1105 olive - the old maurizio's has a demolition request on the new pres. bd. agenda - for a new parking lot.


http://stlouis-mo.gov/government/depart ... -26-12.pdf


http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4AURU ... CC8Q8gEwAA

W.T.F.

Exactly. W.T.F. There are already two parking lots right there.

I did a little googling and ran across this article from last year: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... glione.php

In May 2003, HBD dug the hole for the Louderman parking garage at the behest of LoftWorks, Heller's development company.

Immediately, the owner of the pizzeria and the building itself, Steve Scaglione, noticed a huge crack running all the way up his structure, a five-story brick affair now almost 130 years old. The building had shifted so much, in fact, that the elevator could no longer climb the shaft to the top floor, and blue sky was visible through certain spots in the wall.

I wonder if it has anything to do with that damage?

Then again it also looks like, according to the city's web site, the owner, Steve Scaglione, owes nearly 80k in property taxes too ...

Mark Groth wrote:Is SLU somehow involved in this?

Not on the surface, Enkelkind LLC has Larry Deutsch as its agent, if you been around downtown you know who he is

Terrible. I was afraid of this when Maurizos announced they were moving. I remembered the article in the RFT. Please contact the alderman and the CRO

The upper floors are gorgeous! This really should not be allowed.

Somebody please form some sort of official resistance against tearing down this building for 15 parking spaces. Ridiculous. There's a lot of money in the demolition business. Sometimes I wonder if there isn't some sort of collusion going on. Are the people who want to needlessy tear down this building have a relative in the demo business?

It's almost unbelievable that this is even happening.

leeharveyawesome wrote:Yikes, I just read the part in this thread about the crack in the building. Can it be fixed? I don't know.

I don't doubt it can be fixed. With enough money any building is pretty much salvageable (hence why I'm still hopeful about Cupples 7), but I do wonder how much the current condition of the building will play into the city's decision to allow demo or not.

Seems to me like the owner just received a 7 figure settlement and wants to pocket the money instead of investing it back into the building.

Somebody really doesn't like that building - Horribly mis-sized replacement windows in the upper levels, bricking over the street-level facade, and now it's threatened to be torn down for another parking lot. What did it ever do to justify such a series of indignities?

-RBB

insomniacafe wrote:

leeharveyawesome wrote:Yikes, I just read the part in this thread about the crack in the building. Can it be fixed? I don't know.

I don't doubt it can be fixed. With enough money any building is pretty much salvageable (hence why I'm still hopeful about Cupples 7), but I do wonder how much the current condition of the building will play into the city's decision to allow demo or not.

Architectural heritage aside, is a short term profit what makes a building worth saving? I would think any money less than the cost to build the (similar) building again would be worth spending. I haven't looked but wonder if there have been studies done on the economic gain of a region by preserving/reusing building stock.

Similarly when I see this "light" new construction I wonder how long it is meant to last. I don't know if we are making a mistake by not requiring concrete/steel or if we are being smart because 20 years down the road we will just tear it down.

flipz wrote:
Architectural heritage aside, is a short term profit what makes a building worth saving? I would think any money less than the cost to build the (similar) building again would be worth spending. I haven't looked but wonder if there have been studies done on the economic gain of a region by preserving/reusing building stock.

Similarly when I see this "light" new construction I wonder how long it is meant to last. I don't know if we are making a mistake by not requiring concrete/steel or if we are being smart because 20 years down the road we will just tear it down.

you might find this link interesting....

http://citiwire.net/columns/in-shrinkin ... n=dispatch

Definitely need more parking at this intersection...

gone corporate wrote:Motherfarker... OK, who do we write to? Who's getting our emails? We've got to put a full court press on this one.

Betsy Bradley, Director for St. Louis' Cultural Resources Office.
Email your concerns to bradleyb@stlouis-mo.gov or mail to the CRO (soon) at:

1520 Market Street
Suite 2000
St. Louis, Missouri 63103

On the surface, I can't imagine they'd approve this demolition permit. It adds to the character of the street (though the squat garage/office next door and open lots across the street hurt as well), the owner has no plans to replace it with new construction, he's behind severely in taxes (another few months and it'd qualify for public auction), and he received a settlement to fix prior structural damage.

Without full knowledge of what measures, if any, Scaglione took to brace/fix his building since the '03 issue, I couldn't guess one way or the other whether the building is at-risk. But if the City can keep Cupples 7 up, then this decision is an easy one (though Cupples 7 has the benefit of being in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the whole of Cupples Station).

I may be imagining things, but didn't the Mayor or someone say we have enough parking downtown earlier this year or last year? I thought there was a "moratorium" on demos for parking lots, not sure if that was something seriously said, or if i'm just insane.

We need to get "Big Parking" on our side. Us little guys aren't going to cut it. Round up moneybags that owns the garage behind this building. Talk to the owners of the eight or so surface lots in that picture. Get them to throw that parking money around to stop this demo. Big Parking doesn't need more competition downtown.