urbanSTL

I think there's plenty more to say.

If this were a commercial building in the North Riverfront on a semi-abandoned street, and it were "ugly", I don't think too many of us would be up in arms.

Now when you talk about demolishing viable urban buildings in a viable urban neighborhood--in a city without urban zoning--that's a different story. You never know what could replace this patio down the road! And you never know what it could have been if the Favazzas hadn't sat on the property until finally demolishing it. Beyond that, creating a sidewalk dining situation would have been better than taking down a whole building (or is it two?) to put up some patio tables! It's a wasteful use of land in a city.

Point me to a successful city and neighborhood similar in profile to the Hill that tears down reusable buildings for outdoor dining. The examples are probably few and far in between, since this is such an egregious underutilization of the land. So we're talking an urban design issue, not yet aesthetics. Removing a whole building that anchors a sidewalk to put tables up definitely diminishes the urban character of the neighborhood no matter what argument you throw back.

Aesthetics is a whole different discussion. YOU thought the building was ugly; I thought it was a fine example of Romanesque commercial buildings. High-style? No. Worth saving, except in case of superior construction? YES.

The ends--providing an active outdoor dining scene--don't justify the means--taking down a whole building. This is true whether or not the building is ugly (to you) or vacant. Before you play the "nothing was ever going to happen with this building" card, consider the ownership history. Could Favazza's have sold the building to a willing developer? Could they have rehabbed it themselves? Now we'll never know.

I think there's plenty more to say in cases of bad or absent urban planning, something St. Louis has an unfortunate historical association with.

I completely agree with Dotage. Very well said.

The irony is that The Hill is starting to see some significant infill, becoming more interesting, bustling, and urban. Then these guys decide to suburbanize their little corner of the neighborhood. Crazy.

I thought an interesting compromise would have been to gut the inside of the neighboring two-story building leaving only the perimeter walls (minus window and storefront glazing) and essential floor & roof beams to create an interesting outdoor room. They could have punched large openings into the side elevations to expose it to the outdoors a bit more. This would have left the existing street fronting density intact (which was attractive in my opinion, as well). I'm not even sure if this idea would have been technically possible, but if so it would have been much more of an asset for the restaurant than whatever run-of-the-mill gated seating area they append(ed) to their building. It's too bad they decided to destroy the handiwork of previous generations only to replace it with furniture (umbrellas sporting beer logos, presumably). We vote with our dollars, as they say, and I am definitely directing our patronage elsewhere.

I agree completely with Dotage. "It's ugly, get over yourselves" is a flame. If ttricamo thinks that those buildings were ugly, he is living in the wrong city.

I don't disagree with Historic Preservation. In this situation, however, "Historic Preservation" of that building would impede Favazza's ability to optimally operate his business.

I don't disagree with voting with your dollars, so to speak, but before we turn our backs on Favazza's, maybe we all consider a couple things first.

Favazzas owns all the land starting at the corner of Southwest and Marconi up to 5211 Southwest Ave. He uses the space behind and adjacent to the buildings as parking for his restaurant, as well as an additional parking lot across the street. Favazza is making the best decision given his current operating environment. There is no large-scale mass transit on Southwest. The transportation environment in that area is very auto-centric, is fairly pedestrian un-friendly, is loud, often smells of exhaust, and traffic speeds along that area pretty quickly. In order to facilitate his patrons, Favazza must provide off-street parking and a nice dining environment away from the street.

He has a building that is historic, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, it would cost far more money to rehab/retrofit that building than to install what will probably be a very nice patio in it's place. As a business case, it would never be MORE profitable to save the current building in lieu of installing the patio, given the current operating environment. If he sold the building, he would A) ask way more money than its worth, thus inhibiting the rehab of said building by any new business and B) alienate his other piece of property, his parking lot, at the western side of the property. In my opinion, his choice of the patio is the most favorable for his business, his patrons, and his property. Furthermore, the Hill supports several restaurants with patio dining (Five Bistro, C. Gittos, Gioa's, Lorenzos, etc,). So I think the patio dining area would be very appropriate for the neighborhood.

stldotage wrote:Beyond that, creating a sidewalk dining situation would have been better than taking down a whole building (or is it two?) to put up some patio tables!

Would you honestly dine at a sidewalk table at that section of Southwest Ave? Based on the amount of traffic in the area, the speed at which cars drive on that road, and the sidewalk space between Favazzas and the street, I don't think that's a realistic option.

If the impetus existed for Favazza to rehab the building in lieu of more parking or a patio, he would do it in a heartbeat.

Let us consider that "impetus" for a moment, which is to maximize his profit. Currently, the most effective way to maximize his profit is to provide parking for his customers and an off-street dining experience, even at the expense of some of the existing structures on his property. This is an unsavory choice to many urbanists.

Imagine, however, if that particular section of Southwest still had a trolley line, was more pedestrian friendly, and better integrated the three neighborhoods that converge in that area. Would less cars use the street? Absolutely. Would Favazza's clientele access his restaurant by foot or trolley? Yup. Would car traffic be reduced, thus creating less noise, less pollution, and less probability of car-related danger? Think so. Would Favazza's impetus, his desire to maximize profit, be better served by retaining the HISTORIC buildings (the density), creating a more welcoming environment to pedestrian clientele, and reducing the parking lots on his land? Yes, resoudingly. Are any of these factors controlled by Favazza? Not one.

This issue is not with Favazza. The issue is with the City and it's poor utilization of business as a means of a) driving the creation and sustainment of our urban environment, b)facilitating Historic Preservation, and c)optimizing revenue for both business owners and thus itself. To focus on these three components is to create the metropolis we all desire. To focus on one item without the other three has doomed us to fail.

This is, and always has been, my main gripe.

Wow, ttricamo...you went from a post that I think was rightfully considered a flame to a well-articulated defense of the demolition.

I disagree with some aspects or would refine them, as Alex did above. I understand the cards were stacked against the building and that it's the city, not Favazza's, whose role it is to protect a valuable built environment.

I agree with you that 5209 Southwest was not some masterpiece of a building and that this demolition isn't going to bring the Hill to a grinding halt. It's just very disappointing and makes the neighborhood a slightly less visually interesting place, in my opinion.

Many good points... though I think all parties share a responsibility in preserving the city's heritage. It doesn't have to be a completely top down authoritarian enforcement to protect historic assets. Neighbors and business owners can show some initiative as well. It was said SW Ave. is auto-centric, pedestrian unfriendly and has high speed traffic. Well, now it is even more so.
Seriously, how cool would this have been? Couldn't have been much more than the cost of demolition.

That's precisely what I mentioned on my blog when the news first broke! Excellent! Too often we think of these situations as black and white--either the building comes down and Favazza's prospers; OR the building stays and Favazza's misses an opportunity. Dichotomies make for neat arguments, but usually don't truly exist. This building could have been employed in a more creative way than supplying patio bricks. Thanks for showing us exactly how! Add some trees, flower pots, etc. and we're set.

Think Shady Jack's.

Nobody has posted about this lately. Say what you want, but the patio is looking pretty sweet.

I'm with Shadrach. I hate to see another building gone, but the patio does show promise. Maybe this won't be as bad of a trade as we all thought.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Potential development downtown is just one reason that we think removing I-70 makes sense. I would support its removal even if not a single additional dollar of investment were to occur. However, no one's talking about short-term profit here.

What is your definition of short term profit? How long has Favazzas operated as a restaurant at that intersection? Decades? How much money have they contributed to the St. Louis City tax base? Hundreds of thousands?

Alex Ihnen wrote:Favazza's demolished a building that will never again be able to be used for any purpose.

Much like the area under/around the highway, there is more value in the land not the actual structure upon said land. Furthermore, the bricks were used to build the "patio".

Alex Ihnen wrote:Removing I-70 does not remove a single building downtown. So, money is a catalyst for some, simply quality of life for others, responsibly spending tax payer money for others, etc. What's the problem with addressing the issue from a number of angles?

Nothing. However, the potential for real estate development is the main "sell" for the City to River group. Do you disagree? In other words, would any other single factor initiate the destruction of the current I-70?

Doug wrote:If Favazza's believes it needs a patio in order to continue in operation, then it should move to another location which provides that ability.

Well, Favazza's owners could have done what other businesspeople before have done when the going got too tough with the city- go to Maplewood, Richmond Heights, or University City, where there are generally fewer hoops to jump through. Or, at the very least, that is the perception that people may have about doing business within the city.

Seriously, I enjoyed your well-articulated defense of the city's built environment. I think our city's leaders have been poor stewards of it, and I think there are countless examples to prove that claim, most recently the demolition of the Deville/San Luis building on Lindell Boulevard for a "green" parking lot. And I agree, there should be a citywide architectural review to prevent the loss of architectural treasures in the future. But that process should also be applied on a case-by-case basis. Here you have a patio that is aesthetically pleasing according to those that have seen it. It may make the restaurant more of a draw than it was previously, bringing new people into the neighborhood to dine, and perhaps even live or establish another business at some point. (And I don't mean the patio itself- I'm not like the Archdiocese spokesperson trying to justify how a parking lot will make the Cathedral area more viable. I'm referring to a viable Favazza's as a whole).

That said, I will reserve judgment of the patio until I get a chance to see it and/or visit Favazza's. I was initially skeptical about the value of this demolition, and I mocked the idea of preservation board review because it seems like the city's Preservation Board doesn't preserve all that much. However, those that have seen it seem to think Favazza's did a fine job of adding value to their facility, and consequently, the surroundings. I look forward to seeing it and deciding for myself what I think of it when I get the chance.

ttricamo wrote:However, the potential for real estate development is the main "sell" for the City to River group. Do you disagree?

Yes I do. You should visit http://www.citytoriver.org and see how much of our effort is dedicated to the development potential of a boulevard.

Alex Ihnen wrote:

ttricamo wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I'll have to get by there sometime soon. The problem with many demolitions is that either a building is replaced by parking or a grass field, OR what's going to replace it is unknown. I'm happy to hear that the patio is coming along. If done well, it could certainly add to the street.

So you haven't actually seen the "patio"? Yet you criticize it? You would kill for something like this in the Grove.

Upwards and onwards, brother. The city will be great again, but we'll have to knock down a few crusty buildings and highways before we get there. Remember, "Ashes of the past make burgers of the future."

I'm not sure why you're so upset with what I've said here. I don't like the idea of tearing down buildings. I wish they had considered resuse of the building. They released no plan or rendering of the proposed patio. I'm saying that if the patio is done well that that would be good. By the way, we have patios and sidewalk dining in The Grove and I do enjoy it. I most likely would not support the demolition of a building on Manchester for more patio dining.

I'm actually not that upset. I thought the Al Bundy quote would help level my statement out a bit.

I do agree that Favazzas did a poor job of communicating their plans for development of this space as "patio" is a poor definition of what they're building over there.

The Grove has one dining option with a patio, I believe, and it doesn't even compare to what Favazzas is building.