TheWayoftheArch wrote:I heard that Phyllis Young woke up yesterday morning with a box of roofing nails in her front tires.
That kind of action is not going to help. It will only dig trenches.
You know thats not cool at all. During the J-Flo recall I was worried about my Buick being towed. That would only piss me off more and I am sure that Phillis is feeling the same way. Good job local anarchists.
That kind of sh*t is not helpful at all. Only this morning I had written off the claim in the business journal that Paul McKee had received threats as propaganda. I guess not. Where did you hear that somebody got Phyllis' tires? She has stirred up plenty of hornets nests recently, I wonder which one stung her?
Well, this isn't going to be popular, but here goes . . .
I drove around the Bohemian Hill area last night and I can see exactly why a developer would be interested in the Phase II area. Having retail border Tucker and Lafayette would be very attractive.
I counted six homes that appeared occupied and in good repair (of course this is just my own judgement), 3 or 4 that may be occupied but were in rough shape and another 2 or 3 that were abandonned. There are three homes built in the last 5 years or so (and I like them a lot - I hope this type of building is encouraged in other neighborhoods). There are ~16 structures in the Phase II area and approximately the same number of empty lots.
My judgement is that this site, more than any other I know of in surrounding neighborhoods, is well-suited for a retail development. The city needs retail and there aren't many (if any) politically easy places to put it.
I'm not making a judgement on emminent domain - or the released renderings of the project. I'm simply saying I understand why this area would work for retail. I hope everyone gets a chance to drive, if not walk the area and post their comments.
I explored the area extensively too and came to a different conclusion: that Bohemian Hill is very much worth saving. If phase II involves building condos anyway, there is no reason the existing buildings can't be integrated into the project. Some of them are very architecturally significant and can be rehabbed into 2 or 4 units apiece. I don't like the practice of tearing a beautiful building down just to put up a cheaper one it its place. You can see where this has been done all over the city and it's really kind of ugly.
But as for the vacant lots-- I'm all for new development, as long as it's urban in scale and function.
If phase II involves building condos anyway, there is no reason the existing buildings can't be integrated into the project. Some of them are very architecturally significant and can be rehabbed into 2 or 4 units apiece.
I agree about the condos in Phase II. I think I disagree with calling the buildings "very architecturally significant." If that's true, I think more than half the city falls into this category (and you may be right), but I don't think anyone could have picked out where these homes were without context - meaning if you were shown a picture of one of the two-families (or whatever) could you have known it was located where it is? I think everyone would guess Benton Park, etc., etc., etc., etc., first.
A number of people on here have been calling for the city to adopt a comprehensive land use plan. My judgement is that this area would work well for retail (bordering highways/etc.) and the areas like Benton Park should be targeted for more dense residential. I don't think we can save every pocket of 1890-1910 brick buildings in the city. I do like the homes, I just see it differently.
Grover wrote:I agree about the condos in Phase II. I think I disagree with calling the buildings "very architecturally significant." If that's true, I think more than half the city falls into this category (and you may be right), but I don't think anyone could have picked out where these homes were without context - meaning if you were shown a picture of one of the two-families (or whatever) could you have known it was located where it is? I think everyone would guess Benton Park, etc., etc., etc., etc., first.
If you look at some of those Boho Hill homes, especially the ones along Tucker, they are quite beautiful. And if nothing else, the Noero homes are definitely unique in the city. Actually, I do think most of St. Louis City is pretty architecturally significant.
The city needs retail and there aren't many (if any) politically easy places to put it.
The city needs retail.. well, sure. but you don't tear down historic homes in Soulard/Lafayette for big box Ballwin retail, I'm sorry. Let them go ahead and build Phase I. Yes, I wish it could be a little more urban-friendly, but I guess these guys want to keep the bar low for st louis, so sad when Goodson's doing such quality infill and other projects in Lafayatte Park. How is tearing down a row of architecturally attractive townhouses (Phase II) that could be in Cambridge, MA, a good thing? Tearning down the historic fabric of Lafayette Park and Soulard is honestly quite astonishing to be happening today. If big box grocery stores is what people want, then redevelop the Foodland site. This area should be far more urban and pedestrian friendly.
Is this St. Louis Marketplace Part II? I thought the city learned its lesson...
architecturally attractive townhouses (Phase II) that could be in Cambridge, MA
That's just a false analogy. If there were demand here like in Cambridge the homes wouldn't be in danger. Both of the following homes can be found in Cambridge. FYI: the first is selling for $500,000.
Somebody said these look like homes that could be in Cambridge a few days ago too. I think the the St. louis underdog mentality is dripping off that statement and pooling on the sidewalk. If we weren't willing to bulldoze our old neighborhoods for suburban style developments, then people in Cambridge might look at a house someday and say "that looks like it could be in Lafayette Square or Soulard." Our neighborhoods have value and personality unto themselves. Why should their ability to approximate the appearance of somewhere else be relevant? Right now there is a large market in this country for St. Louis brick. Bricks that have been salvaged from old homes in St. Louis are sold to builders in other cities for .75 to $1.00 EACH. Why? Because other cities have recognized that St. Louis has a look all its own and part of it is our abundance of weathered red brick. The Soulard Lafayette Square area is currently the crown jewel of St. Louis's historic south side. Why can't we stop dragging our feet and trying to justify or understand this development plan and put our god damned foot down about something? How many times do we have to say it? Development good. Needless destruction of historic infrastructure bad. Development good. suburban style development that makes no effort to agree (or god forbid CONTRIBUTE) to the existing fabric of a neighborhood, BAD.
I was one who mistakenly called the area Bohemian Hill at first. I learned this error from a Realtor selling property there several years ago. The area up for debate here is a REDEVELOPMENT site. If I had purchased a property there, I would now be seeking options for damages from the Realtor who did not reveal that the area is a redevelopment area and NOT an historic district.
So any debate with the strip shopping center needs to start on this footing. What input may the surrounding neighbors have into the plans? Technically, the developer who has redevelopment rights can build anything they want (within the limits of their agreement with the city).
That is why the solution is to make your voice heard to Phyllis Young. She alone has the power to control the development. If the houses slated for demolition and the empty property had been included in either the Soulard or Lafayette Square historic districts, any proposed demolition and/or construction would be subject to review by the city cultural resources office, and the cultural resources board. The houses are not in either district though. The Lafaette Square district seems to end around 17th street, and Soulard's western/northern boundary is the highway (otherwise, they would have included the remains of Bohemian Hill). The houses were hung out to dry when the districts were created, so it is true that they are not subject to cultural resources review. But, if time and money could be found, I am confident that the intact block between Tucker and 13th would qualify as its own district either locally or at the National Register level. Then, the city would review the plans, and the public could participate and testify at the Cultural Resources Board meeting (if it came to that).
Another angle on this...why would Gilded Age build anything but (except for) an urban style, upscale project when it's directly across from their Georgian Condos marketed to urban upscale folks?
I can't help but think that the site plan and design won't be entirely stupid.
Will this development (no matter how perfect) lure me away from the neighborhood-based and locally-owned retailers that I presently support? No.
However, the risk of failure for their plan will be the burden of the surrounding property owners to bear. This is why the neighborhood associations should have been invited to the table as an intelligent and sound move to mitigate as many risks as possible.
While the buildings are not in a district, they are still historic, beautiful and worthy of preserving. Whether or not a district exists in purely political and has little to do with whether or not the buildings are historic. And while Bohemian Hill isn't in any district, the older buildings there are eligible for listing on the National Register, and I'd write it myself, except there is no way it would get the support of the alderperson and the Preservation Board, because like I said it's political. They know what they want to do with the area and why would they create an obstacle or make themselves look worse for tearing down an historic district.
Can we all agree that there is no NEED to tear those buildings down? - wheteher they're significant, historic or no ..... they're still beautifull examples of old st. louis ....
i just don't see why destroying those buildigs is necessary - can't they work around them?
^ Not necessarily. If there is indeed a need/demand for expanded retail, I think this is the best place to put it.
I agree that these buildings are beautiful examples of the St. Louis redbrick style and are historic. However, there are literally thousands of very similar homes throughout the city (and hundreds upon hundreds) in surrounding neighborhoods in need of renovation/stabilization/occupancy. What's missing? Demand. I advocate for pushing demand towards sustainable neighborhoods. Benton Park, Fox Park, ONSL, FPSE, all the Tower Groves, etc. etc. etc. will not flourish and be repopulated. St. Louis City will grow, but there is an oversupply of 100-year-old brick homes. If you choose to look at emminent domain/development on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis it is very difficult, sometimes sad and often unfair. BUT, I'm arguing, that there can be an overiding interest.
I'll venture a guess why trying to work with and/or around them won't work.
Working with: the owners of the problem properties will not cooperate. Please recall the majority of them have been hell holes owned by slum lords for the past 20 years.
Working around them: why would anyone want to invest in property next to blight?
IMHO, certain instances for eminent domain as a remedy still aren't strong enough. There is a vacant blighted property on my block that has been in housing court for nearly three years. Three years prior it was in constant code vioation. How much longer until the city has legal control? Maybe 3-5 years. Oh, yea...it's owned by Greg Jordan of Jordan Properties in Ballwin.
People who desire unrestricted and unlimited rights on the use, condition, and appearance of their property should probably not live in a town, city or neighborhood.
Matt wrote:Another angle on this...why would Gilded Age build anything but (except for) an urban style, upscale project when it's directly across from their Georgian Condos marketed to urban upscale folks?
I can't help but think that the site plan and design won't be entirely stupid.
As this progresses, I hope Koman is challenged to build something like Wildwood Town Center - even if on a smaller scale.
If the people in Wildwood can demand urban design, then so can St. Louis residents. A big box strip center would look totally out of place in that area.
I'm not sure why people keep knocking Gilded Age. While I am not happy about their potential destruction of homes along 12th street. They have proven themselves time and again by tackling projects that other developers have resisted while maintaining a high standard of quality. One only has to look at the Abbey on the Park, Eden Lofts or the quality infill around the park to see their track record (verses the crap that's Lafayette Walk and La Saison) . I find it rather ironic that instead of people celebrating the announcement of a much needed upscale grocer for the neighborhood critics have focused on the negative aspects of the design. Give Gilded Age the benefit of open dialogue so the design of the first phase can be tweaked, hostility and name calling will get our cause nowhere.
Yes. What is it with that place anyway? Does bad design beget bad management? Fine - the place is set back with a huge parking lot, but why must I step over things like dirty diapers, 40's of OE and emptied cigarette trays just to walk through the parking lot?
