It sounded like your next step is to engage Jim Dwyer and the CWE Devel Cmte.
^There's a few pathways I could push but the problem is that they're narrow windows and cost us more time.
- Pathway one: talking to Jim Dwyer and figuring out whatever his committee wants (we're dealing with them on Engineers' too. They like being engaged, but they take a long time to respond).
- Appealing to the Planning Commission (up to the Commission to decide if they hear the appeal).
- Tweak the design to make the two buildings look more separate (such as removing the connected roofline, attempting to reduce the cantilever).
^ Just kill it. Stop wasting your time with these boards. Unless you keep it as is you’ll never get the approval from these jackals. Instead it’ll sit vacant for another 10 years and be demolished as a public safety hazard by then. Progress!
- 285
Exactly. It’s such a shame. What better use do they expect can turn this building around that adheres to its extremely limited form?sc4mayor wrote:^ Just kill it. Stop wasting your time with these boards. Unless you keep it as is you’ll never get the approval from these jackals. Instead it’ll sit vacant for another 10 years and be demolished as a public safety hazard by then. Progress!
This is my problem with historic preservation as the final goal. There have to be higher objectives worth achieving at least some of the time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Support from the CWE Devel Cmte and Ald Pihl would have helped, I think.
^ yep. Let's see how today played out if I got it right. Approve of a downtown high rise office building as historical even though it is probably one of the most modern non descript downtown buildings you can find (cough, incentives, cough). Borderline on a rooftop seating in Soulard but if you paint something to look metal you are good for a conitional approval and for good measure, finally kill the best dense proposal in a while on an empty building that will only make CWE better because staff says so & two members don't vote. Did I miss anything else on this idiotic very subjective process from today.?
^ The AT&T building to me just shows the utter hypocrisy of our various preservation boards. “Let’s put an ugly, post-modern high rise on the national register to grease the wheels for a connected developer,” but the local group (Lux’s issues not withstanding) who are on their second try still can’t get a break despite essentially doing what they were asked.
Asinine. And I hope certain board members are reading this. Idiotic. Can’t wait to see this building plowed over for a vacant lot in a few years. Well done, preservationists!
Asinine. And I hope certain board members are reading this. Idiotic. Can’t wait to see this building plowed over for a vacant lot in a few years. Well done, preservationists!
- 289
Do these preservationists actually think there is a viable path forward for this building without any changes to the exterior? Seems like they don’t care at all that this building sits nearly vacant and SLPS gets deprived of future tax revenues.
- 991
To be fair, it won't get demolished for a vacant lot, as that would take a permit to be approved. Instead, it'll sit empty and slowly deteriorate before either 1) suffering damage from an accidental fire 2) experience tons of water damage due to a burst pipe 3) some car crash destroys a large part of the facade etc. etc.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022Asinine. And I hope certain board members are reading this. Idiotic. Can’t wait to see this building plowed over for a vacant lot in a few years. Well done, preservationists!
Hopefully a car will crash into it, burst into flames, the sprinkler system will cause the pipes to burst....
...then tear it down and build the proposal Joe Roddy killed years ago.
Uffda!
...then tear it down and build the proposal Joe Roddy killed years ago.
Uffda!
That is just the tip of the revenue iceberg! More residents is the only way for the City to realize its potential.SouthCityJR wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022Do these preservationists actually think there is a viable path forward for this building without any changes to the exterior? Seems like they don’t care at all that this building sits nearly vacant and SLPS gets deprived of future tax revenues.
Question since I don’t exactly get how each of the what seems like endless boards that get to weigh in on a project work.
Can the BoA override everything or which one of these boards actually hold power to stop projects. I get most of the time they are listened to but I’d be curious with all the BoA drama going on if maybe there is a way to override these smaller boards votes at least in cases it makes sense. Some of the recommendations just make zero sense to me.
Maybe that’s not possible but I wish it was.
Can the BoA override everything or which one of these boards actually hold power to stop projects. I get most of the time they are listened to but I’d be curious with all the BoA drama going on if maybe there is a way to override these smaller boards votes at least in cases it makes sense. Some of the recommendations just make zero sense to me.
Maybe that’s not possible but I wish it was.
- 9,541
BOA can override but obviously with alder Pihl being against this I don't see any other alder stepping up to sponsor a redevelopment billjshank83 wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022Question since I don’t exactly get how each of the what seems like endless boards that get to weigh in on a project work.
Can the BoA override everything or which one of these boards actually hold power to stop projects. I get most of the time they are listened to but I’d be curious with all the BoA drama going on if maybe there is a way to overridden things at least in cases it makes sense.
Maybe that’s not possible but I wish it was.
I will remain optimistic. I’m not going to kill it so easily. I very much want this to set a new precedent for construction here - façadism. If DC and other cities can do it, why can’t we? We’re not lesser than those places.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jun 27, 2022^ Just kill it. Stop wasting your time with these boards. Unless you keep it as is you’ll never get the approval from these jackals. Instead it’ll sit vacant for another 10 years and be demolished as a public safety hazard by then. Progress!
- 43
You should read the preservation review ordinance (64689) to understand the legal formulation of the Preservation Board. It's not a court of public opinion like this forum.dredger wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022^ yep. Let's see how today played out if I got it right. Approve of a downtown high rise office building as historical even though it is probably one of the most modern non descript downtown buildings you can find (cough, incentives, cough). Borderline on a rooftop seating in Soulard but if you paint something to look metal you are good for a conitional approval and for good measure, finally kill the best dense proposal in a while on an empty building that will only make CWE better because staff says so & two members don't vote. Did I miss anything else on this idiotic very subjective process from today.? read the preservation review ordinance (64689)?
What are the connections of the AT&T building developer? As the Preservation Board member who made the motion to approve that nomination, I still have no idea who that developer is, but did read the draft nomination.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022^ The AT&T building to me just shows the utter hypocrisy of our various preservation boards. “Let’s put an ugly, post-modern high rise on the national register to grease the wheels for a connected developer,” but the local group (Lux’s issues not withstanding) who are on their second try still can’t get a break despite essentially doing what they were asked.
Asinine. And I hope certain board members are reading this. Idiotic. Can’t wait to see this building plowed over for a vacant lot in a few years. Well done, preservationists!
I am definitely reading, hi! Again, everyone should read the actual law that we are charged with upholding (ordinance 64689).sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022^ The AT&T building to me just shows the utter hypocrisy of our various preservation boards. “Let’s put an ugly, post-modern high rise on the national register to grease the wheels for a connected developer,” but the local group (Lux’s issues not withstanding) who are on their second try still can’t get a break despite essentially doing what they were asked.
Asinine. And I hope certain board members are reading this. Idiotic. Can’t wait to see this building plowed over for a vacant lot in a few years. Well done, preservationists!
Do we know why Pihl is against it?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022BOA can override but obviously with alder Pihl being against this I don't see any other alder stepping up to sponsor a redevelopment billjshank83 wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022Question since I don’t exactly get how each of the what seems like endless boards that get to weigh in on a project work.
Can the BoA override everything or which one of these boards actually hold power to stop projects. I get most of the time they are listened to but I’d be curious with all the BoA drama going on if maybe there is a way to overridden things at least in cases it makes sense.
Maybe that’s not possible but I wish it was.
Not saying he would but with Coatar voting for it, it would be nice to see him bring it up.
I wrote in support of it. Sad that it didn’t pass. I have “attended” a few meetings now and it’s frustrating that some of the board members clearly don’t take attendance seriously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 134
The problem with St. Louis is it's full of St. Louisians.
No surprises on this outcome, sadly.
The building will most likely deteriorate to the point of removal. I guess we'll get to decide whether it will be a parking lot or a QT in the next 5-10 years.
No surprises on this outcome, sadly.
The building will most likely deteriorate to the point of removal. I guess we'll get to decide whether it will be a parking lot or a QT in the next 5-10 years.
- 2,053
As much as I respect the historic/cultural programs we have here... my gripe is always going to be when we aren't taking into account a project that "will not be seeking tax incentives"... and remembering that our schools are tied to these property values. Is the risk of canceling this project over façadism worth pulling back funds from SLPS?
On the other hand, hopefully Phil, CRO, CWE development committee know their leverage better than I do, and if they are able to continue pushing and get a better project... then bravo to all of them - I really hope this one gets worked out.
Now, if we were talking about a 10 year 90%+ abatement, I wouldn't care too much about the pushback.
On the other hand, hopefully Phil, CRO, CWE development committee know their leverage better than I do, and if they are able to continue pushing and get a better project... then bravo to all of them - I really hope this one gets worked out.
Now, if we were talking about a 10 year 90%+ abatement, I wouldn't care too much about the pushback.
Lol, what the af. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot, but I suppose that is tradition. Here's to hoping the worst case isn't the end result.
Agree. We've got a zero $ generating property with a history of developers walking. Here we've got a great architectural plan that sets a precedent (as Chris has noted) with saving the facade. I can only think of Moonrise Hotel as the only other project which did the same. This should absolutely be approved.pattimagee wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022As much as I respect the historic/cultural programs we have here... my gripe is always going to be when we aren't taking into account a project that "will not be seeking tax incentives"... and remembering that our schools are tied to these property values. Is the risk of canceling this project over façadism worth pulling back funds from SLPS?
On the other hand, hopefully Phil, CRO, CWE development committee know their leverage better than I do, and if they are able to continue pushing and get a better project... then bravo to all of them - I really hope this one gets worked out.
Now, if we were talking about a 10 year 90%+ abatement, I wouldn't care too much about the pushback.
- 488
The ordinance overseeing the preservation board needs to be changed then. Protecting buildings from demolition - great. Not allowing 155 families to move into the CWE so we can look at an empty building held by a non-profit that cant afford it and doesn't want it - inexcusable.preservation.research.office wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022You should read the preservation review ordinance (64689) to understand the legal formulation of the Preservation Board. It's not a court of public opinion like this forum.dredger wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022^ yep. Let's see how today played out if I got it right. Approve of a downtown high rise office building as historical even though it is probably one of the most modern non descript downtown buildings you can find (cough, incentives, cough). Borderline on a rooftop seating in Soulard but if you paint something to look metal you are good for a conitional approval and for good measure, finally kill the best dense proposal in a while on an empty building that will only make CWE better because staff says so & two members don't vote. Did I miss anything else on this idiotic very subjective process from today.? read the preservation review ordinance (64689)?