urbanSTL

debaliviere wrote:NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

I swear, it's just one battle after another in this city.

My thoughts exactly. Loving St. Louis is such an emotional roller coaster. I was down about Macy's, and really excited about the Arcade and Chemical buildings, and now there's this proposal and the likely demolition of Cupples 7.

It's a good thing that there are a lot of great beers brewed in this town. I'm going to need a couple the minute I start thinking about senseless crap like this. The more things change in St. Louis, the more they stay the same.

olivdarte wrote:Sometimes it really feels as if we'll never get the city we want...or even get the city that we were.

No kidding. I think you're right on both accounts.

I have a hard time believing these buildings are demo ready. The medium sized one looks sturdy as hell.

Presbyterian wrote:Demo-ready does not refer to the building per se, but to the developer.

It also refers to the mindset at City Hall. If a developer is well-connected, or if there's an opportunity to replace a vacant building with parking as is the case with C7, the city is always demo-ready.

Because of what is proposed. If a nice shiny 8 story building built right up to the corner were proposed, instead of a drop off area I would be all for it.

Per the St. Louis Core article:

According to (Ald. Phyllis) Young, developers will ensure the project follows urban design and landscaping standards, including for the development of the drop-off zone at 10th and Locust, possibly to include public art, a pergola and other amenities.

Psst...hey, Alderman Young -- "urban design" means NOT destroying a corner building in favor of a driveway. Doing that is actually the exact opposite of urban design standards.

Oh wait, you say there could be public art? Or a pergola?! Carry on then...

Kevin B wrote:Per the St. Louis Core article:

According to (Ald. Phyllis) Young, developers will ensure the project follows urban design and landscaping standards, including for the development of the drop-off zone at 10th and Locust, possibly to include public art, a pergola and other amenities.

Psst...hey, Alderman Young -- "urban design" means NOT destroying a corner building in favor of a driveway. Doing that is actually the exact opposite of urban design standards.

Oh wait, you say there could be public art? Or a pergola?! Carry on then...

I think this makes me more upset than the Cupples 7 demo

Oh my God. I thought that was a joke when I read it, but just realized its not. Urban landscaping standards? There's no combination of shrubs, trees, benches, and retaining walls that is appropriate for that corner.

Also, while 917 has gotten a lot of well deserved attention (really impressive research), and the demo of either is inexcusable, 923 looks great, has a simple, functional design, and absolutely should not be lost.

stlhistory wrote:This is sacrilege, but if the buildings are coming down (which it sounds like they are thanks to the apathy of Phyllis Young), I'd personally like to see a well-lit fountain or a water feature a la CityGarden. Pergolas and shrubbery.. pfft. That's so 1994.

See also the intersection of Lindell Boulevard and Taylor Avenue, where the Archdiocese of Saint Louis built what it referred to as a "green" parking lot on the site of the former San Luis. Our developers and powers-that-be are so 'with it', aren't they?

Honestly, I'd be okay with our city's population at 200K or 250K if we could take all of these clueless anti-urban politicians and developers and ship them off. (And the criminals, too, but I figure that goes without saying.)

I'm sure someone would be quick to say that the numbers "don't add up" to preserve these buildings, or others that are threatened with demolition, even though there are literally thousands of examples across our nation- and quite a few examples here despite the ham-fisted approach of too many politicians and developers- of dense, urban developments that make sense economically and from a sustainability standpoint.

As someone said succinctly and accurately in another thread, those in Saint Louis with vision have no money, and those with money have no vision. Yep, that sums it up quite well.

How do we save these buildings?

I really wish the media would stop framing this as preservationists vs. developers. This is what is good for the city vs. people wanting to make a buck. The history of the building, while rich, has nothing to do with the fact that tearing it down for a driveway is a terrible idea.

So are you saying this will not be brought up to the Preservation Board? isn't the area around post office plaza in a historic district?
If not.... wow

stlhistory wrote:This is sacrilege, but if the buildings are coming down (which it sounds like they are thanks to the apathy of Phyllis Young), I'd personally like to see a well-lit fountain or a water feature a la CityGarden. Pergolas and shrubbery.. pfft. That's so 1994.

The Walgreens near my house has a pergola and shubbery as well.

I'm sure the ridiculous driveway adjacent to U.S. Bank Plaza adhered to some sort of standards for greenery as well. What a wonderful addition to downtown that was.

Where to begin...
1. The only way this gets stopped at this point is if the public can pressure the Mayor's office to veto Board Bill 2. The bill is designed to circumvent the normal preservation review process that is designed to protect the density, architectural quality, and economic viability of our urban environment. It will successfully avoid that review if the Mayor does not veto it.

A major problem with the developer's proposal (as I understand it) is that it plans to use historic rehabilitation tax credits (HTC's) as an important part of financing the redevelopment of 917 Locust into apartments. In doing so, they plan to punch new windows in the building's west facade on the floors that previously abutted the four-story building next door. Additionally, they plan on creating a reception area on the ground floor of the west facade with storefront windows and a major entry. None of those things would be allowed to happen if HTC's were used so we could end up with a situation where the buildings get demolished and then the developer realizes he can't proceed with his plan for 917 Locust without HTC's and walks away.

As in the case of Pevely, if the CRO and Preservation Board were allowed to review this proposal, at least they could make demo permits contingent upon the issuance of building permits and proof that the rest of the plan was fully in place. As it is, there is a decent chance that we will lose the buildings for an apartment development that doesn't end up happening.

This proposal should be subject to the terms of the preservation ordinance (which is as much about maintaining density and good new design as it is about protecting "historic" buildings") like every other demo and redevelopment proposal downtown. Mayor Slay can make a meaningful step toward ensuring this doesn't become a debacle by vetoing Board Bill 2 and asking for the procedural due process the citizens deserve.

I'm confused. 917 is being developed into apartments? Why does it need a driveway then? I thought the whole point of demolishing the other two buildings was to build a driveway for a hotel.

landmarks wrote:Where to begin...
1. The only way this gets stopped at this point is if the public can pressure the Mayor's office to veto Board Bill 2. The bill is designed to circumvent the normal preservation review process that is designed to protect the density, architectural quality, and economic viability of our urban environment. It will successfully avoid that review if the Mayor does not veto it.

A major problem with the developer's proposal (as I understand it) is that it plans to use historic rehabilitation tax credits (HTC's) as an important part of financing the redevelopment of 917 Locust into apartments. In doing so, they plan to punch new windows in the building's west facade on the floors that previously abutted the four-story building next door. Additionally, they plan on creating a reception area on the ground floor of the west facade with storefront windows and a major entry. None of those things would be allowed to happen if HTC's were used so we could end up with a situation where the buildings get demolished and then the developer realizes he can't proceed with his plan for 917 Locust without HTC's and walks away.

As in the case of Pevely, if the CRO and Preservation Board were allowed to review this proposal, at least they could make demo permits contingent upon the issuance of building permits and proof that the rest of the plan was fully in place. As it is, there is a decent chance that we will lose the buildings for an apartment development that doesn't end up happening.

This proposal should be subject to the terms of the preservation ordinance (which is as much about maintaining density and good new design as it is about protecting "historic" buildings") like every other demo and redevelopment proposal downtown. Mayor Slay can make a meaningful step toward ensuring this doesn't become a debacle by vetoing Board Bill 2 and asking for the procedural due process the citizens deserve.

Thanks for the information and for such a comprehensive look at where to go from here.

Mayor Slay has an opportunity to put his money- or in this case his decision- where his mouth is. He has become a more consistent advocate for historic preservation as evidenced by his stand on structures such as the "Flying Saucer" Starbucks/Chipotle on Grand Boulevard and the AAA Building on Lindell Boulevard. Yet, even with the mayor's newfound interest in preservation, an important contribution to the built environment like the Pevely complex fell through the cracks, and Cupples #7 is in serious jeopardy of meeting a similar fate. Checks and balances are a great thing, but there are simply far too many ways for our city government as a whole to circumvent the processes established for the purpose of historic preservation. We're not a place that needs to reinvent ourselves every 20 years like Las Vegas- we're a place with a rich built environment that should be treated as one of our top competitive advantages.

But that's only part of the equation as you pointed out. I'd love to see the SVB Annex Building unaltered, but I'm sure the developer would say the new windows are necessary to develop the lower floors and to make the rooms on those floors appealing. And while I can see that point, I also fear that altering the building in such a manner would make it no longer eligible for HTCs, and then the developer simply walks away and leaves a gaping hole on the NE corner of Locust and Tenth streets, just as you said.

I really hope Mayor Slay can be persuaded to veto Board Bill 2, because I am not exactly sanguine about the opportunity to save these buildings otherwise. And I also find it depressing that this proposal would be laughed out of just about any other City Hall in the nation, but here in St. Louis, we're still stuck in a 1960s urban renewal mentality of addition by subtraction. We've subtracted too much of our built environment already. Just as an example, I don't know what depresses me more when I stand at Seventh and Locust- the Macy's that's about to close, or the Ambassador Theater that no longer exists. But at least other tenants can and will be found for the Railway Exchange. It's too late for the Ambassador. And we have too many people in power that can't or won't realize the difference there.