Marmar wrote:Allowing these buildings to further deteriorate is unacceptable. To intentionally hasten it is unforgivable, especially in this day and age. Our architecture is one of our major assets. These structures could never be reproduced today. Where in blazes are our civic leaders? Why isn't someone in the city putting a stop to this? I'm absolutely stunned.
Amen.
At the very minimum, the city should work to preserve landmarks like those pictured on the front page of last Sunday's Post-Dispatch. Ideally, it should preserve as many of the salvageable structures as possible and strive to build infill that complements its surroundings in terms of scale, massing, and basic design if not necessarily style. I excluded style because I'd like to see some modern urban infill as well as some buildings that mimic their surroundings, although I'd hope for something better than the mullet houses that are starting to clutter portions of our city.
Our leaders' silence on this suggests that attitudes toward north Saint Louis haven't changed much, and that is truly unfortunate. Do they truly think the only way to fix it is to bulldoze it? Man, I already knew that our architectural heritage (and the wanton destruction of it) was for sale to the highest bidder (see also the Ambassador Theatre, Century, Doering Mansion in south St. Louis, etc.) but this is ridiculous.
"The guy in white was hacking his way back to front across the side wall. Obviously, as old brick walls are load-bearing, this would eventually cause a huge portion of the wall above to collapse. Then the guys just have to walk up and pick up the bricks.... assuming nobody is killed when the wall falls down."
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see any local politicians or businessmen (outside the area in question) in an uproar over the potential loss of significant architecture in north St. Louis. From what I can see, it's mostly (if not completely) average concerned citizens, some of whom happen to blog and/or contribute to community-oriented forums. And, of course, I'll give credit to the P-D for shining some light on Blairmont as well.
Well said, ThreeOneFour. I agree 100% on your previous post about what SHOULD be done, too.
You'd think it would dawn on developers and city officials that people are moving back to the city for it's charm and vibrance, which of course translates to it's architecture. What do they think one of the most wonderful things about the city is, the name??? the location??? Puuuh-leeeez.
Thanks for posting the pics, Bastiat. These actions are disgraceful, but I'm glad they are documented.
St. Louis will become notorious for such ignorance (in some circles already has)...and I thought finally some headway was being made to thwart the trashing of our city. Unfortunately, for north city this is not the case. Is that the goal of our civic leaders and developers? To allow this to happen can only translite into blind ignorance or blatant greed.
I wonder what those in ONSL are thinking/doing about this? Will this "renewed" trashing of our city affect them? (In the long run, it will affect all of us, IMO.)
Our officials are bought. They only value architecture and the built environment if developers find it "economically feasible." Paul McKee comes along with this big plan, which Slay approves of even though he has not seen it. Why? There is no political reason not to! Especially since Slay likes to be close friends with rural politicians. What is he to do when Peter Kinder says he wants more North Parks and no citizen lobbying groups form in opposition? Did anything happen with McRee Town? He has no reason to turn McKee down.
A local developer continues to gobble up land on the city's north side.
By kathleen Mclaughlin
Published: June 20, 2007
When Paul McKee Jr. bought a passel of property on the north side of St. Louis, he did it through partnerships that hid his identity. He'd later explain that he operated under the radar in order to keep prices down. But McKee's secrecy, and his burgeoning portfolio of vacant lots and crumbling buildings, raised the online eyebrows of blogger Michael Allen, who blew the developer's cover.
St. Louis has no better partner than Paul McKee Jr.
I was pleased to learn in "A tax-credit bill for one man?" (June 17) that celebrated developer Paul McKee Jr. has a "secret strategy" to drive up property values in North St. Louis. Some would call him foolish to invest in a city with a high crime rate, an unaccredited school system and 20,000 vacant lots and 5,500 vacant buildings. On the other hand, recent reports show that both the population and new business in St. Louis are growing. Whatever his reasons, Mr. McKee investing in the city of St. Louis is the best possible news for all of us. At worst, he promises that he is "prepared to be held to a higher standard than the property owners who sold to us."
Everyone in the area has a stake in seeing a better St. Louis. Mr. McKee should be encouraged to do for the city what he has done for the 500-acre North Park industrial project and for WingHaven, a 1,100-acre residential, retail and corporate development in St. Charles County.
In 2000, the St. Charles County Economic Development Council hired me to help recruit members to Partners for Progress. The first person we approached was Mr. McKee. He not only said yes, but he also helped put the rest of the group together. PFP represents St. Charles County's largest firms, measuring itself by the way it deals with the challenges of poverty, homelessness, affordable housing, education and training, surface transportation and business financing. We have seen firsthand how Mr. McKee improves the areas in which he invests.
Mr. McKee has a track record of dreaming big and producing even more. In the story, he says he can't do this by himself and needs partners. From our experience, St. Louis city could not have a better partner.
The Post-Dispatch did a great disservice to Paul McKee Jr. and St. Louis with its Page 1 story "A tax-credit bill for one man?" (June 17). While it is difficult to know the story's true objective, it apparently is an effort to discredit Mr. McKee, leave North St. Louis undeveloped or embarrass Gov. Matt Blunt into not signing the economic development bill.
The article said "the city has 20,000 vacant lots and 5,500 vacant buildings ripe for development." Mr. McKee assembled 400 parcels over three years with private funds and without eminent domain or public assistance. We should applaud Mr. McKee for his high-risk investment.
The article said the cost of assembling land for large-scale development is "astronomical." No wonder North St. Louis remains under-developed 40 years after the failed (publicly financed) Pruitt-Igoe project was demolished. Character assassination of Mr. McKee for his visionary and courageous effort to stimulate North St. Louis redevelopment certainly will discourage others from even considering investment in this challenging area.
Will the article embarrass Mr. Blunt into not signing the economic development bill? Perhaps, but why target Mr. McKee? Instead, focus on truly questionable tax-giveaways instead of condemning North St. Louis tax credits that "would generate 10 times its cost in new development," an excellent return in an area in great need of investment.
The Post-Dispatch owes Mr. McKee an apology to for its undeserved slap.
^ If mods are going to break their own fair use policies, could they at least cite the material they are lifting?
I know those are P-D letters to the editor, but there are at least two publications covering this story, both of which run letters to the editor, and several blogs, all of which run reader comments.
^ I wouldn't say that these letters are entirely insance. North St. Louis does need investment and McKee is making some high risk decisions. Good for him. But, no one should be willing to take a developer at their word (or lack of words in this case). McKee would find many enthusiastic and willing partners in North St. Louis if he would come forth with a plan to retain the fabric of the neighborhoods while investing in their future. The really disturbing quote was from a state legislator - I can't find it now, but he said something to the effect of, "Redevelopment to me means clear-cutting and building something better." That SOB!! :hell:
If only the people knew. Nice to hear McKee is planning to be held to a higher standard, but why wasn't he holding himself to this higher standard for the last few years? Sure, it sounds good in the paper, but if he maintains the properties it doesn't lower the values around them, thus making all future acquisitions cheaper.
Before the 2007 legislative session, the developer met with Republican state senator John Griesheimer of Washington. Griesheimer, who chairs the Economic Development, Tourism & Local Government Committee, says a mutual friend suggested the confab to smooth things over with McKee, who had lobbied last year against a tax increment financing (TIF) reform bill the senator favored.
Griesheimer says McKee seized the opportunity to float the idea of a tax credit to encourage development in distressed areas. The senator ultimately inserted the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act into an omnibus economic-development bill that now awaits the signature of Governor Matt Blunt.
Griesheimer, a self-described country boy, says the number sounded good to him. "I don't want to disrupt anybody's lives, but the places we're talking about redeveloping — I'm sorry, but you've got to be pretty well brain-dead not to think they need redeveloping," says the senator."My idea of redeveloping is taking a blighted area and bulldozing it, putting mixed-uses in."
MattnSTL wrote:If only the people knew. Nice to hear McKee is planning to be held to a higher standard, but why wasn't he holding himself to this higher standard for the last few years? Sure, it sounds good in the paper, but if he maintains the properties it doesn't lower the values around them, thus making all future acquisitions cheaper.
The quote might appeal to people who haven't seen occupied, maintained properties become nuisances. McKee's myth is that he has only bought vacant property, but that's not the case at all.
Ed Watkins, of St. Peters, and Steve Collins, of Eureka, seemingly just don't get it. Both praise the clandestine practices of Paul McKee and his rumored north St. Louis redevelopment plan without paying any heed to the importance and efficacy of the public process. If McKee is truly a visionary and a saint of "urban renewal," why not makes his plans public? Here's a novel idea--why not include the residents of the Old North St. Louis, St. Louis Place, and Jeffvanderlou neighborhoods in the process of the "land assemblage" redevelopment that might otherwise displace them?
As distant observers, both Watkins and Collins may assume that one (private) developer with interest in salvaging what is seen as a lost part of the city is an entirely good thing. History, and a little brush up in urban planning, might teach us something different. Famed planner Jane Jacobs' seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities teaches us that a sudden rush of investment, which she terms "cataclysmic money," produces single uses and monolithic city developments that rarely link to the current built environment of a city. They thus lack the organic nature of a truly vibrant and successful city. This latter type of city is benefited most by "gradual money"--smaller site investment and gradual redevelopment that respects the shape and form of the city.
The very Pruitt-Igoe plan that Collins evokes to prove his point helps undo it. Both Pruitt Igoe and this proposed Blairmont scheme are strange kin. They both represent large scale projects that damage the integrity of the city as a city. Pruitt-Igoe tore up the dense city blocks of the former Desoto-Carr neighborhood and replaced sturdy brick homes with concrete monuments to the physical isolation of our city's impoverished residents. Similarly, Blairmont will likely rework the sensible St. Louis street grid to make it more like the "parks and cul-de-sacs" format that has been rejected by urban planners for decades now. The remaining brick buildings, so much part of the history and heritage of these bleeding neighborhoods, are already in varying states of decay and will likely go the way of Desoto-Carr. Of course, due to McKee's secrecy, we likely won't know until the ribbon-cutting and ground-breaking ceremonies.
McKee lives in Huntleigh, one of the wealthiest suburbs in the entire region. Neither Collins nor Watkins resides in struggling municipalities either. And none of them appears to understand the undertaking of urban development in the 21st century. North St. Louis boasts the most new housing permits in the city and has seen unprecedented recovery in the last decade. But I'll bet Collins and Watkins, who have probably never stood in front of a collapsing Blairmont building, could not fathom that.
Matthew Mourning
St. Louis
[I realized after I had already emailed it that the last line seems kind of contradictory, but oh well.]
Suburban and exurban residents should keep their opinions to themselves. Their perceptions distort the validity of their opinions, thus solutions for St. Louis City.
Senator Greisheimer said specifically that one would be a fool to believe the area didn't need to be bulldozed and redeveloped. Urban Renewal is alive and well. Yet, instead of high rises, they want mixed use.
Why are they, as in McKee, not doing wide scale rehabs and infill instead? He has the money! Expand the historical tax credits by expanding historical districts. This might take longer, but it will keep the neighborhoods and infrastructure in tact. This would be a new period of life for much of the North Side, and it could work throughout the City. How do I know this? It has been proven. It works. Why not do what works? Why repeat what has failed? Why urban renewal!
I agree with Matt. It's not that I think these two shouldn't comment because of where they're from. They just shouldn't act like authorities on what's good for North St. Louis and what constitutes sound urban development. And where they're from compounds their arrogance, in my opinion.
Doug is right! Who do those suburban residents think they are? How could they possibly believe they have the right to comment on the problems of North St. Louis? Don't they understand that they need to move to South St. Louis before they are allowed to have an opinion about North St. Louis?
They shouldn't comment. If they lived here and paid their taxes, then perhaps the City would have had tax dollars and wouldn't have cut services to the North Side. Perhaps the school wouldn't have declined? Their fiscal absence contributed to the current situation as well as their categorical stereotypical outlook of urban environments.
Their solution is to destroy when in fact they should have advocated in the past. Then the current situation wouldn't have occurred. They wouldn't drive through the North Side on Highway 70 to a Cardinals game and see blight. They wouldn't ride down Metrolink and see salvage yards and shells of buildings.
The reason it's there is because they abandoned the City!!!!
What about state and federal taxes that get filtered back into the city? I'm sure they have paid those. What if their families never lived in the city, or maybe they just moved here ten years ago and never lived in the city in it's glory days?
Maybe they truly want to help the city, but don't know any better. Most people out there don't know the Blairmont story as well as the people that hang out in places like this forum. There's a whole lot more to it than meets the eye, and the PD article didn't fully go into the background. That's why we need to educate people, not just attack them.
Doug, wake up. You're not making any friends or progress in the way you go about your business. How are you going to really work with people if you act this way on everything? Acting like this constantly can be more of an impediment than help. And frankly, I think most of the people on this forum are tired of hearing your same tunes over and over. We know what you have to say, you don't have to remind us every 20 minutes.
