urbanSTL

I haven't seen/read the bill. What's included in the bill that persuaded the Mayor to sign it?

If the Mayor wants to, he can call the shots with the Preservation Board. If he wants the buildings to stand, all he has to do is make that known to the Board and they will enforce the preservation review ordinance. If he wants the buildings to come down on the other hand, the Preservation Board will not block demo. It is a slam-dunk, no-brainer for denial of demolition according to the terms of the ordinance. This means that we'll be able to tell what the Mayor's office really wants by the way the Board rules. It really is that simple.

We have to keep attacking the idea that St. Louis can demolish its way to prosperity. The last 60 years have provided abundant evidence that this kind of thinking is flawed, but the idea is incredibly resilient. It's like a virus that flares up every once in a while, does some serious damage, and then goes dormant again.

^ recognize: yes. recuse: no.

Presbyterian wrote:I think I just noticed that Phyllis Young is current chair of the Preservation Review Board. At least, she is listed first and is the only alderwoman listed. As the person who sponsored the bill to blight and demolish 923 Locust, would it not be a conflict.of interest for her to chair the Preservation Review Board's hearing on the matter--should it come to that? Are we to assume she would recognize the obvious conflict of interest and recuse herself?

Since she doesn't have a financial stake in the project, it's not a conflict of interest.

Presbyterian wrote:I live in a progressive city and just want to understand what our young and transparent visionary leadership is doing.

This statement is meant to be completely ironic, right?

I never thought I'd be so happy to see a CVS or yet another Starbucks in Saint Louis, but preservation of the AAA Building on Lindell Boulevard and the Flying Saucer on South Grand Boulevard was a huge step forward. Now, with the loss of Cupples Warehouse #7 and the likely loss of these buildings at Tenth and Locust streets, we have at least two steps back.



I love Saint Louis, but I'll be damned if it doesn't frustrate me frequently. Even if Phyllis Young's position on the Preservation Board isn't a conflict of interest per se, it's the kind of thing that would raise red flags in just about any city except for Saint Louis. Unfortunately it's standard procedure here. And the Preservation Board is more interested in self-preservation than historic preservation in my opinion.

If you have a moment I would encourage everyone to contact Phyllis in regards to this issue. The more people she hears from the better.

I walk past this stretch of buildings every day. I understand the historical significance of this building, but the Tudor rehab of it makes it look ugly and dilapidated. I can't imagine how much it would cost to strip all of that off and make it into a habitable, beautiful, historic building again--to the point where clients would actually want to buy/lease it and move in.

There's four buildings in a row on this block where seemingly nothing is happening, and then there's the Alverne building just to the west, which is a terrible eyesore in the state that it's in today. You can smell the stink of dry rot coming from Alverne from across the street on hot days. This two-block stretch of Locust is one of the worst areas of downtown.

With that in mind, I can't really justify creating an obstacle to renovating that tall building into a boutique hotel. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the potential operators of the hotel to not want to have vacant eyesores sitting next to it draining the value of your property. How long would the Tudor building sit there waiting for someone to finance what will definitely be a long and costly rehab while the hotel owners try to sell rooms? 3 years? 10?

I think preserving the history of the built environment should be a high priority, but not so high where it prevents the refurbishing of other buildings, especially on a stretch of street as bad as the 900-1000 blocks of Locust. Generating revenue for the city has to come first. If you have a client looking to come in and make a productive use of land, you should be thinking less obstacles, not more. St. Louis isn't at the point where you can cast aside potential redevelopment by extracting burdensome demands on developers. It's totally legitimate for a potential hotel operator to want to have a driveway and more window space for its customers. If they're going to take care of this eyesore of a block right now, I'd let them have at it, especially if it involves putting one more building into productive use.

jsbru, This is the kind of rational thinking that has left us with an ugly moth-eaten downtown. We need to demand more respect for history.

jsbru wrote:This two-block stretch of Locust is one of the worst areas of downtown.

And so demolishing all the buildings "where seemingly nothing is happening"–basically most of the block since you want to include the Alverne–in order to renovate one will make the block better? Got it. I sure am glad we didn't go around demolishing ALL the buildings where seemingly nothing was happening. We'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

jsbru wrote:It's totally legitimate for a potential hotel operator to want to have a driveway...

No, when it involves multiple demolitions of sound buildings in the heart of an urban downtown it's actually not legitimate. Go to NYC or San Francisco or Boston or DC and find me a hotel in the heart of downtown that leveled buildings for a driveway.

urban_dilettante wrote:

jsbru wrote:This two-block stretch of Locust is one of the worst areas of downtown.

And so demolishing all the buildings "where seemingly nothing is happening"–basically most of the block since you want to include the Alverne–in order to renovate one will make the block better? Got it. I sure am glad we didn't go around demolishing ALL the buildings where seemingly nothing was happening. We'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

jsbru wrote:It's totally legitimate for a potential hotel operator to want to have a driveway...

No, when it involves multiple demolitions of sound buildings in the heart of an urban downtown it's actually not legitimate. Go to NYC or San Francisco or Boston or DC and find me a hotel in the heart of downtown that leveled buildings for a driveway.

UD- I agree with your take. St. Louis has lost far too much already. There used to be literally blocks filled with small buildings like these that were humble in their architectural merit but they contributed to the urban streetscape better than their replacements. There was a similar row of buildings where Old Post Office Plaza is today. There was another- Terra Cotta Row on Olive Street across from the former Famous-Barr- and all but one of those buildings were demolished. Then there were two blocks of buildings along Sixth and Seventh streets demolished for St. Louis Centre. People may look back and think those losses weren't remarkable, but in most cases, they punched holes into what was once a cohesive streetscape. And I'd argue that their absence would make the area less attractive than their presence in many cases.

I also agree with the point you made about other cities. Boston, San Francisco, and even Philadelphia leaders would laugh this plan out of their city halls. We've lost a lot of remarkable buildings that could have made our downtown even more special than it is today, but what's more troubling is that we haven't learned our lessons from the last three or four decades. The alderwoman couldn't care less and the mayor won't take a firm stand one way or another. I'll feel sad if these buildings are lost because of what they represent, but I'll feel even more frustrated if a decades-long myopic and misguided approach to urban development continues here in St. Louis.

imran wrote:jsbru, This is the kind of rational thinking that has left us with an ugly moth-eaten downtown. We need to demand more respect for history.

Redevelopment is driven by market forces though. No matter what a building's historical significance, there has to be a profitable path forward for someone to come in and rehab the building. In a lot of cases, historical significance can demand a market premium and make redevelopment more profitable. But downtown St. Louis has been a victim of disinvestment now for decades. Some of the historic buildings are just too far gone to make saving them economically profitable. Case and point: Cupples 7. The other Cupples buildings still standing are beautiful, thriving historical buildings that are almost fully occupied. But that one was just too far gone, with the gaping hole in the roof for years, having rain water pour in, etc. We tried to get someone to come in and finance a rehab, but no one was willing to do it. If it didn't have all that structural damage, I'm pretty confident it would already be rehabbed and filled with tenants today.

If there's people willing to pay the money to come in and rehab the Tudor building, I'd say let them do it. But I don't see anybody knocking at the door. Maybe it would be a cheaper rehab than you would think, but if nobody's willing to do it, than nobody's willing to do it. The building has little value today in its current state. So the question becomes: "How long do you wait around with the building sitting empty and dilapidated for someone to come around and save it?" And how many rehabs of adjacent buildings do you prevent in order to wait around for something that may never happen? I do see a plan to turn a beautiful building into a boutique hotel, and I'd want to encourage that as much as possible. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

A Roberts Tower, Chemical, Arcade with residents and the boutique hotel would make the 2 buildings in question much more attractive for redevelopment. Along with the Blustein bldg this strip and immediate area will be getting significant investment. I am willing to waiting for these 2 buildings to be rehabbed.

Presbyterian wrote:The developer did not buy these buildings as an act of charity. We owe them no special gratitude for investing in downtown. They are doing so because they believe they will make a lot of money here. That's what they do.

And much of their profit will come at public expense through historic tax credits.

I'm fine with that.

But public subsidies come with strings attached. As we hand them millions of tax dollars, we have every right also to tell them they can't bulldoze the historic property next door.

Of course we have every right to tell them what they can do to the property next door. The question is, how do we exercise this right? The building right next door (921 Locust?) is actually kind of ugly, and I don't see it having much past, current, or future value. The Tudor building obviously has more of a remarkable past, but has little future value unless it is thoroughly rehabbed. There's certain historic buildings that would be magnificent if restored (Chemical building, Jefferson Arms, Arcade-Wright), etc. But I think you have to draw the line somewhere. We can't save every single old building in St. Louis if it causes us to turn away new development/redevelopment. We have to strike a balance that considers boosting the city's current revenues and turning plots of land into revenue-generating, productive uses; and preserving the history.

I just look at this site and don't see much promise. The hotel building will be much more valuable as a hotel if you can put windows on the second and third floors. Currently, you can't do that. I mean, maybe you can destroy the buildings immediately to the left and to the right of it and still achieve that result, while keeping the Tudor building intact and turning it into a mini art gallery. But you have to find someone with the money sitting around to rehab a building into something that probably won't generate a ton of revenue. Anyone who wanted to do so has already had that opportunity, and no one has come forward.

jsbru wrote:

Presbyterian wrote:The developer did not buy these buildings as an act of charity. We owe them no special gratitude for investing in downtown. They are doing so because they believe they will make a lot of money here. That's what they do.

And much of their profit will come at public expense through historic tax credits.

I'm fine with that.

But public subsidies come with strings attached. As we hand them millions of tax dollars, we have every right also to tell them they can't bulldoze the historic property next door.

Of course we have every right to tell them what they can do to the property next door. The question is, how do we exercise this right? The building right next door (921 Locust?) is actually kind of ugly, and I don't see it having much past, current, or future value. The Tudor building obviously has more of a remarkable past, but has little future value unless it is thoroughly rehabbed. There's certain historic buildings that would be magnificent if restored (Chemical building, Jefferson Arms, Arcade-Wright), etc. But I think you have to draw the line somewhere. We can't save every single old building in St. Louis if it causes us to turn away new development/redevelopment. We have to strike a balance that considers boosting the city's current revenues and turning plots of land into revenue-generating, productive uses; and preserving the history.

I just look at this site and don't see much promise. The hotel building will be much more valuable as a hotel if you can put windows on the second and third floors. Currently, you can't do that. I mean, maybe you can destroy the buildings immediately to the left and to the right of it and still achieve that result, while keeping the Tudor building intact and turning it into a mini art gallery. But you have to find someone with the money sitting around to rehab a building into something that probably won't generate a ton of revenue. Anyone who wanted to do so has already had that opportunity, and no one has come forward.

I don't find 921 ugly at all. It's a very solid, well-proportioned building with great potential for reuse. The side wall of the adjacent building, which will be exposed if it is torn down, is probably not very attractive though - it was never meant to be seen!

We haven't even seen a current plan for this property yet, have we? Are we going to just give carte blanche to the developer to tear down our historic fabric out of desperation? Think about how long the buildings on Washington sat empty before being redeveloped. How tragic it would have been to have lost our architectural heritage because we gave up too soon on finding a viable redevelopment plan.

I'm confident there are ways to reuse these buildings productively and profitably, the developers should be held accountable. No more of this Peveley-type nonsense!

Alex Ihnen wrote:The "market forces" crutch is tiresome.

How is that a "crutch"? It takes money and the promise of future profit to pay for rehabs. Otherwise they simply won't get done. Unless you look to a historic preservation charity...but I don't know of any. Maybe the Art Museum has funds stashed away?

Whether it's right or wrong, market forces are generally what drives economic behavior. And real estate development is economic behavior. You can pass laws like historic rehab tax credits, etc. to bend market forces toward something you favor. You can point out that certain buildings have historic value beyond what the market "sees" at the time. But after you do stuff like this, the developer is still going to have to have a reasonable chance of turning a profit in order to undertake a historic rehab.

That's not to say historic rehabs never benefit from market forces. There does happen to be a growing market premium for historic rehabs right now. People will pay for a beautifully constructed brick/stone home that has 10 times the character of your average exurban tract housing if someone goes in and rehabs it. Such homes are rare today and are generally to expensive to build new from scratch. But there's certain buildings that are likely unsalvageable, such as Cupples 7 and possibly this one, where even tax credits and the desire for a historic building just isn't going to do the trick. Even people who love historic rehabs aren't going to sink money into a losing proposition.