urbanSTL

^Letter to the Preservation Board from the Central West End Association Planning & Development Committee added. They support denial.

PB meeting is at 4pm. This is third on the agenda. Could be a barn burner.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/events/event ... t_ID=28140

Anyone who was there who can summarize what the discussion was like?

Stltoday - City board delays vote on plan to demolish historic site for new apartments

https://www.stltoday.com/business/city- ... dedc7.html

I'm usually a big fan of saving Mid Century buildings, but for some reason, I'm not too worked up about this one. Actually, I'm much more worried about the future of it's next-door neighbor, the Grant Medical Clinic (designed by Harris Armstrong).

 

The message is quite clear, imo. Lux needs to propose something more fitting of this incredible location if they're going to tear down Optimist.

^I did not know they'd done a survey. That's darned interesting. And very forward looking. Thanks for that!

framer wrote:I'm usually a big fan of saving Mid Century buildings, but for some reason, I'm not too worked up about this one. Actually, I'm much more worried about the future of it's next-door neighbor, the Grant Medical Clinic (designed by Harris Armstrong).

 

Agree completely. Honestly I feel the Optimist building is terribly ugly and represents the worst parts of mid century design, but that's pretty subjective.

Still, I get frustrated because I think this conversation that I've seen on Twitter (I know, Twitter sucks) seems to just have been overwhelmed by NIMBYs just conveniently using its mid century status as a vehicle for opposition.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Lux should sweeten the pot with dash of ground level retail

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jul 27, 2021

Motion to deny failed 4-4
Notion to grant preliminary approval failed 4-4
Motion to punt until the next meeting passed.

If a simple majority is needed I'm hopeful that some improved materials (e.g., replacing the metal paneling that CRO pointed out) and other cosmetic tweaks could get the vote. 

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Jul 27, 2021

Lux should sweeten the pot with dash of ground level retail

two dashes, and four more stories...

And by the way, "The Empty Optimist" would be a great name for a pub.

If this building were a car it would be an AMC Pacer - Just because it is unique does not mean it is good. That being said I would like to see a little more design savvy on the new construction  

Just throwing my vote in here that I won't miss the Optimist building and I'd like to see it replaced. 

I was opposed to the 300 S Broadway demolition because of the excessive amount of surface parking and lawns south of Market in downtown. Yes, CWE has surface lots as well. The San Luis site is obviously under utilized, Lindell at Euclid and Lindell at Kingshighway are ripe for major projects. However, I think CWE has a lot more to gain from this redevelopment than downtown did with 300 S Broadway (and before anyone starts in with the "those lots aren't for sale" argument, I'm talking about policy failure here, not  the decisions of developers). 

Reminds me of the Shanley Building in Clayton which everyone wanted to preserve because of the name of the architect despite the fact that the building was basically the least attractive part of the area and offered nothing other than some white brick walls and a parking lot. 

Tell the developer to find a way to use the mushroom sculpture in the front as a hat tip to the old building and get that land back on the tax roll.

^, ^^ & ^^^. That's pretty much where I am. I know there's a lot of lingering trauma among preservationists from the San Luis demolition, but this proposal replaces a building that, while it may have some architectural merit, simply is not contributing to the vitality of the neighborhood.

It's good to have review processes and procedures in place so that something like the San Luis doesn't happen again. Lindell Blvd. is no place for parking lots. But this isn't that scenario.  

$30M zoning-only building permit application submitted.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Aug 07, 2021

$30M zoning-only building permit application submitted.

Interesting.  Understand that this is not a building permit to construct but tends to lead one to think that may have made some changes that would get one or two yes votes for the majority needed.   Would that fair speculation or assumption to make?

dredger wrote: ↑

Aug 07, 2021

quincunx wrote: ↑

Aug 07, 2021

$30M zoning-only building permit application submitted.

Interesting.  Understand that this is not a building permit to construct but tends to lead one to think that may have made some changes that would get one or two yes votes for the majority needed.   Would that fair speculation or assumption to make?

Zoning-Only is often used by developers to show the investors/banks that they can build what they want to build in that particular zoning district.

This parcel is already zoned E, Multi Family Housing, according to the city...

Did it get rezoned during the previous development proposal, or is that just an error?

There may or may not be slight design alterations made to this plan. No major redesign though. We'll see.

NextSTL - Preservationists Offer Alternatives to Optimist Demolition

https://nextstl.com/2021/08/preservatio ... emolition/