AAA Building on Lindell Threatened

framer · PostJul 07, 2011#12011-07-07T19:24+00:00

Here we go again. Another classic Mid-Century building is threatened with demolition. A developer wants to tear down the AAA building on Lindell and replace it with a CVS Pharmacy:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 9d0fa.html

johndavis · PostJul 07, 2011#22011-07-07T21:33+00:00

I hope at least that it is made in an urban way. I wouldnt mind if the CVS and AAA are closer to the street. Maybe it would help get more commercial tenants at the Villas on Lindell next door

jmstokes · PostJul 08, 2011#32011-07-08T08:39+00:00

johndavis wrote:I hope at least that it is made in an urban way.

Fat chance.

Commissioner Ivy Pinkston pressed developers to retrofit the building and put the CVS inside. Robert Antrim, a vice president with the developer, was not enthusiastic, noting CVS has "a prototype building that they like to build."

Alex Ihnen · PostJul 08, 2011#42011-07-08T13:57+00:00

Better yet...

(Alderman Kennedy) said his neighborhood review group will push for a more urban-friendly design, similar to the negotiations that led a nearby Walgreens to improve its building design.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... z1RWQXXCpJ

If you don't know, the Walgreen's in question sucks.

Roger Wyoming · PostJul 08, 2011#52011-07-08T14:35+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote: If you don't know, the Walgreen's in question sucks.

as does the one in Bohemian Hill.

Alex Ihnen · PostJul 08, 2011#62011-07-08T15:09+00:00

Roger Wyoming wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote: If you don't know, the Walgreen's in question sucks.
as does the one in Bohemian Hill.

as does the one at Clayton Rd/Big Bend. (feel free to chime in!)

urban_dilettante · PostJul 08, 2011#72011-07-08T16:16+00:00

i'm pretty sure there is not a single walgreen's in the saint louis area that is attractive or demonstrates any concern for pedestrians. not one. here in charlottesville for example, and of course in DC, CVS has built several stores into historic or preexisting buildings that front the sidewalk. but we can't even get ONE respectful build-out in saint louis. not ONE. it seems the majority of STL aldermonarchs have never set foot outside of missouri.

warwickland · PostJul 08, 2011#82011-07-08T16:42+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote:it seems the majority of STL aldermonarchs have never set foot outside of missouri.

Oh, I'm sure many visit Florida, and maybe NY and Chicago so they can spout the classic line "we will never be Chicago." The disconnect is that I doubt many visit more progressive mid sized cities to see how things can be done on that scale - our scale.

I think this one is going to mean war.

timeforguinness · PostJul 08, 2011#92011-07-08T16:48+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:
Roger Wyoming wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote: If you don't know, the Walgreen's in question sucks.
as does the one in Bohemian Hill.
as does the one at Clayton Rd/Big Bend. (feel free to chime in!)

Awwww...Why did you have to send me into a Parkmoor depression on a Friday...

doug · PostJul 08, 2011#102011-07-08T17:19+00:00

Has the AAA and DMV closed? Is the building in bad shape? Last time I was there it was fine.

It's huge and would be good for a grocery store. My favorite is the Whole Foods in New Orleans at Arabella station on Magazine Street. From a planning perceptive it's nicer than any grocery store in Toronto that I've seen. The sidewalk is huge with people eating outside or hanging out all of the time. Parking is minimal and always crowded. I've read the store has the highest sales per square foot of any Whole Foods. Of course this has to do with the huge demand for groceries in New Orleans, but it's also the fantastic rehab, site planning, and wonderful magazine corridor.

St. Louis City needs to have its head examined. Lindell is in danger of being a suburban arterial - a wasteland for pedestrians. Why would anyone want to live in a city which approves such insanely obsolete projects? It's ironic that the autocentric yet iconic building will be torn down for one that will worship the automobile. Truly the city has not progressed even in its more affluent areas where leadership should be the most effective and the best planning should occur.

How can aldermen promote better design when they don't know design and our city gives no power or respect to its relavent departments?

St. Louis City is a complete joke and will remain insignificant until something drastic happen. I thought we were going to do everything differently given the 2010 Census disaster? Suppose not. Slay puts out a BS statement to appear as if he cares when he should be talking about changing laws.

http://manningarchitects.com/projects/p ... evelopment

rbeedee · PostJul 08, 2011#112011-07-08T17:23+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote:i'm pretty sure there is not a single walgreen's in the saint louis area that is attractive or demonstrates any concern for pedestrians. not one. here in charlottesville for example, and of course in DC, CVS has built several stores into historic or preexisting buildings that front the sidewalk. but we can't even get ONE respectful build-out in saint louis. not ONE.

I'm sure they got urban and repurposed stores because they were forced to by development guidelines. We won't do that here because of desperation for any kind of development and intra-city factionalism to complement the city-county factionalism. CVS wants to build somewhere in that area because they think they can make money. If they get to build their standard store, it saves them money so it's their preferred option. They couldn't get what they wanted in the 17th ward (which wasn't even preservation, it was pretty mild alterations to the standard format), so they moved across the street to a different ward with fewer (no?) demands. We need to have city-wide preservation review and more consistent development guidelines to avoid this undercutting. Worst case scenario here, CVS decides it's not worth the money to reuse an existing building or build to more rigorous standards and they don't open a store. Would that be so terrible?

urban_dilettante · PostJul 08, 2011#122011-07-08T21:20+00:00

^ no argument here. what's worse, if the alderman doesn't like the way a site is zoned? no problem! just change the zoning to whatever you want! planners be damned! why even bother... we have a bunch of (not all) inexperienced yet life-long alders wielding powers that they are not qualified to wield, yet they will NOT be told that they don't know what the f*ck they're doing.

Alex Ihnen · PostJul 08, 2011#132011-07-08T21:23+00:00

^ looks like the issue may get some media coverage. It seems that Aldermen fear nothing more than a little questioning...

Mark Groth · PostJul 08, 2011#142011-07-08T21:58+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ looks like the issue may get some media coverage. It seems that Aldermen fear nothing more than a little questioning...

...or an opponent in the primary and general elections...

jmstokes · PostJul 08, 2011#152011-07-08T22:59+00:00

Mark Groth wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote:^ looks like the issue may get some media coverage. It seems that Aldermen fear nothing more than a little questioning...
...or an opponent in the primary and general elections...

Bazinga.

newstl2020 · PostJul 09, 2011#162011-07-09T04:55+00:00

I know this may be a little...I don't know...distasteful? But I am not opposed to a proactive list on the forum including the current holders of political office in St. Louis (and MO for that matter) that seem to be completely incapable of doing even a marginal job.

Could serve as a great idea box for enterprising citizens/forum members who may care to put up a fight against the worthless garbage that seems to make it into certain elected positions...and if nothing else, a place to store all of the BS (terrible decisions) these people make constantly. An archive of stupidity so to speak.

threeonefour · PostJul 12, 2011#172011-07-12T04:23+00:00

So, is this now close to a done deal or what? I've been in and out of town lately and I haven't followed the news closely. I know there are fewer hurdles for the developers here than there are with the former Del Taco location, and there's no Facebook page or any organized effort to save the AAA building that I'm aware of, so hopefully there's still time to get some attention paid to this building as well.

Since these cutthroat megapharmacies are all about location location location, why didn't they also plan to buy out Rally's and build all the way up to the nearest intersection?

the count · PostJul 12, 2011#182011-07-12T10:08+00:00

What's frustrating is that the AAA building is in good shape, occupied and functioning while the brand new Villas of St. Louis development, just a few blocks away, sits half empty. Common sense would dictate that CVS chooses for an urban store in there, similar to this one in Manhattan:

[What will happen though is they'll flatten AAA so they can have their all-important drive-through.]

innov8ion · PostJul 12, 2011#192011-07-12T21:37+00:00

newstl2020 wrote:I know this may be a little...I don't know...distasteful? But I am not opposed to a proactive list on the forum including the current holders of political office in St. Louis (and MO for that matter) that seem to be completely incapable of doing even a marginal job.

Could serve as a great idea box for enterprising citizens/forum members who may care to put up a fight against the worthless garbage that seems to make it into certain elected positions...and if nothing else, a place to store all of the BS (terrible decisions) these people make constantly. An archive of stupidity so to speak.

Right. It would be nice to develop and keep track of how each elected official/alderman performs regarding urbanist issues. Each one can have a thermometer ranking or what have you, with a description of how they've voted and what they've done.

ecoabsence · PostJul 13, 2011#202011-07-13T16:44+00:00

threeonefour wrote:So, is this now close to a done deal or what?

As long as CVS proposes to sell liquor, it's far from a done deal.

doug · PostJul 13, 2011#212011-07-13T20:08+00:00

I don't get the objection to liquor as it can be purchased at Schnucks.

gone corporate · PostJul 14, 2011#222011-07-14T19:59+00:00

Taking a couple ideas from above, what if...
1. CVS puts a full store within the Villas of Saint Louis development, and
2. Rally's is bought out & retrofit into a dual-side drive-thru, with windows for either the left or right side of the cars?
Plus, this would give them more land to put up street-viewable signs: twice on Lindell, plus once on Vandeventer.

While I acknowledge that all of us here are in favor of anything that'll save the AAA, I just hope someone with direct influence into the negotiations sees this (whether from City Hall or CVS) and can position this as an alternate. Surely better ROI and goodwill come from keeping the neighbors happy while being far lest costly than a full build-out.

Alex Ihnen · PostJul 19, 2011#232011-07-19T19:51+00:00

Ald Kennedy sent this statement to the Preservation Research Office:

==========================
Alderman Terry Kennedy represents the 18th Ward that includes the AAA Building. Today he sent this statement.

I just want to correct some erroneous reporting recently made in the media. I do not support the demolition of the AAA building in the 18th ward located at Lindell near Vandeventer. Several news stories have reported this without ever speaking to me. I told CVS representatives, who are interested in establishing a store at this locations, that they must meet with our neighborhood association(s) close to this location, present their plans and receive their support before I can support the project. There are many aspects of the CVS proposal that I have concerns with but I am willing to be guided by the thoughts and ideas of the majority of our association members on this issue.

I have been willing to do those things that are consistent with already established planning for this portion of Lindell. This included the change of zoning of the Enterprise Leasing Office from “C” multi family to “H” commercial to be consistent with the other parcels owned by AAA and the other parcels on Lindell. This zoning change proposal was recommended by the City Planning Office and is also recommended in the Mayor’s Strategic Land Use Plan created over four years ago which I supported.

I welcome the interest CVS has in our area and think that there are benefits to having one of their stores in our community. However, before this can happen CVS must meet our residents vision for the area and address our concerns. Until then, I am open to discussing their ideas, giving advice and am willing to work with them where I can.
====================

Seems like a non-statement - your thoughts?

rbb · PostJul 21, 2011#242011-07-21T12:53+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:Seems like a non-statement - your thoughts?

Well, it's at least better than 'The area needs more shopping opportunities and, barring unusual circumstances, people have the right to tear down buildings that they own.'

-RBB

urbz · PostJul 21, 2011#252011-07-21T20:37+00:00

So what does Alderman Kennedy do? He knows the demolition is going to happen, so the outcome is whatever the residents come up with. S**t rolls downhill...