urbanSTL

"The primary goal is to save the structure, which is an example of Mid-Century architecture and is part of a historic district. If Del Taco remains viable, so be it. If it doesn't, well, the building has already been adapted for re-use once, so it can be again. Too much MCM architecture has been lost already- nationwide and locally. This demolition is especially senseless when there are so many vacant lots nearby that could accommodate another glorified strip mall."

Yes.

To me, this sums up St. Louis.

1. Reckless demolition of a cool building,
2. (anticipated) bland, underwhelming, suburban-style replacement,
3. lack of 'mojo.'

What I mean by 'lack of mojo' is the current state of the building. This is a cool building but the current tenant is not harnessing the awesome mojo of the 'flying saucer.'

RobbyD, Gatechi—maybe you guys will get this. But, if this building were in Atlanta, it would probably be some burger and fries joint with bell-hop service, three times the number of neon lights (animated in different colors) painted in some funky fashion, have a giant sign, outdoor seating, be a backdrop in local hip-hop videos, have walls devoted to student graffiti and handbills, have its own ordering vernacular and be an over-rated, over-priced, must see stop when visiting town.

If it were that, there would be no thought of tearing this down.

But then again, I thought the same thing about the Parkmoor and Coral Courts so again, this episode pretty much sums up St. Louis.

I think there's a lot going on here: abuse of "blighting" designation, designation of the entire complex on the National Register of Historic Places (now the most distinctive building may get demolished?), the culture of demolition in St. Louis. Sure, this developer would like to tear it down and make more money with something else. What's missing is the city's voice, with a plan for development. There are dozens of vacant lots in this vicinity. The City should be saying that before we tear down another building, let alone one with historic recognition, let's fill in the lots.

^ Except because of all the surround development, this is a crappy suburban location. You have the Interstate and ramps to the south, FPA (basically an Interstate here) to the north, busy Grand Avenue and an isolated development. There are many, many vacant lots and even corners where ped-friendly, "urban" infill should be built. The city should play a role in directing development, not just let individual developers do whatever they want.

There is no universe where it makes sense to tear this building down...Tho the location is wretched for any kind of walk up traffic which is unfortunate being nearly adjacent to a major research university...

Yes, shadrach, the place feels like the Varsity (classic burgers and fries in Atlanta and (glorious) Athens, GA))...

Wish there was a way we could pick the building up and put it somewhere along Lindell =/

Also, being back after a year in Afghanistan and spending time yesterday driving all over St. Louis with the top down, let me say again what beautiful city St. Louis is...Downtown was humming...So many manicured and attractive neighborhoods...And never hit anything close to Philly or Atlanta traffic...If this City does not grow and prosper, shame, shame on us all...

Hey Alex—reading your signature reminded me that I'm prematurely disappointed with the developers plans that I haven't seen yet in the future. hmmmmmm

Shadrach-
I agree, the funky potential of this place my be better harnessed in ATL just because of it being so auto-centric. Also, analogous to a home renovation,it is always cheaper to 'add-on' under the roof you already have, i.e. unfinished attic, than it is too build on an entirely new structure. Del-Taco could very easily expand it's indoor footprint, while keeping the iconic saucer profile. That massive roof is a sleeping asset.

^it goes back to signatures again. Make no small plans....

A little OT, but I feel this city (but not just limited to STL) is rife with small planners. And I'm not talking scale— you can 'stir mens hearts' in the smallest of spaces. Lack of harnessing the potential of this building being an example.

Posted this on my blog earlier today. In my opinion - there's no incentive for Davis to help save this, and no incentive for other aldermen to try to save it, so it will come down.


A Study in Incentives – St. Louis Aldermen

One of the key topics in marketing is understanding your customer – why do they buy, why don’t they buy, and what incentives can we, as marketers, use to influence these decisions. In urban circles, too much seems to focus things that need to be done because urbanists think it’s a good idea – not on what incentives the “customer” has to make a decision. Urbanism would be a lot more successful if we spent more time asking the fundamental question, “What’s in it for me?” and less time proselytizing about what we think the right decisions are.

One recent situation in St. Louis has sparked my interest as a study in incentives for a St. Louis Alderwoman. A developer wants to tear down a mid-century modern building and replace it with new, more pedestrian focused retail:

Of course, it’s not so simple. This building is in a historic preservation district, so in theory it needs to be reviewed and approved for demolition. There is a way around this – the Alderwoman for the area, Marlene Davis, has proposed an ordinance blighting the building and approving for demolition, along with another that would create a special tax district for the new development.

Rather than decry the nearly inevitable demolition of this building, let’s look at the incentives for the parties involved:

The Developer: Gets to tear down a building that doesn’t produce much income (and has a bankrupt tenant), and replace it with more and more modern space that will likely drive higher rents. On top of that, the taxpayers will help tear it down and finance the replacement. It’s a win, win, win situation for the developer. Of course, we’re all paying for something he’d like to do anyway. Even if the building is approved for demolition, this plot in the middle of a major university campus does not need tax financing to help pay for it.

Marlene Davis, Ward Alderwoman: Gets to point to “progress” in her ward. Likely promises of jobs created in the area (no matter that it’s retail and likely low paying). Keeps a wealthy constituent happy, producing potential reelection income in the future. The incentive for every alderman is to keep wealthy people who can make campaign contributions happy, no matter what the detriment to the city. The developers promise jobs and "the future," most of their voters simply don't care, and the rest of the city has no say in their continuing employment as an alderman.

There’s no real downside to a single alderman supporting demolition of anything in their ward - other than thousands of people in other wards getting upset at the demolition of this structure – people who don’t vote for them anyway. If I were an alderman in the current setup, and someone wanted to tear down a building in my ward, all my incentives are to allow it - if not provide assistance to help them do it.

The rest of the Board of Aldermen: Here’s my main point. 27 other people have absolutely no skin in the game, except maintaining the status quo. The reason “aldermanic courtesy” exists is that the incentive for all of them is to allow each of the other 27 to make their own decisions in their own wards, and to support their activities. Stand out against someone, and risk your own bills being debated. Defer to courtesy, and everyone gets their way. 28 cute little fiefdoms, all working on their own, with a few occasional larger issues that require some debate.

As is, the incentives for the members of the Board of Aldermen are to let each of their colleagues make their own decision, without any real debate or analysis of the impact on the city as a whole. There’s nothing in it for them if they oppose a “local” choice in another ward, so they don’t do it. They defer, over and over again. That’s no way to run a ward, and certainly no way to run a city.

By operating as independent fiefdoms, beholden to ~500 votes and the money it takes to garner those votes, the Board of Aldermen is completely broken. The incentives of each of the aldermen are not in line with those of the city, and certainly not in line with the majority of the city's population. Reduce the number of aldermen, make them accountable to larger, more diverse groups, and align their incentives with the overall performance of St. Louis, instead of a few deep-pocketed developers and well-connected interest groups.

'Aldermanic courtesy' or logrolling has been a way of politics pretty much everywhere for a very long time. I don't think it's appropriate for an aldermen to interfere with another in the absence of a basis for making such an objection. One of the few examples I can reference was the S. Grand McDonald's, where the proposed use violated previous plans and citizens were organized against it in the alderman's own ward. This situation does not exist.

The point of being an aldermen is this type of control over development in their respective wards. If local residents do not object then expecting a different outcome would be unrealistic. Say what you will about at-large elections or charter reform but they are not going to happen any time soon nor will they save this building and others. If people want to change opinion then they should form a PAC, lobby officials, and put out public information on the need for preservation.

St. Louis' historic preservation lobby is rather weak as people who do the work depend upon government contracts. You could say historic preservation is first about facilitating development with advocacy in second place. Who has a big say in development? Aldermen. There is no large independent exclusively membership-based advocacy organization doing this work. Until that happens others are only going to go so far.

This site is very automobile oriented, yet if that was a reason alone to not make piecemeal active transportation improvements then why didn't we keep the old Grand Avenue Bridge? I think it has the potential to spur transit usage and walking on this corridor. Replacing anti-urban building and infilling lots with new development would do the same. Maybe at some point during this process there could be discussions of modifying Grand itself to make it less an arterial? Honestly Grand Centre's Master Plan should include the entire street up to the bridge so this conversation can happen.

People can say it's unique architecture and perhaps in LA it would be more cherished. But I personally think it's not that big of a loss considering St. Louis' history of demolition. The fact that people are making a big deal about this building when the Admiral had no advocacy boggles my mind. If the building which replaces it has potential then I think people should put their energy into improving that rather than speculating on how this could be rehabbed as another drive thru. Driving as we do today is not going to be around for much longer. Cities that position themselves in that direction are going to be advantaged over those which do not.

^^Agree wholeheartedly with your point of view, especially "28 cute little fiefdoms". Damn well poetic.

But right now, I'm siding with Joe Huber.

Yes, this site features what I guess is Mid-Century architecture: a drive-thru for a real sh*tty taco chain, whose only contendable positive is serving both greasy burritos and crappy french fries to wasted SLU undergrads and bums at 3AM.

Seriously, when was the last time someone here ate there before hearing it was going down? Were you a student when you last ate there? My last taco there was maybe 8 years ago, and it gave me the craps the next day. The business sucks.

OK, so not the business, but the building? Yes, it's cute, in that it looks like a 1950s UFO movie set crashed into a bus stop. Sure is unique. But then again, it's a traffic nightmare, causing holdups on Grand constantly, including lots of late night partiers crowding in for a grease fix on their way home from penny pitchers. The site has honestly sucked for some time for those without an emotional attachment to it.

Am I in favor of blanket demo? No, of course not. I'm in favor of reconstruction only if the replacement project better serves the needs of the local community, and in a manner reflecting its urban location & local architectural aesthetics.

However, that may not be that hard a thing to do. With the reconstruction efforts of the Grand View Apartments / Council Towers already underway, this could be the most complimentary project possible to revitalize this relatively isolated pocket between such major roads. So I'm not ready to damn it yet, but to keep an open mind and to hear out all positions, then make my decision.

But that Del Taco? Let's be honest, it really sucks.

Buy it out and incorporate it into a better business, if you really want to. But let's not prohibit possible progress for the sake of it.

Why I oppose demolition of the Phillips 66/Del Taco building: http://nextstl.com/historic-preservatio ... ncil-plaza

Sign the petition to the Board of Aldermen here: http://www.change.org/petitions/i-oppos ... ncil-plaza

gone corporate wrote:^^Agree wholeheartedly with your point of view, especially "28 cute little fiefdoms". Damn well poetic.

But right now, I'm siding with Joe Huber.

But that Del Taco? Let's be honest, it really sucks.

To be clear, I agree. The Del Taco sucks, and personally, I feel no attachment to it. My issue is 100% about the process we go through to get this point, and to a lesser extent, using taxpayer moneys to finance this redevelopment. Let it stand on its own legs.

For Doug's comments about the point of being an alderman - I disagree completely. I don't want 28 aldermen with unlimited power in their own wards because everyone else is too afraid to object because it doesn't fall in their imaginary little box. There should be vigorous debate about something like this - electing to destroy a building that was purposefully put on the national historic register - not aldermanic courtesy.