To be sure, none of us are residents of the City of St. Louis. We are only residents of our ward, a small town equal to roughly 4% of the City of St. Louis (itself less than 15% of our metro area). It's insane that a city resident basically has no say in this because their alderman will not voice opposition to a demolition in another ward. This means that only 12,000 residents, maybe 4,000 of whom are eligible to vote can convince an alderperson to change course. Try getting a well-articulated movement off the ground with that few people in just a couple days. The system is broken.
Why does it make sense politically to listen to people who can't vote in your reelection if you have a developer proposing to improve the ward and the city's coffers? Why would an alderman take a stance when they have no benefit and could be punished by the group for going against tradition? Unless people here organize and provide incentives things wont change.
I think that's the point Alex, me, and others are trying to make. A system that encourages the behavior you outline is screwed up.doug wrote:Why does it make sense politically to listen to people who can't vote in your reelection if you have a developer proposing to improve the ward and the city's coffers? Why would an alderman take a stance when they have no benefit and could be punished by the group for going against tradition? Unless people here organize and provide incentives things wont change.
It's screwed up? I disagree. Shouldn't decisions largely be made by those that are affected most? IE, this issue more greatly affects those that live in Marlene Davis' ward and therefore it makes sense that they would have more of a say than outsiders.jmstokes wrote:I think that's the point Alex, me, and others are trying to make. A system that encourages the behavior you outline is screwed up.doug wrote:Why does it make sense politically to listen to people who can't vote in your reelection if you have a developer proposing to improve the ward and the city's coffers? Why would an alderman take a stance when they have no benefit and could be punished by the group for going against tradition? Unless people here organize and provide incentives things wont change.
Politics isn't as simple as many wish it would be. Check out the Mayor's poll on, "Which government should decide what issue" -- http://www.mayorslay.com/polls/20110623regulation.php
I disagree. That's taking far too small of a scope on any picture. Why not have the people who live next door be the only and final arbiters of every decision, then? Heck, the developer is affected most by this, so let him make the decision.
We're a city. We all live in this city - in different areas, but we all ultimately want a good, strong, productive city. Giving aldermen carte blanche to make every decision in their ward because it impacts their citizens most will only end up with small scale, small picture decision making that ignores the impact on the whole.
We're a city. We all live in this city - in different areas, but we all ultimately want a good, strong, productive city. Giving aldermen carte blanche to make every decision in their ward because it impacts their citizens most will only end up with small scale, small picture decision making that ignores the impact on the whole.
Oh really? The people that live in that ward should make most decisions concerning it. You haven't convinced me that the Del Taco issue is a St. Louis issue rather than a ward one. Try again.jmstokes wrote:I disagree. That's taking far too small of a scope on any picture. Why not have the people who live next door be the only and final arbiters of every decision, then? Heck, the developer is affected most by this, so let him make the decision.
We're a city. We all live in this city - in different areas, but we all ultimately want a good, strong, productive city. Giving aldermen carte blanche to make every decision in their ward because it impacts their citizens most will only end up with small scale, small picture decision making that ignores the impact on the whole.
Anyway, it's not like the people of the ward really have a say. It's the campaign contributors that do. How many of you who support the Del Taco building are contributing to Marlene Davis' campaign? Almost none of you I'm guessing. If you donated more money than the developer, you'd have a chance.
How much say does Ward 17 have in this decision? It's across the street. Seems like Joe Roddy should have equal say.
In as much as this decision will use taxpayer funds for the redevelopment, it's a city wide issue. From looking at Marlene Davis' ward map, other than SLU earnings tax, she sure isn't pulling in the tax dollars. The problem, as I see it, isn't just this one issue. It's that for every similar issue the city uses the same process, and can trot out the same defense.
As far as the Del Taco goes, burn it. Just don't use a flawed process to get to the point of demolishing it (blight, aldermanic courtesy, and taxpayer funded redevelopment).
In as much as this decision will use taxpayer funds for the redevelopment, it's a city wide issue. From looking at Marlene Davis' ward map, other than SLU earnings tax, she sure isn't pulling in the tax dollars. The problem, as I see it, isn't just this one issue. It's that for every similar issue the city uses the same process, and can trot out the same defense.
As far as the Del Taco goes, burn it. Just don't use a flawed process to get to the point of demolishing it (blight, aldermanic courtesy, and taxpayer funded redevelopment).
I'm pretty sure that's the point I made earlier. Aldermen are beholden to their incentivizers, which are developers/interests/etc that pay them money.innov8ion wrote:Anyway, it's not like the people of the ward really have a say. It's the campaign contributors that do. How many of you who support the Del Taco building are contributing to Marlene Davis' campaign? Almost none of you I'm guessing. If you donated more money than the developer, you'd have a chance.
1. Developers give money to Aldermen for election
2. Wards are small with only a handful of developers/interests in each
3. Aldermen get aldermanic courtesy to make decisions carte blanche
4. As a result, it's really cheap to buy an alderman. Like $1000, max. That's a broken system.
Do we really want to continue with a bought democracy that's so easy to exploit?
What's stopping preservationists from collecting money and working the same system that developers do? There are over 5000 people who liked the "Save the Saucer" fan page and over 1000 signatures on the petition. Put your money where your mouth is, I say.jmstokes wrote:I'm pretty sure that's the point I made earlier. Aldermen are beholden to their incentivizers, which are developers/interests/etc that pay them money.innov8ion wrote:Anyway, it's not like the people of the ward really have a say. It's the campaign contributors that do. How many of you who support the Del Taco building are contributing to Marlene Davis' campaign? Almost none of you I'm guessing. If you donated more money than the developer, you'd have a chance.
1. Developers give money to Aldermen for election
2. Wards are small with only a handful of developers/interests in each
3. Aldermen get aldermanic courtesy to make decisions carte blanche
4. As a result, it's really cheap to buy an alderman. Like $1000, max. That's a broken system.
Do we really want to continue with a bought democracy that's so easy to exploit?
Here's the skinny: St. Louis needs a progressive / urbanist Political Action Committee (PAC) that contributes to candidates who support its general ideas and are committed to some local governmental reform, progressive urban development, complete streets, transparency, responsible use of tax incentives, etc.
If everyone who signed the petition to save Del Taco also contributed $10 we would be well on our way to influencing the outcome of elections and influencing the decisions of elected officials.
Money gives you a seat at the table - it sucks, but its the current system and if you want to achieve your goals you have to get in the game. You aren't going to win every fight, but at least you'll be presenting your ideas to the people who vote, and shaping opinions over time.
Most of the BoA has not read Jane Jacobs.
Its no harder than forming a candidate committee - which a rookie like me was able to handle. I'm throwing this challenge in front of you, someone pick it up.
http://www.localvictory.com/fundraising ... ittee.html
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
If everyone who signed the petition to save Del Taco also contributed $10 we would be well on our way to influencing the outcome of elections and influencing the decisions of elected officials.
Money gives you a seat at the table - it sucks, but its the current system and if you want to achieve your goals you have to get in the game. You aren't going to win every fight, but at least you'll be presenting your ideas to the people who vote, and shaping opinions over time.
Most of the BoA has not read Jane Jacobs.
Its no harder than forming a candidate committee - which a rookie like me was able to handle. I'm throwing this challenge in front of you, someone pick it up.
http://www.localvictory.com/fundraising ... ittee.html
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
My biggest problem with all of this: we're ready to throw away an existing building with no idea of what will replace it, or when. In a city full of vacant lots (with many in Midtown itself) this is silly.
And as many have already said, I don't see how anything built here could really be pedestrian-friendly.
And as many have already said, I don't see how anything built here could really be pedestrian-friendly.
^ thisward24stl wrote:Here's the skinny: St. Louis needs a progressive / urbanist Political Action Committee (PAC) that contributes to candidates who support its general ideas and are committed to some local governmental reform, progressive urban development, complete streets, transparency, responsible use of tax incentives, etc.
If everyone who signed the petition to save Del Taco also contributed $10 we would be well on our way to influencing the outcome of elections and influencing the decisions of elected officials.
Money gives you a seat at the table - it sucks, but its the current system and if you want to achieve your goals you have to get in the game. You aren't going to win every fight, but at least you'll be presenting your ideas to the people who vote, and shaping opinions over time.
Most of the BoA has not read Jane Jacobs.
Its no harder than forming a candidate committee - which a rookie like me was able to handle. I'm throwing this challenge in front of you, someone pick it up.
http://www.localvictory.com/fundraising ... ittee.html
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
- 11K
This is such a ridiculous statement and shows a blind faith in the process as it stands. The idea, that if you don't like something, the only recourse is to do that same thing, but just bigger and better (or badder) than others is just simply wrong. The playing field isn't level, it's not even tilted. It's closed.innov8ion wrote:What's stopping preservationists from collecting money and working the same system that developers do? There are over 5000 people who liked the "Save the Saucer" fan page and over 1000 signatures on the petition. Put your money where your mouth is, I say.
I mean, really, REALLY? If you care about this issue you should simply put up a few hundred, heck, a few thousand dollars and have a group of a hundred plus individuals purchase the building? What? What should be done with the building then?
I guess the 99% of us who have neither the means nor the inclination to buy a building or run for Alderman should just shut up. This makes zero sense. It's the exact opposite of what makes for a healthy, vibrant community. Should we not have an opinion on streets unless we can purchase and pave them ourselves? What about parks? Schools? Crazy.
I would also very much disagree that those most affected by potential demo, this site either way, are in the 19th Ward. What percent of traffic on Grand is solely from the 19th Ward? What percentage of people eating at Del Taco are from the 19th Ward? What percentage of people who see the building are from the 19th Ward? How many students at SLU are registered to vote in the 19th Ward? Most voices of those affected by this issue are set to be ignored.
- 3,762
yep. BPV, Skyhouse, Citywalk, Lumiere phase II (R.I.P. Mississippi Nights), the corner of Forest Park and Laclede, etc... some alderpeople never seem to get it: demolition + no plan + no financing = strip mall or long-term vacant lot. or else they do get it and they're willing to risk the city for campaign contributions.rbeedee wrote:My biggest problem with all of this: we're ready to throw away an existing building with no idea of what will replace it, or when. In a city full of vacant lots (with many in Midtown itself) this is silly.
And as many have already said, I don't see how anything built here could really be pedestrian-friendly.
- 453
If the site is to be cleared of the building, it would be nice to move it elsewhere particluarly onto a Route 66 location. I don't think that is too far-fectched of an idea and while I think the building could easily be integrated into a well-thought out redevelopment plan for the present site. While not ideal and wouldn't help out the taco lovers amongst us, it could be a satisfactory way to satisfy the preservationists and developers.
Of course, it would take some time to identify a new owner/ relocation plan, but as Route 66 went through just about every street in the Saint Louis are (only a slight exaggeration!) there are a lot of potential spots. How about a new visitors center for the Old Chain of Rocks Bridge? Or the global headquarters of Modern Saint Louis to be located on Chippewa and Gustine where the old Steak-n-Shake was? Or on Choteau?
Of course, it would take some time to identify a new owner/ relocation plan, but as Route 66 went through just about every street in the Saint Louis are (only a slight exaggeration!) there are a lot of potential spots. How about a new visitors center for the Old Chain of Rocks Bridge? Or the global headquarters of Modern Saint Louis to be located on Chippewa and Gustine where the old Steak-n-Shake was? Or on Choteau?
- 11K
From the Mayor's Blog:
The Del Taco
The former gas station – now fast-food restaurant – is not everyone’s idea of an historic building. For one thing, it is not very old. For another, it looks like a spaceship. Still, its current owner thought enough of it that he included it in an application asking that it and several other buildings nearby be considered as a whole for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. That application was reviewed favorably by the Cultural Resources Office, the city’s Preservation Board, the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office, and the National Park Service.
Being listed on the National Register gave the owner access to development tools and incentives that made a difficult and expensive rehabilitation task on the buildings economically feasible.
Now, as the project moves forward, the owner has asked for city legislation that would allow him to apply for a demolition permit for one of the buildings, the Del Taco, without the review of the Preservation Board. Although this is a request anticipated and allowed by the city’s preservation ordinances, it is still problematic. A more reasonable use for a blighting ordinance is to aid neighborhood revitalization by allowing some flexibility in demolishing problem properties. It is not clear to me that the Del Taco building falls into the same category. Unlike many, many others, it seems to have the potential for use and re-use.
A committee of the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority has already passed a resolution approving the plan. A committee of the Board of Aldermen and then the entire Board must also approve it. They may. Or they may not. At the very least, I hope that aldermen include a provision in the plan that bars the use of any public funds for reimbursement for the demolition of this particular building or compensation/relocation of its tenant.
Whatever they believe “aldermanic courtesy” requires, I hope that aldermen take notice of the building’s popularity, particularly among younger residents for whom buildings of the 1950s and 1960s really are old buildings. If aldermen, after mature consideration, approve a plan that allows the demolition of the Del Taco building and the developer subsequently applies for a demolition permit, I will ask Cultural Resources Office director Betsy Bradley to review the permit and make a professional recommendation to the Preservation Board about further action.
Before any of that happens, however, perhaps the developer might consider some of the many ideas offered for its reuse. After all, many of those ideas are coming from students of the university across the street.
I will keep you posted.
- 8,924
2 comments
Are posters really suggesting moving the "spaceship"?????? Think about that logistically for a second.
In St. Louis, we make a big stink about demolitions because something better rarely if ever gets built out.
Are posters really suggesting moving the "spaceship"?????? Think about that logistically for a second.
In St. Louis, we make a big stink about demolitions because something better rarely if ever gets built out.
Not trying to be a cynic, but where is the Mayor when much more historically significant buildings are up for demolition?
I can't help but think that if it wasn't for a bunch of SLU alumni with fond memories of the place raising a stink, the Mayor would not have even made a comment.
Maybe I've missed the Mayor's public comments about the San Luis, etc. etc., so I'm trying to figure out what he gains by vocalizing his position on this demolition.
Whatever the case, it's nice to see I guess...maybe this could lead to some fundamental changes in the system.
I can't help but think that if it wasn't for a bunch of SLU alumni with fond memories of the place raising a stink, the Mayor would not have even made a comment.
Maybe I've missed the Mayor's public comments about the San Luis, etc. etc., so I'm trying to figure out what he gains by vocalizing his position on this demolition.
Whatever the case, it's nice to see I guess...maybe this could lead to some fundamental changes in the system.
- 453
While I don't suggest moving the mothership, it isn't that much of a logistical challenge. This is a relatively small building and there are structure relocation specialists for historic buildings... this one could be a relative breeze. Earlier Saint Louisans removed Henry Shaw's town home brick by brick per his instructions after his death and reassembled them on his Garden grounds. Now that was a challenge! But not quite of a challenge as the modern relocation of the two temples of Ramses II to avoid the Aswan High Dam.... google Abu Simbel. I can't even imagine how they did that!moorlander wrote: Are posters really suggesting moving the "spaceship"?????? Think about that logistically for a second.
While not ideal, moving the spaceship could be an imperfect solution of last resort. But the real point is let's use creativity to preserve our past and make a better future.
Has Historic Preservation Become a Spectator Sport?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-a ... 83034.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-a ... 83034.html
"To Boldly Go Where No Del Taco Has Gone Before"
Slay and Davis on a mission
Slay and Davis on a mission
As the discussion continues, it seems clear that in order to preserve this iconic building, its adaptation to re-purposed use may be ultimately necessary. This is what I believe is likely best, otherwise it would remain a drive-thru fry shack or a pile of concrete rubble on the ground by way of Spirtas. A new blog, called "What Should Be", is dedicated to presenting proposals for visible built urban environment problems in the city of St. Louis. It is a young blog, intended to evolve into a more significant website, but a graphic post on the Del Taco building today will undoubtedly help further the discussion of the preservation of the mid-century building. Please visit http://www.whatshouldbestl.com.
- 11K
^ Very cool. In some cases, including this one, I think that "what should be" is what is. But a grand repurposing would be cool as well. My fear is that it takes away from what made the building unique - think Spanish Pavilion and Ballpark Hilton.