urbanSTL

This article pulls a common trick - "paint your opposition with a wide brush." It lumps people against the Lafayette Square project in with the Patti Teppers of the world - when in reality they could not be more different.



NO ONE on this forum is "anti-development." To the contrary, we beg, plead and cry for MORE development. What we oppose is "bad development," which in reality - is regression not progress. Turning a row of century old, urban town houses into a walgreens is NOT a gain for the city. It is a loss.



as many have pointed out - virtually no one on this forum is against putting a grocery, pharmacy and condos in Lafayette Square. To the contrary - I would sell my own plasma to see it happen ... but we are against these entities in the form of a strip mall. Moreover, we are against tearing down architecturally significant - perfectly viable - townhouses merely to replace them with vinyl clad "new condos" or a big parking lot

^ True, true and true. Sounds like some positive mojo for STLUP. In fairness I think both sides have been painting with a wide brush (at least at the extremes). What 'they' don't understand is that we want smart, urban development and I think what we often do not understand is that development deals are difficult to get done and many, many variables are at play, and in the end it must make sense financially for a developer.

Previous media quotes about "developers with successful track records":



On Rouse (Union Station), 1981:



"The Rouse Co., perhaps the most commercially successful urban redeveloper in the nation, has completed its architectural work, planning and cost projections for the Union Station project, and the plans are far more spectacular than originally conceived, says a spokesman for the station owner.



Steven Miller, vice president of Opp enheimer Properties Inc., said last week that Rouse officials will meet late this week with Oppenheimer to go over the finished package."



On Rouse and Melvin Simon (St. Louis Centre), 1982:



"...highly regarded developers like Melvin Simon and Rouse are pushing through with very classy projects, St. Louis Centre and Union Station, affording some of the best shopping/entertainment possibilities to be found in the nation. And, what about the ongoing neighborhood rehabilitation here that is the envy of city officials and planners elsewhere?"



Looks like the City wasn't always full of CAVEmen. And that may not have been a Good Thing.

How do these a**holes continue to make so much money when they don't seem to have the slightest idea of what constitutes good development. Way to go digging up the Union Station and St. Louis Center quotes. Though we may paint Blairmont and Bohemian Hill developers with a wide brush, they haven't given us any options. In the case of Bohemian Hill, we have only seen a rendering; the plans have been hidden. In the case of Blairmont....same thing. All we have to go on is that they are buying up tons of properties in a way that is designed to cover their tracks, pushing the state to give them tax credits for city developments over 75 acres, and riding on the reputation of Winghaven? What the hell are we supposed to think? Give me some information and I'll adjust the width of my brush accordingly. On the part of the opposition, painting us all as CAVE men is using a deliberately wide brush for propaganda purposes. While a few crazies exist, the vast majority of non-crazies have already gone on the record (through letters to newspapers and aldermen) as simply wanting good design and a say in the process.

what the BJ article fails to address is that many of the people opposing the Bohemian Hill development right now are the same people who are the biggest cheerleaders for things like the Opus tower in CWE, Ballpark village, the Fleur-de-Lis in Benton Park, etc. I was just reading through some of the old STLUP posts and you really get a sense of the passion folks have for quality development. Developers need to know not only that we oppose bad development, but that we'll go to bat for them if they propose quality projects, like many on this forum did for Opus.



Personally I could live with the demolition of the 4 remaining houses along Tucker. If the entire neighborhood were intact I would feel differently. But my request in exchange for that would be that the site be developed in a more urban-friendly way, with the grocery brought up to the street and parking behind or underneath. This is compromise and it is how projects get done.

^ I'm already up to my eyeballs with work, homework for my classes, and letters to write, but I think perhaps we should write the STLBJ also, to let them know how myopic and one-sided the editorial masquerading as a news article was.

the demolition of the Century Building was approved on the federal, state and city levels, as the more than 100-year-old building was already under a final demolition order for being unsafe

"being unsafe"... amazing.. The loss of this building was truly a step back. What's amazing about the whole CAVE men concept is that the building that the Business Journal is in- the Old Post Office- was SAVED by such CAVE men. I belive it was Leland (forgot his first name) that stepped up to the plate in order to ensure its preservation. I'm sure he would be considered a CAVE man in the 1960's when the "progressive developers" were pushing for its demolition. From being on this site for roughly a year, I've noticed that NO ONE is anti-development, we're just for good, quality development that St. Louis should expect. Vinyl housing and suburban strip malls in the city is something that cities like Springfield and Chesterfield Missouri can get excited over. St. Louis should be- and is architecturally- on par with cities like Boston, New York, etc. The level of sophistication and education of people on forums such as this one ensure quality development will be expected in the future.

^ I was about to say virtually the same thing. The most important thing to me is having a vibrant link between Soulard and Laf. Square. An autocentric, strip mall development with a few historic buildings scattered around it does not accomplish this. Now, ideally the developer would come forward with a high qaulity, urban project that integrated the existing structures. But we need to be prepared for the possiblity that those involved (developer, financiers, etc.) will be unable/unwilling to do this. Therefore, the next best thing is to leverage the few remaining historic buildings on this site for a high quality development. If we allow the idea of demolishing these buildings to be a non-starter, then the developer may just go ahead with the crap development, taking the buildings anyway...or back out altogether. In both situations the city loses.



Let's face it, from a preservation standpoint, the Battle for Bohemian Hill was lost decades ago. Over 60 blocks were taken for highway development and the rest has succumbed to spot demolitions and general decay. If you want to see historic buildings walk 3 minutes south to Soulard or 5 minutes west to Lafayette Square (or look across the street). As urbanists we should be more concerned with the link between the two neighborhoods, not saving a few structures at all costs.

Let's face it, from a preservation standpoint, the Battle for Bohemian Hill was lost decades ago. Over 60 blocks were taken for highway development and the rest has succumbed to spot demolitions and general decay. If you want to see historic buildings walk 3 minutes south to Soulard or 5 minutes west to Lafayette Square (or look across the street). As urbanists we should be more concerned with the link between the two neighborhoods, not saving a few structures at all costs.

Agreed.

(And before someone chimes in with it: "You can't save every building" is a poor counter-argument. A number of these buildings don't need to be "saved" at all; they just need to be allowed to continue existing. Not too tough, really. Yes, you can't save every building... which is why we've lost so, so many already.)

OK - we can't allow every building to continue existing. I'm serious. Where should new retail development go if not at the edge of two quality neighborhoods and bordering two Interstates? (I'd also like to add that I love the work done on builtstlouis)

I have. what a joke. The issue is not over whether to have new retail with a few historic buildings scattered about. It is whether to have new retail tastefully worked into a completely intact block of sound historic buildings. Agreed, the remaining scattered houses on the westernmost lot can go, but the group of houses between Tucker and 13th are a densely packed, intact knot of buildings.

Sounds like we'll have a nice little competition to get our letters in the Business Journal.



I'll personally buy an adult beverage for any Urban St. Louis poster to get his/her letter printed.

^ I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but check out the map:



http://www.google.com/maps?q=Saint+Loui ... 8&t=h&om=1

a completely intact block of sound historic buildings

I like the buildings that are there - I live in a very similar home - but to claim that this block is "completely intact" just isn't true. I hope that a quality urban project is built AND these houses are spared.

OK, for the record, DeB now owes at least 4 forum members drinks.



But y'all have also just seen "unbiased" journalism in action. The BJ published your letters under the headline "Letters from the CAVE." Nothing like showing respect for your own readership!

The partial city blocks 409 and 414 are almost completely intact to the west of Tucker. I stand by my statement and have driven it/walked it several times to verify. Maybe we are defining intact differently Grover? I think intact means sound, standing buildings presenting a continuous streetscape. Do you mean the Blocks are not intact because they are not complete blocks? If so then I would qualify by saying the pocket of extant buildings is intact. With regard to the letters from the cave, I was happy to see that we were all as good as our word and got our opinions published. I absolutely love that four of the five responses were well reasoned and persuasively written comments from concerned citizens; the fifth of course being a statement of support for developers from Clayton Alderwoman Linda Goldstein. I am not sure where I saw this posted, but Goldstein is apparently planning on running for mayor. HAR. I guess living on Cromwell Court in the vicinity of Hanley and Clayton has afforded her the necessary perspective from which to manage a simple little fiefdom, um city, city like St. Louis.

bonwich wrote:OK, for the record, DeB now owes at least 4 forum members drinks.

As a man of my word, I am fully prepared to pay up! Hopefully we can get a forum meet-up scheduled so that the authors can collect their prizes.



Well done, crew!

I can personally vouch for the fact that DeB doesn't hesistate to pay up on promises of adult beverages.



Which reminds me, we didn't catch up at a Bills game this year. I went to three or four games. I'm going to MVC on Sunday I think.

trent wrote:I can personally vouch for the fact that DeB doesn't hesistate to pay up on promises of adult beverages.



Which reminds me, we didn't catch up at a Bills game this year. I went to three or four games. I'm going to MVC on Sunday I think.

I know! I may be headed to the MVC tourney this weekend, but will probably just end up going to watch Wash U. in the playoffs on Friday night. As much as I'd like to go watch the A-10 tournament, the geniuses who run it moved it from Dayton to Atlantic City, ensuring that virtually no one from St. Louis will go.

I've (hopefully) got Quarterfinals for HS Basketball on Saturday. MVC on Sunday (i think). Busy basketball weekend.

trent wrote:Which reminds me, we didn't catch up at a Bills game this year. I went to three or four games.

There's one more game tomorrow night. Anyone else up for a forum meet. it's my last game as an undergrad and member of Blue Crew.

^

DeSmet has the size, but I think you guys can win on Wed.



The Bills play on Saturday, and we're actually on TV!

Gotta play a game, Matt. My parents are going though, they're going to both.



DeB,



As a life long public school guy, there was nothing I liked more than beating the private schools. This should be no different, especially since there is a chance that the public and private state tournaments could be split in the future (a crock of **** if you ask me). We really should win though. We're a better team than DeSmet. But crazier things have happened in the playoffs.