urbanSTL

I recently was in a tech rehearsal at Grandel Theatre. Came out to find my window busted in, and the keyhole in the drivers side pryed with a screwdriver. f**kers didn't take a thing, but instead gave me almost a Grand in damage... no pun intended. Speaking of Grandel, can someone tell me why there is an empty vaudeville house (The Sun) in the "Theatre District" that is crumbling into dust? Does Grand Center light up the neon sign to give the illusion that there is life there? Is the Sun going to have the same fate as the Ambassador?

That building wasn't a theatre. It's just a facade. So yes, it is just to give the illusion.

Actually it was originally a theatre. It was originally built as an all-german theatre producing the popular Brechtian plays completely spoken in German. Obviously there wasn't much of a demand for that, so it quickly went under. It was then turned into a vaudville house, and then a movie house, and then a church. I know someone who got to go in there a couple years back. The roof has caved in over the balcony and the trees you can see on the roof are actually growing out of the balcony. Such a shame. Such a waste. If it were salvagable, somebody should fix it up to use by a resident theatre company as opposed to touring talent from other cities. We have the talent here in STL. We just don't have the funding.



I just was wondering if anyone knows of it's fate...

You're right, I'm getting my histories of places mixed up. What I meant to say is it was never the Sun Theatre. There was a proposal in years past to move that facade onto a new building, and tear down the existing building, but that seems to have languished with all the other plans for Grand Center.

Or, there seems to be no shortage of vision and grand plans for the district but a challenge to getting a ladder up to the clouds.



Maybe there isn't a shortage of the theater/performing arts in St. Louis but a lack of resolve by citizens and patrons to fully embrace the district as its arts district? Buy in? Sense of ownership?

The New York Times has a fascinating article today about how colleges and universities nationwide are trying to create urban neighborhoods in order to cater to student interests. Apparently urbanism is the new thing for budding college students.



Can somebody pass this on to the good folks at SLU?



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/educa ... r=homepage

bonwich wrote:I can't argue with how good the campus now looks, but SLU consciously took an approach -- someone else used the word "fortress," which is the same word I use -- that was completely different than, say, Wash U. And having grown up in U. City, I can attest that the neighborhoods north of the Loop and in Skinker-DeBaliviere had spots every bit as rough as the areas immediately north of SLU. Probably even more so, because north of SLU was largely uninhabited. Wash U reached out and help redevelop; SLU enclosed itself. 25 years later, I think it's clear whether the Loop or Grand Center had the better long-term result.

I know this is an older post, but I'd like to comment. Yes, Wash U had rough spots to the north of the Loop, but there is/was a buffer of a couple of blocks between Wash U and Delmar for starters. Also, the other borders around Wash U are Forest Park, the city of Clayton and the valuable properties both to the south and along Lindell. Not exactly the ghetto. SLU didn't have those favorible borders. When I went to SLU, before the "fortress" was built, the campus was labeled the most dangerous in the country by a national publication.



For those who don't remember or weren't there, the immediate east, west, and north were all ghetto while to the south you had train tracks, abandoned warehouses and social service buildings. When the actual "fortress" was built there were low-income homes between Compton and Jefferson. West of Vandeventer was filled with boarded up buildings. As for the north, I'm not sure which specific area you are referring to Bonwich as largely uninhabitated, but north of Lindell was filled with brick row houses. Many of these homes still exist today. In the 90s this area had significant gang activity. Regardless, the SLU borders really started to go up around 1992-93, not in the early 80s. In the early 90s Park and, I believe, Spring were closed and other nearby properties were gobbled up.



By the way, for the Biondi-bashers, SLU was offered free land to move the university outside of the city but Biondi stayed. He deserves some credit.

JJCoolbean wrote:By the way, for the Biondi-bashers, SLU was offered free land to move the university outside of the city but Biondi stayed. He deserves some credit.

I believe it was Fr. Reinert who decided to stay in the city.

Also, when the book named SLU the most dangerous campus, this was well after the fortress already was well underway. University House was gone, the mall was extended to Vandy, the heinous clocktower already erected, Clark's was shut down, and the bank was demolished (or in the process).



By the way, that book did not use campus crime stats, so it was no reflection on the actual safety of campus. It used only FBI crime figures for counties, which as we all know are unfairly skewed against city-counties like St. Louis and Baltimore. If I remember correctly, SLU was most dangerous, and just down Lindell, Wash U. was something like the 350th most dangerous thanks to being in the County, barely.



Only slightly related: My favorite SLU ranking is one I first heard from an old Jesuit (Holy Cross grad, I think) at my high school when he was disappointed to learn so many of my class, including me, would be going there: "Ah, St. Louis University. The finest institution of higher learning west of the Mississippi River... and east of Skinker."

There is a fascinating history between the 1904 World's Fair, Wash U and U. City.

"Ah, St. Louis University. The finest institution of higher learning west of the Mississippi River... and east of Skinker."

I'm sure he was referring to the U High right?

Believe it or not, the pace of progress is a little faster than it has been.



The problem? IMHO, not a single resident-led, grassroots neighborhood association to balance the abundance of institutions (higher-ed, nonprofit, health, religion, cultural, etc...). Grand Center is a real estate development corporation and not a neighborhood association.



Institutions are always about maintaining the status quo and Grand Center has so many to work with.

I find it hard to believe Grand Center wants to maintain the status quo. Unless a legitimate developer wanted to build outside the current land use plan why would Grand Center discourage it? If I remember correctly they were unable to block the Scottish Rite garage from being built even thought it should have been stopped or at the very least been of a better design.

dutchtowner wrote:Also, when the book named SLU the most dangerous campus, this was well after the fortress already was well underway. University House was gone, the mall was extended to Vandy, the heinous clocktower already erected, Clark's was shut down, and the bank was demolished (or in the process).

I began attending SLU in 1992. In that year the school was named the most dangerous in the country. First, the campus did NOT extend to Vandeventer at that time. Between SLU and Vandeventer were several buildings not owned by SLU. There wasn’t a Trova Sculpture Park or Student Village as the campus did not extend that far west. The clock tower had NOT been erected as Spring and West Pine were still accessible by car. You literally could drive right in front of Xavier Hall. The bank on Grand had NOT been demolished as Parks College was still in Cahokia at that time. I had an account there! SLU didn’t buy it until around 1994 or somewhere around there. Next to the bank you had a Chinese restaurant and a Jack In The Box. All three were still in business. Behind Busch Center the campus basically extended to the soccer field. Beyond that was low-income housing. A lot of cars parked in that area were broken into and robbed. A friend of mine didn’t want to buy a parking pass and so he used to park in that area. He went to his car one day and found his window broken, his radio stolen, and his glove compartment torn open and robbed. I’m not sure about University House as I don’t recall that specific building. I’m also not sure what you mean by Clark’s.



Anywho, by the time I left SLU four years later, Spring and West Pine were blocked off so that your favorite clock tower could be built. Lots of fence with OPEN gates were built. (By the way, it DOES make sense from a security standpoint to restrict access. It’s much easier to regulate and identify suspicious persons when you can focus on a few concentrated areas instead of the entire campus.) Finally, a LOT of property was purchased and sculpture was added. I am pleased to say that I was there when the Dolphin statue was built. Yes, we didn’t quite “get it” back then either.



The campus dramatically changed in my four years there. It went from a campus filled with dangerously unprotected spots and easy access from outsiders, who DID venture onto campus from time to time, to a much more controlled environment. As a student there during that transition, I’m telling you guys that there was a tangible upgrade in the comfort and satisfaction of the student body at that time. We’re talking about SLU at the height of its security concerns to a secure campus where students felt they could actually leave their dorms and walk to their classes without being accosted or worse.



The early to mid 1990s were a great time to be a student at SLU. Charlie Spoonhour was the basketball coach and Brian McBride, arguably SLU’s greatest ever soccer player, was scoring goals at a phenomenal rate. And with the student body suddenly feeling safe on campus after years of reluctance to even leave you dorm room at night, it really was tough for a lot of us to move on into the next phase of life.

dutchtowner wrote:By the way, that book did not use campus crime stats, so it was no reflection on the actual safety of campus. It used only FBI crime figures for counties, which as we all know are unfairly skewed against city-counties like St. Louis and Baltimore. If I remember correctly, SLU was most dangerous, and just down Lindell, Wash U. was something like the 350th most dangerous thanks to being in the County, barely.

I don't quite follow your point. Yes, SLU's numbers were skewed by its surroundings. Thus, they bought up a lot of property which stretched the campus to Vandeventer and its other borders, closed off some streets and put up your favorite clock tower. Isn’t that the point of restricting access for the campus? At the time I worked at Busch Center (which was MUCH smaller in those days, by the way) and I dealt with a lot of the security people and they were very busy. As far as complaints against SLU students, the numbers I saw at the time had the small area community colleges and even Washington University with more incidents. But there were plenty of incidents against SLU student’s off-campus.



I personally heard from students who were mugged, had their cars broken into and I witnessed a group of neighborhood thugs making racial statements against Middle Eastern and Asian students. There used to be a Chinese restaurant right next to the bank that, again, was still standing and operating in 1992. I remember going there for lunch and some neighborhood punks were intimating the Chinese staff and shouting expletives and threats to anyone who even looked their way. I used to box and I just wanted to go right after the guys but I thought one of them had a guy in his jacket so I chickened out.

DeBaliviere wrote:I believe it was Fr. Reinert who decided to stay in the city.

As for Biondi being the man responsible for keeping SLU in midtown, I was told this by Michael Garanzini who is now president of Loyola University of Chicago. Perhaps he was incorrect and it was Father Reinert. Does anyone have any proof one way or the other? Personally, I'm curious.



I don’t have a problem with criticisms of SLU. My issue with Bonwich, whose work in the Post I enjoy by the way, is with his assertion that Wash U’s immediate surroundings were similar to SLU at the time the later emphasized campus security. Clayton ain’t Compton Avenue circa 1992! Remember guys, nearby Gaslight Square failed in the mid 1960s because of crime concerns. Even today you’ve got a nearby automobile related company that has complained of robberies since opening in 2002. In the early 1990s the concerns of students and administrators were probably at their peak.



As for Father Biondi, Dutchtowner, I don’t have a problem with criticism directed at him either. But it seems to me that some choose to make him the scapegoat without regard given to tangible evidence. For instance, see the often repeated comments on this forum regarding Biondi and midtown development which seem to infer that, because Biondi has turned SLU into a fortress, he has actively and intentionally sabotaged midtown development. In my opinion, this is flawed logic because it is based on a flawed premise. Biondi and company didn’t build a fortress for grins, they built it because of serious security concerns. This is what they said at the time, there is evidence such as the national campus security report and citywide crime security figures that support this, and even if you disagree with the decision, there is a logic to it.



I find it interesting that many of the people who criticize SLU’s emphasis on the security of its students from those who would trespass onto their private grounds seem to have a different standard when it comes to the homeless people using public grounds and the very presence of shelters near Washington Avenue. Why do the lofts on Washington Avenue have secure parking, dog parks and pools on many of their roofs? C’mon Washington Avenue, that’s not very inviting. Why the fortress? Can’t a brother take a dip? So each of these lofts is its own fortress, but people still venture out into the streets because there are actually things that they want to do and a push towards development. By the way, SLU does own some additional properties outside of the “fortress.” They have opened a lot of apartment housing, in additional to the dorms, which only encourages older students to live in midtown. Some business people, such as Harmon Mosley, have catered to SLU and found success. SLU may not have the academic reputation of Washington University (though it is the second rated school in the state academically, Dutchtowner) but I do believe the students understand how to walk through one of the many open gates and into midtown. The question is where SHOULD they go? What is there to do? Hopefully the new developments near the new campus arena will give them a real destination.



Maybe one day Bonwich can pull a Ronald Regan and give a speech outside of a section of fence and demand, “Tear down the wall, Father Biondi!” Maybe even Dutchtowner should say something like, “Icn bin ein Biliken” just before Bonwich takes the podium.

I used to box and I just wanted to go right after the guys but I thought one of them had a guy in his jacket so I chickened out.

Clearly, you are confusing the Chinese restaurant with Mag's.

As for Biondi being the man responsible for keeping SLU in midtown, I was told this by Michael Garanzini who is now president of Loyola University of Chicago. Perhaps he was incorrect and it was Father Reinert. Does anyone have any proof one way or the other? Personally, I'm curious.

I don't know what you mean by "proof," but there's simply never been any talk of SLU moving since Biondi was there. I think the last serious flirtation with moving was before the east-of-Grand part of campus was built.

My issue with Bonwich, whose work in the Post I enjoy by the way, is with his assertion that Wash U’s immediate surroundings were similar to SLU at the time the later emphasized campus security.

Well then I'm glad we don't disagree, because my exact post was

The assertion that SLU and Wash U had and have disparate adjoining neighborhoods is correct, but misses the larger picture: Wash U jumped over Ames Place, which was single-family residential and not applicable to student housing, and took a lead role in redeveloping the multi-family part of the Loop and similar stock in Skinker DeBaliviere. (Not to mention its much earlier activities in reviving the CWE north of the Wash. U. med school.) And believe me, Eastgate and Clemens and Cates in the late '70s were every bit as deteriorating as Westminster and Olive and Washington near SLU.

For instance, see the often repeated comments on this forum regarding Biondi and midtown development which seem to infer that, because Biondi has turned SLU into a fortress, he has actively and intentionally sabotaged midtown development. In my opinion, this is flawed logic because it is based on a flawed premise. Biondi and company didn’t build a fortress for grins, they built it because of serious security concerns. This is what they said at the time, there is evidence such as the national campus security report and citywide crime security figures that support this, and even if you disagree with the decision, there is a logic to it.

Grand Center has been under redevelopment since what, the original rehab of the Fox? Unlike Wash U, which jumped in head first into a neighborhood (the Loop) that was a good mile away and in need of the demand generated by a college community, SLU shied away from, and some might say actively discouraged participation, a neighborhood (Grand Center) that directly bordered it. As I asked about 30 posts ago in this thread -- which turned out better, the Loop or Grand Center?

what's with all the War and Peace posts? I didn't have enough time to read the novel above.. sorry.

I find it hard to believe Grand Center wants to maintain the status quo. Unless a legitimate developer wanted to build outside the current land use plan why would Grand Center discourage it?

Ask the Gills about that question... Grand Center should just HAND OVER the whole area to them and let them redevelop it imop.

JJCoolbean wrote:I began attending SLU in 1992. In that year the school was named the most dangerous in the country. First, the campus did NOT extend to Vandeventer at that time. Between SLU and Vandeventer were several buildings not owned by SLU.

Not true.



The book you are talking about is "Crime at College: the Student Guide to Personal Safety." According to Amazon, it was published in August 1994 by "New Strategist Pubns Inc," which also jives with my memory. That was post West Pine shut down, post clocktower. I was mistaken that the bank wasn't taken down until '95, one year later.

JJCoolbean wrote:I’m also not sure what you mean by Clark’s.

Clark's was the bar at Spring and Laclede that a powerful neighbor nudged into closing. It was followed in that space by a series of coffee houses with varying degrees of success until the building was demolished to make room for grass.

JJCoolbean wrote:I don't quite follow your point. Yes, SLU's numbers were skewed by its surroundings. Thus, they bought up a lot of property which stretched the campus to Vandeventer and its other borders, closed off some streets and put up your favorite clock tower.

My point was simple. The book was junk statistics, and was not a reflection in any way on the safety of campus. If the same book was published again today, using the same state, SLU still might be number 1.



The book based its ranking entirely on the crime stats for the county where the the college was located. Crime on campus and crime near campus had no bearing on SLU's ranking in the book. If the university was located in St. Louis Hills, it would have had the same ranking.

JJCoolbean wrote:I personally heard from students who were mugged.

Maybe you heard from me. I was mugged while at SLU during those years.

JJCoolbean wrote:There used to be a Chinese restaurant right next to the bank that, again, was still standing and operating in 1992.

Yep. Golden Dynasty was a wonderful cheap lunch for students and staff. Too bad SLU ripped it down to replace it with... grass. Along with Bullfeathers, and 20 North, and the original Vito's.

JJCoolbean wrote:
As for Biondi being the man responsible for keeping SLU in midtown, I was told this by Michael Garanzini who is now president of Loyola University of Chicago. Perhaps he was incorrect and it was Father Reinert. Does anyone have any proof one way or the other?

I doubt Mike Garanzini was mistaken. He may have been telling an untruth for some jesuitical reasons we couldn't possibly understand. Or you might have misunderstood him.



As far as proof goes, I don't have any, yet. But he may have written about it in his memoirs. The idea of moving was before SLU expanded east of Grand in a big way, and old man Busch's millions helped Father Reinert make the case to stay to those trustees who favored a move.

JJCoolbean wrote:For instance, see the often repeated comments on this forum regarding Biondi and midtown development which seem to infer that, because Biondi has turned SLU into a fortress, he has actively and intentionally sabotaged midtown development.

I don't think he has intended to make Midtown worse. He targeted several neighborhood businesses that were not affecting "security," purchased them and ripped the buildings down. He had none of the foresight of his SJ brothers in Milwaukee, who turned a similar crap neighborhood around Marquette into a thriving college town.



You can only get so far on putting some money in the Continental Building rehab, and years of promises of development at NE corner of Lindell and Grand.

dutchtowner wrote:

JJCoolbean wrote:I’m also not sure what you mean by Clark’s.

Clark's was the bar at Spring and Laclede that a powerful neighbor nudged into closing. It was followed in that space by a series of coffee houses with varying degrees of success until the building was demolished to make room for grass.

+1

dutchtowner wrote:Golden Dynasty was a wonderful cheap lunch for students and staff. Too bad SLU ripped it down to replace it with... grass. Along with Bullfeathers, and 20 North, and the original Vito's.

I miss Bullfeathers.

It's interesting that before coming to SLU, Biondi was the Dean at Loyola University in Chicago. Once upon a time, the area around Loyola's northside campus was vibrant, seedy, dangerous and fun. There were lots of beautiful decaying buildings near the El stop at Sheridan Rd. Overall the area had enormous potential, but badly needed investment, rehabbers, and some TLC.



Instead, Loyola began tearing down everything in sight and building a mix of gleaming, monstrous, mall-like commercial structures and faux historic offices, classrooms, and dorms devoid of all character. And then there are the parking lots and garages. Their only effort at creating something beautiful was to try and build a landfill in Lake Michigan (something Northwestern did in the 1960's before the environmental movement woke up). The city fathers nixed that idea.



The result is a "successful" urban campus cut off from its surroundings and contributing almost nothing to the health of the neighborhoods.