, it would be fine.

Remember the best and most successful of St. Louis neighborhoods are those which were started by individuals rather than large developers. For my money, let the local large developers stay in the suburbs. We need the small guys to do it right in the city to get a neighborhood going, or at least have developers who have some real urban projects behind them. What it boils down to is a love of our architecture and/or urban lifestyle rather than love of profit$$$$$$$.

shimmy · PostJul 07, 2007#1672007-07-07T01:47+00:00

I'm not at all familiar with Missouri legislature. Can congress override the veto via 2/3 vote? Is there that much support behind this thing?

bastiat · PostJul 08, 2007#1682007-07-08T00:04+00:00

Maybe now that this is public, we can prevent whatever his original plans were and force him to rehab all of the properties he and the city own in this area.

I do not mind if the city gives him all of the LRA and Pruitt Igoe properties if he rehabs and the new construction is quality. The city could justify holding him to such high standards by building a Metrolink line up Jefferson (and hopefully Tucker/Florissant, too) and redoing the streets. McKee would stand to gain a lot in the increase of property values due to the improvements, especially due to the public transportation. The Pruitt Igoe site and most of his holdings are located within walking distance of Jefferson.

What would you rather own, a sh*tty vinyl community or a neighborhood that architecturally resembles Beacon Hill, Georgetown and Savannah? BTW by redoing the streets, I mean ripping up the pavement to expose the original brick streets and installing new (historic?) street lighting.

wheelscomp · PostJul 08, 2007#1692007-07-08T06:14+00:00

Bastiat wrote:Maybe now that this is public, we can prevent whatever his original plans were and force him to rehab all of the properties he and the city own in this area.

He wont and cant be forced to rehab all of his property. As long as he cant work with the city to develop his and their land together, nothing will be done at all. He will either sell most of it or sit on them even longer until he can get his way.

I think the guy is a crook and a cheat but the truth is that without this deal it will look like it does up there for the next ten years. It just isnt economically feasible to rehab or develop each individual lot that he owns. What he wants it to fill in the missing puzzle pieces with city-owned land and do a massive development. There are great possibilities but the guy remains a crook in my mind.

jcity · PostJul 08, 2007#1702007-07-08T23:30+00:00

Of course, I'm a die-hard preservationist and I realize that my views are not always the most practical.

Actually, your views, which are similar to mine, are extremely practical. Tearing down entire neighborhoods for substandard housing prevents the city from maximizing on its assets, economically. Take for example, Soulard, if the city mass cleared that area in the 60's/70's for "new housing" at the time, the area would be void of an architecturally significant neighborhood that has homes in the $500,000 range.

As for the comment about Botanical Heights being a "success story". Let's talk in 10 or 15 years. Remember, Laclede Town was the "most successful housing development in the country" for a number of years. Botanical Heights while, not the worst, clearly isn't as good as a completely renovated area. Now, someone like me, or someone like most on this forum will NEVER buy in that area. We demand better than vinyl housing with brick veneers, sorry if that sounds snobby, but it's true.

smsplanstu · PostJul 09, 2007#1712007-07-09T15:19+00:00

From the book I am reading called Cities in Full by Steve Belmont:

Belmont argues with evidence that many major cities seek to increase the amount of low income housing for the poorest of the poor. He gives Minneapolis as the example where a past mayor said they prefer to encourage low quality low income development because those are the people who elected them and the ones they want more of to continue to elect them. Why would Bosley replicate Soulard with his Hyde Park when he can expand his low income constituents to keep him in office?

Belmont outlines an agenda whereby suburban housing is passed down to low income people and where new housing is built closer to Downtowns for upper middle class and middle class people who actually work Downtown. Belmont calls it the decentralization of poverty and recentralization of affluence.

In this scenario, building low income housing in North St. Louis does not help revitalize the City nor attract the middle class, but prolongs the rebuilding of St. Louis as the central city. As an interpretation of Belmont to our region one could say that the area surrounding and encompassing Downtown St. Louis should be built to accomodate similar income demographics as surrounding Clayton's CBD and surrounding neighborhoods. Soulard, Lafayette Square, and Washington Avenue are a start, but just a start.

doug · PostJul 09, 2007#1722007-07-09T17:20+00:00

SMS, my take on McKee is that he wants to build a "second Winghaven," albeit smaller, because when gas hits 4 dollars a gallon some people are going to want to move closer to where they work. People with kids (apparently?) don't want a loft, thus Paul McKee provides his St. Charles Luxury (with parking for F-250's) within the City Limits. In actuality, he is thinking that development (farmland sodomy) in the exurbs will begin to slow, thus he is anticipating future trends and investing in what will be a big market. Eventually, the middle and upper middle classes will not be able to afford their current lifestyle which he and others, like McBride and Son Chairman Rick Sullivan, ironically created.

This is why I don't think McKee isn't going to be building Hope IV housing or even cheap unsubsidized lower income housing. In accordance with your theory, those who qualify for Hope IV probably wouldn't vote for Downtown Francis G. Slay. Yet, I am sure the new suburban residents of St. Louis City would find much in common with Francis G. Slay, thus render support for 2009. Moreover, those existing City residents who do not understand urbanism/planning, and coincidentally think Botanical Heights is wonderful, would also probably support Slay. After all, Slay had a part in attracting McKee to St. Louis City. And he didn't send him away either. We are "open for business!" This is a new St. Louis!

jcity · PostJul 10, 2007#1732007-07-10T02:01+00:00

Exactly. He's not going to build total crap housing, but housing on par with Botanical Heights, which is probably considered "quality" by the Alderman in this area. This is NOT progress, but instead it's instead wiping the area clean of any evidence of a once high-end neighborhood. A completely renovated Hyde Park with infill would be ANOTHER LAFAYETTE PARK, easily.

bastiat · PostJul 10, 2007#1742007-07-10T02:06+00:00

SMSPlanstu wrote:From the book I am reading called Cities in Full by Steve Belmont:

Belmont argues with evidence that many major cities seek to increase the amount of low income housing for the poorest of the poor. He gives Minneapolis as the example where a past mayor said they prefer to encourage low quality low income development because those are the people who elected them and the ones they want more of to continue to elect them. Why would Bosley replicate Soulard with his Hyde Park when he can expand his low income constituents to keep him in office?

Belmont outlines an agenda whereby suburban housing is passed down to low income people and where new housing is built closer to Downtowns for upper middle class and middle class people who actually work Downtown. Belmont calls it the decentralization of poverty and recentralization of affluence.

In this scenario, building low income housing in North St. Louis does not help revitalize the City nor attract the middle class, but prolongs the rebuilding of St. Louis as the central city. As an interpretation of Belmont to our region one could say that the area surrounding and encompassing Downtown St. Louis should be built to accomodate similar income demographics as surrounding Clayton's CBD and surrounding neighborhoods. Soulard, Lafayette Square, and Washington Avenue are a start, but just a start.

^ Post of the Year!

stlgasm · PostJul 11, 2007#1752007-07-11T12:26+00:00

A great article from The Next American City...

http://www.americancity.org/article.php?id_article=232

"Blairmont"

Choose Display Mode