It's the old standard. Most of those that showed up and most vocal were those with pitchforks and torches. Just like STLtoday—the commenters are there to complain and b****. And most of the complaints—from parking lot lights, signage, headlights from cars—already exist. That was the head-scratcher. If you don't want that, move out to Defiance or off old 21.
That said, your point about good design is spot on. And that's my main disappointment. It feels like lazy design.
If it wasn't going to pass that almost certainly means enough residents put Conway's feet to the fire that he was going to vote no and, as aldermanic courtesy is the law, the rest of the board would have followed suit.
Ebsy wrote:If it wasn't going to pass that almost certainly means enough residents put Conway's feet to the fire that he was going to vote no and, as aldermanic courtesy is the law, the rest of the board would have followed suit.
i'm not sure that aldermanic courtesy applies where the preservation board is concerned since only one member is an alderman. based on the scale of demo and the sh*t proposed replacement, though, i think it would have been a no-brainer for the PRB, especially after the CRO recommended denial.
It certainly seems like we dodged a bullet there. But how quickly will the next shot come? All of that looks eminently usable. Maybe what we need is an ordinance severely limiting new drive throughs inside city limits. Or perhaps some stricter regulations on how they should be cited or designed. That seems like the only reason Walgreen's couldn't simply use the existing building. There used to be some lovely old urban Walgreens. I don't like what they've become.
If you want to stop suburban development patterns, you have to limit curb cuts. That forces all the parking to be accessible only from the alley. You can add to that angled parking on the west side of the street, and both sides of the street south of Arsenal.
Limiting drive through windows, regardless of curb cuts, reduces automotive pollution, so there's good reason for it. Limiting curb cuts might also be useful, but I don't think it need be either or. There are good arguments for both approaches.
I think one of the things cities need is a stick that helps to punish companies that simply neglect buildings: enforce citations for code violations and so forth. Property taxes could also help. Perhaps they should be substantial enough to prevent the more obnoxious sorts of speculation. If it was too costly for BMO to simply neglect their building they'd sell it quicker. Maybe. But this is a positive development.
symphonicpoet wrote:I think one of the things cities need is a stick that helps to punish companies that simply neglect buildings: enforce citations for code violations and so forth. Property taxes could also help. Perhaps they should be substantial enough to prevent the more obnoxious sorts of speculation. If it was too costly for BMO to simply neglect their building they'd sell it quicker. Maybe. But this is a positive development.
Especially historic buildings. Basically leaving it for neglect to the point of demolition completely disregards the point of not allowing them to demolish it in the first place. Should be so many strike rule on historic buildings then you lose it if you neglect it
I think I may actually be sold on the BMO design. I'm genuinely shocked at how far they've come and I feel like this is now a project that deserves support for preserving the historic character and much of the actual fabric of the block. It looks like a place worth walking, and like it could survive and adapt for another century or so. Am I missing something?
There is no reason to demolish the building between the bank and the Walgreens. There is plenty of parking in the back so keeping up the facade really shouldn't be allowed, that entire portion of the building should be saved
BMO wants out of the largest part of that block, as they no longer need that much real estate. Walgreens wants a drive through. They'd probably be quite content with a less expensive modern building, but I guess the one around the corner isn't quite doing it for them in the age of CVS. We want the block saved. This seems like a very good compromise to me. It gets the three best buildings on the block restored and modernized. It gets them occupied, generating traffic and vibrancy. And it preserves the facade and visual streetwall for the future. Right now that's not a terribly walkable stretch of Kingshighway. There's really not enough commercial anywhere nearby to support a vibrant, walkable district. Something could, possibly, be built in the future, but it will take time. I could imagine walkable development coming along Vandeventer, but I would guess it would grow from Shaw south, or east along Southwest from Columbia. And Kingshighway itself is so residential to the south and industrial to the north that I can't imagine you'll see commercial growth from either of those directions anytime soon. The bank itself is kind of in a hole in the middle. It can help to bridge the gap, but not if it sits forever empty. If we don't compromise what happens? I can't imagine BMO would want to sell the property at firesale prices, which might be what outside development would require. Honestly, I doubt that they really want to move out of their corner location if they can manage to keep it. It's a nice prominent spot, all the history aside. They just want to modernize it and decrease their own footprint. If we don't let them do that, what happens? They sit on it and the building decays? I worry that if we don't compromise we lose the whole thing. This plan looks like it gives us most of what I would want. I'd love to see shops there. I'd love to see apartments and transit. If apartments and transit grow up in the future I can't imagine it would be all that difficult to add a modern sotrefront to the back of the facades. (That's pretty much what they're planning to do with the Walgreen's already, right?) And really, what's the historic part? The cast iron pillars in the middle of the building? The blank brick wall in the back? The facade is far and away the most important part. If we can save that then the rest might follow in the future as conditions change. But if we fight for everything we could well lose everything. You're welcome to disagree, of course. But to me this really does seem like a nice, sound, reasonable compromise. It feels like they've listened and adapted. Can we?
I wish they would simply leave the center building - even at a reduced depth - and have it be a small office, pop-up shops, etc. It could be flexible, with true display windows at times, then other uses as ideas come up. Not sure what the best, most practical use would be, but once it's gone, it's gone.
Apart from sentiment, is there some value to the building behind the facade? This once it's gone it's gone idea sort of misses a point: we build new buildings all the time. We replace buildings. They become functionally obsolete. There are absolutely things worth saving. Nineteenth century brick warehouses have historic craftsmanship that often makes them worth saving. Arts and crafts brick homes have good interiors. But not all parts of a building are equal. My living room is clearly more interesting and more worthy of preservation than the basement steps or the front closet in the attic. Simple small stores don't always have too much behind the facade. Particularly if they've been occupied and remodeled. Is there much other than a large blank space back there? Is there something that couldn't be replaced or reproduced aside from the facade itself? In the corner bank lobby, absolutely. But in the little store front around the corner that was an office for most of the twentieth century? (Probably with cubicles and suspended ceilings.) We can pour a concrete floor. We can build blank walls quickly and efficiently. We can put up a roof with a wide clear span. Is every tin ceiling and linoleum floor worth saving in situ? If there's something inside of real beauty then I'm all in favor of fighting to save it. But if there's not I'd rather not risk losing everything else when the bank has already proven they can compromise. There's only so far they'll be willing to go. At some point it becomes an economic burden and they quit negotiating and just let it rot. And then what do we do? Is there a point at which we compromise? What is worth fighting for? When have we gotten enough? Is there such a thing as acceptable losses? You can say "when it's gone it's gone," but we really can build a new building behind an old facade. So no, when it's gone it's not gone. Something is, but other things are not. Would it have been worth losing the concourse at Pennsylvania Station to preserve the headhouse? In that case we lost both. This time we don't have to, but it's not guaranteed. (I understand that this is the kind of math that's absolutely never any fun. I really do.)
Demo of Kingshighway buildings denied.