urbanSTL

You need to write her to tell her that her coverage of this issue was one-sided in that it did not recognize that there is a ton of opposition to the proposed stripmall. It was basically an advertisement for Gilded Age.

Well you'd be right if the opposition was limited to only people who participate on this forum. There are many, MANY more. You should have seen the turnout for our recent letter writing extravaganza. There are tons of people against this project in its current form.

TGE-ATW wrote:I am sorry for the strong language, but Phyllis Young is a LIAR. She kept this whole project under her hat and away from her constituents until it was a done deal. She used eminent domain on extant buildings west of 13th street, and denied it on the radio. She threatened Bohemian Hill residents with eminent domain in an email, from which she has now retreated, and denies sending. Nobody should trust her on this, she has been planning on ramming this up the 7th ward's ass from the beginning, and will string us all along until it is too late if we let her. I am organizing people to post fliers and possibly knock on doors in Lafayette Square this weekend. Soulard to follow. If anybody is interested PM me.

If you hit the neighborhoods this weekend, you'll probably drum up the support of all the drunk and ugly Mardi Gras party people littering/urinating all over Lafayette Sq. and Soulard.



Are you mad at Phyllis or the plan? If it's the plan, then the first two door knocks you make should be at the homes of Shaunessey and Goodsen.



You should be sorry for your language. Phyllis has been an excellent alderman and deserves to be addressed without vulgarity or talk of adult diapers. I don't agree with this plan in its entirety but to allege she is 'ramming up the a$$ of the 7th ward' is a bit much for me to accept as an otherwise pleased 7th ward resident.

63104mom wrote:You should be sorry for your language. Phyllis has been an excellent alderman and deserves to be addressed without vulgarity or talk of adult diapers. I don't agree with this plan in its entirety but to allege she is 'ramming up the a$$ of the 7th ward' is a bit much for me to accept as an otherwise pleased 7th ward resident.

When it comes to controversial projects (i.e. Boho Hill, the Century Building, etc.) within her district, Phyllis tends to side with the big developers/City Hall rather than concerned residents. What makes it worse is that she easily shrugs off opposition without really listening to alternate viewpoints. I don't live in the 7th Ward, but I've been involved with issues that have taken place under Phyllis' tenure and she is not very sympathetic to the underdogs. That said, she did support the BJC expansion deal and I am in agreement with her on that 100%. I guess I just compare her to my alderman, Joe Roddy, who really goes all out for his constituents. He listens to their concerns and doesn't waiver in his support.

Thanks for the tip mom. And thanks for joining the conversation again after 26 days to criticize the language that I immediately apologized for in my next post. Tell you what. Enjoy your strip mall.

Let's play nice now.

This pretty much sucks.

They did the cheapest space plan possible. The classic rear service, lot in front, is most economical. The only way this thing works better is to put mature trees in every "nose in" median on that lot. Believe me this would suck, but at least it would be green.



Now...how can it work? False-storefronts facing Lafayatte with public access on corners. Like the stuff on Brentwood across from the galleria, but red brick period faux. Then a lot in back. Still gotta have service, but it comes from the sides. Transition from lot to store in middle. Shaped like a capital H. Meanwhile the current residential is infilled and faced with new residential on east side of the development. Dual alleys on the eastside. One for residential, one for commercial sevice. Additional retail, including Walgreens could spin off off Tucker all the way to the 1_55 property line (can be rear serviced) and interact with rear lot. This would require minimal demolition. Oh, and put in the trees either way.

I just found out about this issue, and it sucks hard. My girlfriend lost her house to the airport in Bridgeton, and I'm not about to let it happen to anyone else, especially not right near me (I live in Soulard and drive by these houses to work daily). I posted the links to e-mail Phyllis Young, Mayor Slay, and the resident group on the front page of WikiLou.com. Hopefully that will get the issue out there more, and get a few more people to write to them about this BS.

I'm going to send an email today...

I have yet to hear from anyone in my ward (7th) that likes this plan. In addition to writing our alderwoman (Young), we also need to let our neighborhood organizations within the 7th ward know our opposition as well. If the Downtown St. Louis Residents Association, Soulard Restoration Group, Soulard Homeowners Association, Lafayette Square Restoration Committee, LaSalle Park Neighborhood Association, McKinley Heights Neighborhood Association, Fox Park Neighborhood Association, and even the condo association of the Georgian are all crying foul, then you'll definitely grab Ms. Young's attention.

Please don't pile on me. I fully admit I'm not a 7th Ward resident so I don't have a dog in this fight since it's not my neighborhood. But I have to ask these questions for the sake of open discourse



• those opposed. What solutions do you propose?

• If this project was an extremely urban friendly design (underground parking, storefronts right to sidewalk, hidden loading docks etc), would that change your opinion any?

• If this project wasn’t government backed eminent domain and the developer simply offered extremely rewarding prices for properties. (ie $250K for a $100K value home). Would that change your opinion?

dweebe wrote:Please don't pile on me. I fully admit I'm not a 7th Ward resident so I don't have a dog in this fight since it's not my neighborhood. But I have to ask these questions for the sake of open discourse



• those opposed. What solutions do you propose?

• If this project was an extremely urban friendly design (underground parking, storefronts right to sidewalk, hidden loading docks etc), would that change your opinion any?

• If this project wasn’t government backed eminent domain and the developer simply offered extremely rewarding prices for properties. (ie $250K for a $100K value home). Would that change your opinion?

Go back and read the thread. We have all been proposing solutions that range from re-designing the proposed phase I to front on the street, to incorporating the existing residential into any phase II. Yes, if the project was urban friendly we have basically all said that we would be in favor (without demolition). I think everyone is essentially for a developoment at this location, it is the strip mall design and the demolitions that we are against. I wouldn't be pissed at the homeowners in any situation, unless they supported the strip mall design. I am personally pissed at short cited generic developments that even consider demolishing sound, occupied historic housing rather than considering ways to incorporate them into the design. Especially in such an historic neighborhood. Bottom line; I am an urbanist. I am not an obstructionist, eyes closed, fingers in the ears, foot stamping preservationist. This project, as designed, should offend everyone, but it is not a lost cause.

I have written to Phyllis young to tell her I think the design could be much better and that phase 2 is bad all around.



I don't want an acceptable plan. I want a great plan. I want my property value to go up as a result of this project. It could be great. This is the development could make our great neighborhoods more cohesive, walkable and attractive.



Phase 2 bothers me. In the last 30 years, we've done a pretty good job in "63104" preserving our buildings, even as they were declared ugly, in the way, outdated, falling down, unsafe or derelict. Why shouldn't we do the same with what's left of Bohemian Hill?

dweebe wrote:
• those opposed. What solutions do you propose?

Easy. Make the development pedestrian/urban friendly and spare Bohemian Hill from the wrecking ball. There are countless great examples in St. Louis and other cities that would be worth emulating.

• If this project was an extremely urban friendly design (underground parking, storefronts right to sidewalk, hidden loading docks etc), would that change your opinion any?

Absolutely. As long as Bohemian Hill homes are left alone. There is just no good reason to destroy them.

• If this project wasn’t government backed eminent domain and the developer simply offered extremely rewarding prices for properties. (ie $250K for a $100K value home). Would that change your opinion?

Not really. Aside from possibly using questionable political practices, this development is a shining an example of horrible urban planning, plain and simple. In its current form, it really is just the cheapest, most unattractive use of land and is insulting to the neighborhood on so many levels. Even if all the owners sold their homes willingly, it still would erase a very historic enclave that is important to the fabric of the city at large.



It really wouldn't take much to make this project one we could all be very proud of.

63104mom wrote:I have written to Phyllis young to tell her I think the design could be much better and that phase 2 is bad all around.



I don't want an acceptable plan. I want a great plan. I want my property value to go up as a result of this project. It could be great. This is the development could make our great neighborhoods more cohesive, walkable and attractive.



Phase 2 bothers me. In the last 30 years, we've done a pretty good job in "63104" preserving our buildings, even as they were declared ugly, in the way, outdated, falling down, unsafe or derelict. Why shouldn't we do the same with what's left of Bohemian Hill?

I'm with you, I wrote a letter saying basically the same thing. I want the same things - at the very least, I want the BH homes preserved. Ideally, I want the homes preserved AND and urban-friendly design.

Did you all see the biz journal this morning? we are being called Citizens Against Virtually Everything by the devlopers (C.A.V.E. men). The Bohemian Hill story was mentioned in reference to the N. St. Louis Blairmont situation. Developers are whining because vigilant citizens are actively trying to protect their neighborhoods and city from short cited, poorly planned, back room secret handshake vinyl siding franchise big box steel construction generic nauseating soul sucking bullsh*t development. Hey, we're on the radar screen. Now we MUST refute the claim that we are obstructionist and "Citizens Against Virtually Everything" I wrote a reply that focused on what I am FOR. Link to article below. Author was Lisa Brown....... lrbrown@bizjournals.com



http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... rround=etf

Doug wrote:...and get over our battered wife syndrome...

You know I never thought about it that way, but that's how St. Louis operates.



Sooner or later, you'd think our leaders would see the disappointing results and subsequent criticism of a project like Southtown Centre or Loughborough Commons. Or, they might see best practices in place somewhere else, and come to the realization that Saint Louis can expect and demand better design.



I'm beginning to wonder when in the hell one or both of those things is going to happen.



EDIT: TGE-ATW, the STLBJ "article" and editorial (I think they're both editorials) are also being discussed in this thread.