urbanSTL

bonwich wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ The city's website lists both "212 S GRAND AVE" and "212 S GRAND BLVD" as the legal address for the building.

The Assessor's Office says BLVD.

I nitpick because calling it "Grand Avenue" is a common mistake, similar to non-residents calling us "St. Louie" or us calling the Bears' stadium "Soldier's Field." Grand Avenue only exists north of West Florissant (Avenue, or North Florissant Avenue if you turn right on the exact same street).

BTW, where does it say "Avenue"? If it's on the alderman's submitted bill, that would make all the sense in the world.

So in this one instance, calling a road two different names is confusing, not cute & endearing as it is with I-64/40????

^Well, no. The highway is, in fact, both Interstate 64 and Highway 40. Grand, at that point, is only a Boulevard.

It's similar to the error that Channel 5 and several other media outlets were making with the hit-and-run in the Grove a few nights ago. They said it was on Manchester Road. Manchester Road doesn't exist in the City; it begins, roughly, at the border with Maplewood.

bonwich wrote:^Well, no. The highway is, in fact, both Interstate 64 and Highway 40. Grand, at that point, is only a Boulevard.

It's similar to the error that Channel 5 and several other media outlets were making with the hit-and-run in the Grove a few nights ago. They said it was on Manchester Road. Manchester Road doesn't exist in the City; it begins, roughly, at the border with Maplewood.

Its Morganford in the County and Morgan Ford in the City.

^And then there's Olive Street and Olive Boulevard (and Olive Street Road, which, contrary to what many believe, still exists).

Not to get even more OT but I did always wonder why Manchester changed between Road and Avenue at the city limits.

I could see if they wanted to make a distinction that any thoroughfare called "Road" would be in the county and therefore change designation when it entered the city. But by my count there are at least two roads within STL city limits--Watson and MorganFord.

this is such a St. Louis discussion.

This may have been mentioned in previous posts, but why is Biondi/SLU not pouncing on this building and tapping into it's potential??? SLU is missing out on a great opportunity to develop this into a SLU themed diner for students. This building could be the perfect unique campus dining option for students. Make it a "Billiken Burger" open late night, to keep students dining on campus. Can you imagine the saucer with blue and white neon lights, a giant Billiken head or giant full Billiken spinning on top of the saucer. How can a Billiken themed burger joint fail on it's own campus. Name all the menu items after SLU related things, people and landmarks. I know it is far-fetched, but how unique and cool would that be. It would eventually be a gold mine. Use campus security to patrol it and you have a safe and fun place, on campus, for students. It would be a place creating pride and school spirit. Just an idea that came to mind at 5 AM...
Crazy or a no-brainer???
Too bad people in STL don't see the potential in great buildings like this. Instead, they want strip malls.

That mentality is what holds our town back. So much unrealized potential, wasted!

I'm sure someone will post the article but the BoA approved the redevelopment plan yesterday. I would say this building is toast. Man, I hope Scott O. doesn't burn bridges fighting the good fight.

We need some serious follow through on our aldermanic proposition thread.

^At least he wasn't alone, in a 15-9 vote.

Slay can still veto the bill since the 15-9 vote wasn't majority enough. call Slay and the Preservation Board and give 'em an ear-full!

mill204 wrote:Riverfront Times - Alderman French Calls Mayor's Speed Bump Veto "Petty Politics"

"There were some rumblings that the mayor might veto it, but I didn't think he'd be that petty," [Alderman French] says. "He uses his veto -- which he so rarely ever uses -- for something as important as this. This is silly. It's just silly. And it's petty. He needs to spend his time dealing with the city's real problems, like jobs, murders, crime rates -- instead of wasting people's time and spending energy and political capital on things like speed bumps or stray rescue or Del Taco."

Wow, that guy's not gaining any votes from anyone. What a douche!

I think Alderman French's comments are appropriate given his constituency, a group of people that probably couldn't care less about the Del Taco on grand.

However, and I've said this before, it should be noted that Slay is only appeasing his broader constituency by giving the mere thought of veto some lip service.

But why?

Because a whole bunch of people were outraged at this demolition. Thus, one can only wonder what could possibly happen when we organize enough people to complain about...

merging the city and county
reforming zoning and urban planning in the city
reducing the number of alderman

In other words, I find the whole cause/effect relationship between the power structure and it's voter base wildly fascinating. If one learned how to leverage their urbanist initiatives off of this, it would totally kick ass.

ttricamo wrote:
Because a whole bunch of people were outraged at this demolition. Thus, one can only wonder what could possibly happen when we organize enough people to complain about...

merging the city and county
reforming zoning and urban planning in the city
reducing the number of alderman

In other words, I find the whole cause/effect relationship between the power structure and it's voter base wildly fascinating. If one learned how to leverage their urbanist initiatives off of this, it would totally kick ass.

Not to be all Debbie Downer, but I think it'd be hard to use the Del Taco incident as a template for how to push broader structural changes in the city.

Yes, Slay heard the calls to save the building and acted. But he mainly acted to wrest control of the process away from Aldermen. He hasn't actually saved the building (i.e. denied a demo permit) yet. He also acted to make certain Aldermen look bad, which serves various of his other purposes right now.

Also, this is a pretty low-stakes affair in the grand scheme of things. The only person who actually wants the Del Taco demolished is Rick Yackey, and maybe Fr. Biondi. It only moved forward because of the hoary back-scratching traditions of the Board of Aldermen - an easy thing for Slay to look good running against.

But when you start talking about merging city and county services, or shrinking the Board of Aldermen, you're talking about taking away people's jobs and political clout. You're going to have organized, mobilized opposition, people with a much deeper stake in the issue than the reformers, because its their jobs - or those of their family/friends/neighbors - on the line. Also they'll probably outnumber the reformers, at least the reformers willing to do more than "like" a Facebook page.

So you're going to have to play the inside game, too (and I realize there were people working the inside game on Del Taco). And the politics are going to have to line up just right, with some combination of inside realpolitik and outside pressure, timing and personalities. It could happen, and the urbanist/reform crowd certainly has a role to play. But there's a reason those kind of big changes are so hard, and have failed so many times. And it has nothing to do with what seems to us to be logical or "right."

That said, Del Taco certainly serves as a good example of what's broken in city government, and maybe got some more people engaged than would otherwise would have been. If people are engaged once, it's easier to re-engage them next time. Something to build on.

timeforguinness wrote:

doug wrote:Someone living in North St. Louis probably doesn't care at all if the Del Taco is torn down. I believe most preservationists and urbanist activists in our City are white, from the suburbs, and middle class. So don't assume everyone thinks the same way. I can see why if living in a neighborhood of crime, gangs, and joblessness hearing the Mayor sticking up for a former gas station and fast food restaurant wouldn't secure my vote -- especially considering he also stuck up for McKee and his demolitions.

They probably don't care about tearing down buildings for parking garages either.

Burn! Face!

But seriously, EVERYTHING is about black people vs. white people.

Look at this tweet from Kaldi's:

@MayorSlay I think our logo would fit perfect on top of the saucer. We will keep you posted #STL

jmmnq6 wrote:Look at this tweet from Kaldi's:

@MayorSlay I think our logo would fit perfect on top of the saucer. We will keep you posted #STL

I saw that too, but how does that change who owns the property & why Yackey would sell/lease it to Kaldi's??

well, as justification for demo yackey claimed he wouldn't be able to find another tenant. if Kaldi's is interested then that excuse is out the window.