Tapatalk

Grand Avenue Del Taco Threatened With Demolition

Grand Avenue Del Taco Threatened With Demolition

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostJun 22, 2011#1

Developer plans a retail development in place of the iconic building. Not sure how I feel about this. I would like to see renderings on what is being proposed before the demo.


A Midtown St. Louis landmark may soon be coming down.
Developer Rick Yackey plans to demolish the distinctive flying-saucer-shaped Del Taco at N. Grand and Forest Park Parkway, near St. Louis University, and replace it with new retail buildings, a city development official said Tuesday.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... f6878.html

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJun 22, 2011#2

Seems to me there are plenty of empty lots or surface parking very close to that site.

722
Senior MemberSenior Member
722

PostJun 22, 2011#3

RIP one of SLU's most legendary landmarks.

I mean don't get me wrong, this is probably way better for the area. That place was shady as ***** and Del Taco isn't even that good (in my opinion, anyway).

Still, so many drunken after-hour memories there. Next thing you know they're gonna tear down Shady Shell across the street.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostJun 22, 2011#4

i might be picking nits, but "more pedestrian-oriented" than Del Taco isn't saying much. i hope we don't see a sidewalk-facing parking lot in front of this retail development. as much as i hate all the concrete around Del Taco, it will be sad to see the building go... especially if the replacement is as generic as i suspect it will be.

so the only other Del Taco in STL is at Skinker and Clayton, right?

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJun 22, 2011#5

Damn!

274
Full MemberFull Member
274

PostJun 22, 2011#6

I had heard they were looking on putting a CVS there.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostJun 22, 2011#7

So will this development be suburban or urban? Hmm...

2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostJun 22, 2011#8

kustramo wrote:I had heard they were looking on putting a CVS there.
What, did Walgreens pull out? :wink:

453
Full MemberFull Member
453

PostJun 22, 2011#9

hey, that would be a good location for an "IKEA Express"

2,190
Life MemberLife Member
2,190

PostJun 22, 2011#10

Roger Wyoming wrote:hey, that would be a good location for an "IKEA Express"
If they'd just leave the building as it is, it would be a perfect "satellite" location for almost anything, no?

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 22, 2011#11

Yep. It should be saved. Some things inherently un-urban are still worth preserving.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJun 22, 2011#12

Alex Ihnen wrote:Yep. It should be saved. Some things inherently un-urban are still worth preserving.
I don't see why it should be saved. Just because it looks weird? I'm no expert but it doesn't look that ripe for adaptive reuse IMHO.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 22, 2011#13

I don't care about consensus, and no one's going to want to save it simply because it looks "weird". One person's "weird" is another's history, story, landmark, sense of place. Not to mention that the process being used to pursue demo is questionable. Whatever one thinks, this site isn't "blighted".

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJun 22, 2011#14

I'd much rather see the Church;s Chicken at Delmar and Skinker blighted in a questionable manner as it sticks out like a sore thumb. The flying saucer is an icon like the big Amoco sign at Clayton and Skinker. Neither are particularly urban, but don't ruin an otherwise mostly intact urban streetscape like the Church's and worth keeping I think. I like the suacer. It makes me think of a 1950s drive-in diner. A Sonic would be better for it than the Del Taco.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostJun 22, 2011#15

Alex Ihnen wrote:I don't care about consensus, and no one's going to want to save it simply because it looks "weird". One person's "weird" is another's history, story, landmark, sense of place. Not to mention that the process being used to pursue demo is questionable. Whatever one thinks, this site isn't "blighted".
"Blight" is a grey area so it's nearly impossible to say there is no blight. From what I understand, the spot will be missed mainly by drunk SLU alumni. The variety of retail in the plan seems to provide much more utility to area residents than is there currently. Seems like a good plan to me.

3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostJun 22, 2011#16

It has to be declared blighted to get tax incentives. Aldermen blight buildings all the time. Downtown St. Louis was blighted in the early 1970s.

I would like to see a site plan.

6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostJun 22, 2011#17

innov8ion wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote:Yep. It should be saved. Some things inherently un-urban are still worth preserving.
I don't see why it should be saved. Just because it looks weird? I'm no expert but it doesn't look that ripe for adaptive reuse IMHO.
Well, it's already been adaptively reused at least twice, so maybe it is.

453
Full MemberFull Member
453

PostJun 22, 2011#18

It just got some KSDK love.

2,093
Life MemberLife Member
2,093

PostJun 23, 2011#19

^KSDK huh? Did they refer to the Del Taco as located "downtown"? :)

There's also a Facebook page for saving it--up to 2400 "likes" already

It's an interesting building. Even if it isn't all that "urban"

8,922
Life MemberLife Member
8,922

PostJun 23, 2011#20

Damn, this really sucks!

339
Full MemberFull Member
339

PostJun 23, 2011#21

innov8ion wrote:
Alex Ihnen wrote:I don't care about consensus, and no one's going to want to save it simply because it looks "weird". One person's "weird" is another's history, story, landmark, sense of place. Not to mention that the process being used to pursue demo is questionable. Whatever one thinks, this site isn't "blighted".
"Blight" is a grey area so it's nearly impossible to say there is no blight. From what I understand, the spot will be missed mainly by drunk SLU alumni. The variety of retail in the plan seems to provide much more utility to area residents than is there currently. Seems like a good plan to me.
Seems like there are a lot of empty lots in the area that need to be filled before another building is torn down.

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostJun 23, 2011#22

P-D writeup from Tim Logan: Earth to Del Taco: Don't leave us

Is it just me, or is this:
Alderman Marlene Davis, whose ward includes the site, said she generally agreed with the plan, though she hadn't been briefed on its specifics since a broader plan for neighboring Council Towers was approved in 2008. The area needs more shopping opportunities, she said, and, barring unusual circumstances, people have the right to tear down buildings that they own.

"I support the development plan that (Yackey) showed me, which includes new retail," she said. "I'm not part of the decision-making process of what you may keep or change.
About the last thing you want to hear from a city alderman? Am I off-base here?

-RBB

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 23, 2011#23

It's absolutely true. It's up to the community to express what buildings it values and work to save them. This is done through historic designation, zoning and other means. In this case, the Del Taco building does carry historic designation, so demo isn't automatic.

38
New MemberNew Member
38

PostJun 23, 2011#24

I am going to be quite honest in what I think about this. I say they level the thing.

* People are quick to criticize the retail that would be built there, which has been dubbed pedestrian-friendly. Let's be honest, anything put on that site would be more pedestrian friendly than it is now, after all it was formerly a gas station. Also, the site is right along Grand, Forest Park Parkway, and Highway 40. And with Del Taco being there, the site is even more dangerous for pedestrians and drivers.

* It's Del Taco for God sakes. I mean it is not like they are tearing down Ted Drewes or Gus's Pretzels.

* Finally, it is time to return to reality. We can't save everything. I am not for tearing everything down, but let's be real about what is actually historic and what isn't. Gas stations are not historic. I am sick of urbanites thinking we need to save everything. Well guess what, if we try to save everything we are never going to be able to improve our society. How do you think New York and Chicago became great cities? It wasn't by trying to save everything they had.

I can't wait to see this building come down, anything will be an improvement than what is there now.

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostJun 23, 2011#25

It's important to preserve but we can't let it get in the way of progress.

Read more posts (255 remaining)