urbanSTL

I can see the merits of both sides in this situation. The neighbors most likely bought houses on Westminster as opposed to Maryland or West Pine or Laclede or McPherson for the privacy that comes with living on a gated street, so it's understandable that they would want to be protective of the substantial investments they've made in their homes.



At the same time, it would be great to see someone with a good concept bring that property back to life. I don't see her winning this battle though.



If she took her idea to Delmar or Midtown (Locust/Olive), she might be received better.

goat314 wrote:
I never said liberals will solve everything, I said we need more young, liberal minded people because they are the ones that keep a city vibrant....not conservatives.

Is this true?

Let's just say the city could use more open-minded, creative thinkers. Would that be better?

There's a bit more info in the current issue of the West End Word. Sorry, it's not online yet.



One paragraph of interest: "The complex will need 375 parking spaces, and Koch said only about 120 are available with the property. Reed proposes valet parking in lots along Delmar Boulevard."



I think this is a good indication of the scale of this proposed complex. Again, it sounds like a fantastic project, but the wrong location.

Shimmy wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but I need another definition. What do you mean by "liberal"? Do you mean liberal in the terms of urban planning (aka the anti-NIMBY) or in political terms?



EDIT: Question directed towards goat.

Both....and I don't feel one ounce of guilt for saying it. People always say there is an all out assault on the conservative way of life, but as a liberal...I feel like I'm under constant assault from conservatives, who try to legislate morality and tell me how to live my life. I never said I'm against conservatives or nuclear families, but their lifestyles and politics are not a good recipe for creating a vibrant urban area. In this great urban resurgence, liberalism is what St. Louis City NEEEEEDS, not more conservatism (that has caused our decline for the last 50 years). Open mindedness is what keeps an urban area alive. Right now I will provide you guys with a few definitions of liberalism and how it could apply to St. Louis in a beneficial manner.



Definitions

1) favorable to progress or reform, as in political - If you don't think St. Louis needs political reform than apparently your eyes and ears are closed.

2) free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant - Shouldn't even have to explain this one.

3) of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts - The seven Liberal Arts are grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. When are city officials come up with these boring ass, basic, non-creative, been done a million times and proven to fail plans. We should attribute it to not being very rich in the Liberal Arts, therefore not creative, non-inspired, and just all around don't give a damn about nothing.



As far as everyone wanting me to over explain and apologize for my opinions..........don't hold your breath because I'm giving my honest outlook of what this city needs Some of you have obviously been watching FOX News toooooo much and think Liberal is a bad word. Liberal doesn't mean your the anti-Christ or lack conscience and morality, it just means you want those basic personal freedoms without looking over you back for NIMBYers and Rush Limbaugh fans.

goat314 wrote:
The seven Liberal Arts are grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. When are city officials come up with these boring ass, basic, non-creative, been done a million times and proven to fail plans. We should attribute it to not being very rich in the Liberal Arts, therefore not creative, non-inspired, and just all around don't give a damn about nothing.

Umm, you might want to work on that first art.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Yikes. Easy.



I think that, sadly, "cool" factor belongs to liberals. There are very few subversive conservatives--I mean, that's sort of against the point, no?



So I see what goat is saying: in order to have a vibrant city, you need to have people that are a bit more radical, people that think outside the grain.



These people tend to have left-based political views.



And it should be noted several times over that Democrat is not equal to Liberal.



The East St. Louis example doesn't work, then, because there are plenty of conservative Democrats there and in the city of St. Louis itself.



St. Louis is at once one of the most Democratic cities in the country AND, as far as its governance goes, is pretty conservative, I would say. That's just my opinion; you can disagree.

Exactly....The St. Louis democrat is not the San Franciso democrat, hell its not even the Chicago democrat. We are more like the blue-collar...Pittsburgh or Buffalo democrats. Thanks for seeing that my post was not an assualt on conservatives. Its just that every vibrant urban city, I've been to is fairly liberal...because the fact is more conservatives choose to live in the suburban and rural areas. I just don't believe bringing cowtown values to the urban core is a good idea.

Matt Drops The H wrote:Yikes. Easy.



I think that, sadly, "cool" factor belongs to liberals. There are very few subversive conservatives--I mean, that's sort of against the point, no?



So I see what goat is saying: in order to have a vibrant city, you need to have people that are a bit more radical, people that think outside the grain.



These people tend to have left-based political views.



And it should be noted several times over that Democrat is not equal to Liberal.



The East St. Louis example doesn't work, then, because there are plenty of conservative Democrats there and in the city of St. Louis itself.



St. Louis is at once one of the most Democratic cities in the country AND, as far as its governance goes, is pretty conservative, I would say. That's just my opinion; you can disagree.

Very true. We just have a lot of union members, that's all. Nothing liberal about them.

Aviator wrote:

goat314 wrote:
The seven Liberal Arts are grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. When are city officials come up with these boring ass, basic, non-creative, been done a million times and proven to fail plans. We should attribute it to not being very rich in the Liberal Arts, therefore not creative, non-inspired, and just all around don't give a damn about nothing.

Umm, you might want to work on that first art.

Please forgive me O' Scholarly One! Me so sorry

Shimmy wrote:Now how does this relate to an urban St. Louis? For "progressive liberals" to think that just because someone holds conservative values that they would be better off in the county because they obviously can't be good for the city is both foolish and unprogressive.

Thank you.



I also agree with Shimmy's point that a city "should be home to all different thoughts and beliefs". That's diversity, guys. Most people these days agree that diversity is a good, healthy thing. Which goes for cities, too.



Which brings me back to one of my original points (remember the topic of this thread?). A functional city needs a variety of zones, from lively, densely-built mixed-use areas, to quiet, peaceful, single-family residential. Lord knows there's plenty of room in this city for everyone.



IMO, this is simply the wrong location for this venue. It would intrude on one of those neighborhoods that appeals to families who want a quieter, less dense environment (you don't really want them all to leave the City, now do you?). Instead of trying to force this project on the neighborhood, perhaps we should encourage the developer to find a more appropriate location.

The Post is reporting that she's looking at other locations in the city.



I think Grand Center/Midtown/Downtown West would be a great fit.

I think this space could be put to more appropriate use than a late-night rock concert venue. It has been said plenty of times before--by those decrying NIMBY-ism in this context--that the City does not have to accept every damn proposal that comes along for a particular parcel of property just because somebody has one. Context should be respected. Sure, these people live in the City, but they purchased homes near property that was used as a church. Things change, sure, but in this particular instance, the change should probably best not be so radical. Those homes in that area command some of the highest prices in the City, and I don't see any good reason to destabilize those prices.



This space would be better suited as a museum, school, art gallery, stage or movie theater, or a Sheldon-like concert hall.

STL needs a dedicated art institute. savannah's art institute was founded in the 1990s i believe and they've bought and restored/preserved lots of old buildings around town. quick! somebody procure this building as SLAI #1!



real quick: the liberal vs conservative thing is getting ridiculous - almost comical if it weren't so potentially dire for certain people. obviously a person can be progressive in some opinions and conservative in others. i consider myself conservative when it comes to the "old ways" of urbanism, and progressive when it comes to say, gay marriage. (frankly i don't think the government has any business recognizing religious unions between persons - straight or gay - and therefore should only grant civil unions to persons straight AND gay). certainly, urban centers should be home to all different thoughts and beliefs, but that does not mean that those with "conservative" religious beliefs should be allowed to impose them on those with "liberal" religious beliefs - even if they are in the majority. there is plenty of evidence throughout history that the majority opinion is not necessarily the moral opinion.

I went to a microbrewery in Pittsburgh a couple of years ago called the church brewworks. It was an awesome re-use of an old church. The brew kettles were up front where the alter would have been. They had private event space as well as a restuarant. It was very well done, as you can imagine all of the beers were named with church/religious themes. The beer and food were good. Something like this would be awesome.

Matt Drops The H wrote:I think that, sadly, "cool" factor belongs to liberals. There are very few subversive conservatives--I mean, that's sort of against the point, no?



So I see what goat is saying: in order to have a vibrant city, you need to have people that are a bit more radical, people that think outside the grain.



These people tend to have left-based political views.

But I thought liberals liked cool, cutting-edge restaurants, bars, and concert venues, not to mention art galleries, universities, cultural institutions, etc. Isn't that part of what makes a city "vibrant"?



If all the conservatives went away, how would such establishments stay in business? For that matter, who would own them, or provide the capital to open them? Who would buy the art or donate to the non-profit institutions? How much revenue would the city government be able to raise if they only had liberals to tax?



And if you are a bar owner, you certainly aren't going to stay in business long if everyone in your establishment is just there to get free drinks from their friends behind the bar. Somebody actually has to spend some money!?!

Stop. With the liberal v. conservative thing. Please. The stltoday.com forum is always happy to entertain ridiculousness of all types.

Just to elaborate on what DeBaliviere posted:



This proposal is officially dead. There are stories in both the Post and the West End Word.



She still wants to develop a similar venue in another location. Personally,

I'm hoping for Grand Center (the Sun Theater could work, but I think it's spoken for).

Well, I can't find it online, but the print edition of the Post today had an interesting article about the challenges of finding appropriate new uses for historic old churches. This project was featured, naturally.

Framer wrote:Well, I can't find it online, but the print edition of the Post today had an interesting article about the challenges of finding appropriate new uses for historic old churches. This project was featured, naturally.

Here's the article you saw:



<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... ument">New life hard for old churches</a>