Share
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostFeb 13, 2006#251

It's really a lack of knowledge of urbanity and what makes a city. Tepper is in her own little ignorant world. This is a case where people really should move out if they can't take change and what is going on in their neighborhood. St. Louis mentality at it's finest.



And are back room dealings really breaking news? Come on. But in this case, there is no favoritism in my mind, just city support of a great project. This is what variances are for.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostFeb 13, 2006#252

If you were a fragile city, would you support



A) a number of high rises with promise of thousands of

new residents young and old, leading to the need for

new retail, work, and economic growth.



or,



B) pleasing a small collective of older residents so that

they will stay in the city and keeping a fraction of the

status quo.



I think we know what the city wants.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostFeb 13, 2006#253

The northeast corner of Lindell and Euclid is not in a national historic district, but a certified local historic district, meaning it's easier for our locals to bend the rules. Besides, the American Heart Association building isn't a contributing building to the district and its qualifying historic character.



Simply, there is no special treatment occuring in preservation review. You have a modern building that is an odd-ball within a local district being torn down for new development.



As for height limits, existing older structures within the local district, including the Chase, exceed 15 stories, so why shouldn't this new development? Especially when it's on Lindell, a boulevard historically know for its high-rises?!
217
Junior MemberJunior Member
217

PostFeb 13, 2006#254

MattnSTL wrote:It's really a lack of knowledge of urbanity and what makes a city. Tepper is in her own little ignorant world. This is a case where people really should move out if they can't take change and what is going on in their neighborhood. St. Louis mentality at it's finest.



And are back room dealings really breaking news? Come on. But in this case, there is no favoritism in my mind, just city support of a great project. This is what variances are for.


I understand your frustration, Matt, but as promoters of urban diversity, we should realize that there needs to be a place in the city (if not in our hearts) for the Patti Tepers of this world.



I don't agree with her in the case of this project. Still, I'd much rather see her out there arguing for her beliefs, rather than watch her pack up and move to the 'burbs. The more people we have involved in the debate over St. Louis's future, the better the city will be.
139
Junior MemberJunior Member
139

PostFeb 13, 2006#255

I think if this project is cut down from its current 28 floors we can look at it as a step in the wrong direction for St. Louis and that the older "St. Louis mentality" is still alive within the city and stronger than ever.
1,768
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,768

PostFeb 13, 2006#256

No one has been accused of doing anything wrong. But the connections seem awfully convenient. With $7.5 million in tax credits waiting, and city officials in their corner, I have a feeling Opus' deal will sail through. Like Teper said, those with the right connections get the green light. Those without, like Alexander, are usually shown the door.




^This is a quote from the editorial...



Does anyone else question this massive leap to conclusion? Where is the link between Opus and city hall? I see how he connected the modern house (which he never said the guy designed himslef, only implied it) to being on the Cultural Resources Board, but how does it have anything to do with Patti Teper or the Lindell Condomiums?



It seems like Mr. Brown said-OK, she's a person that has issues with the city also, and its a bigger issue. I'll throw some names and ONE instance of connectivity to my theory out there and then throw myself off a cliff to my conclusion. I find this clearly an instance of villifying corporate "bad guy" Opus. The insinuation of them being "in bed" with city hall because Patti Teper thinks things are going easy for them? Rust belt cities everywhere try to facilitate this exact type of costruction and development. And does anyone else remember that Ms. Teper's complaint was that the building was too tall, and not its actual appearance? This has nothing to do with the cultural resource board or anything that the gentlemen in shaw had to deal with. Sylvester Brown has come Oh so short of flat out lying to make the weakest of connections-none at all. . He must really be strugglig for dirt on City Gov.
139
Junior MemberJunior Member
139

PostFeb 13, 2006#257

Thanks for the quotes thewayofthe arch. They only further establish that the old "St. Louis mentality" is getting more and more rediculous as time passes on.



God bless Opus.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostFeb 13, 2006#258

I don't like the term "St. Louis Mentality". It is a type of bash. Old St. Louis has a history of quality development. Old St. Louis has good taste. Old St. Louis does not equal bad. Every time you throw "St. Louis Mentality" on Patty Tepper, you bash the whole city instead of disagreeing with her opinion.



(I decided to tone down my rant)
1,054
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,054

PostFeb 13, 2006#259

Was the quote with the lady from Sylvester Brown's column?
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostFeb 14, 2006#260

I said it before and will say it again, the way to take care of the Tepper problem is simple:



Lets create a group called St. Louisians for Responsible Development.

Then lets get signatures together, signs, whatnot, and make it known people want to see the towers built.



Make Ms. Tepper seem kinda silly now won't it. :!:
2,831
Life MemberLife Member
2,831

PostFeb 14, 2006#261

St. Louisians for Responsible Development. St. Louisians for Responsible Development.


I'm all for it! Who wants to organize it?
366
Full MemberFull Member
366

PostFeb 14, 2006#262

If I had some more years and money and if i lived in the area,had some xperience, really cared that much to devote my life to it and had enough responsibility organize something that big i would do it, but i don't, sorry.
1,768
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,768

PostFeb 14, 2006#263

matguy70 wrote:
St. Louisians for Responsible Development. St. Louisians for Responsible Development.


I'm all for it! Who wants to organize it?


Are there actually any formal steps to create an organization like this, or do we just make badges and get clip boards?

PostFeb 14, 2006#264

SMSPlanstu wrote:Was the quote with the lady from Sylvester Brown's column?


Yes.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostFeb 14, 2006#265

I'm in.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostFeb 14, 2006#266

DOn't know what you all have to do to create such an organization, but I would guess that if it is simply a group with a position, not looking for funding or doing anything other than showing up at public meetings and whatnot, I doubt that anything is needed other than for people to get together as a group, figure out how they want to approach the problem, and then start growing the membership.

If you can get more people than the Tepper group, then I think the situation is solved. Just remember, it probably should be led by those folks who live in the CWE.
1,768
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,768

PostFeb 14, 2006#267

I don't right now, but probably will (or DT) in the next 30-60 days. If someoe else gets it going, I'll be the second wind...
696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostFeb 14, 2006#268

I'd sign a petition, but I don't live in the CWE. But couldn't those of us who don't live there go there and talk to people on the street and see how they feel and if they support the tower recruit them (if they're residents of the CWE)?
2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostFeb 15, 2006#269

I'll sign too.



That being said, I don't think I'd go so far as to say 'God Bless Opus.' They're looking to make money, nothing more. They don't really care about the welfare of St. Louisans...it just so happens that their business decision benefits St. Louisans. Hooray for that.
242
Junior MemberJunior Member
242

PostFeb 16, 2006#270

I understand why the handfull of people on Maryland who will be in this thing's shadow will be upset, but I don't think that many will join their cause. It's not as though they're tearing down a historic building; Opus wants to get rid of a two-story 60's vacant office building that makes the NE Euclid-Lindell corner dead and replace it with hundreds of residents and attractive ground-level life. I'm all for this project, though I will shed a tiny tear for the giant trees that have grown on that lot for the past few decades. They give the corner what character it has, though with a 25ish story highrise, that corner will soon have character aplenty.
1,400
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,400

PostFeb 16, 2006#271

I hate to put it in this light but after not listening to the strong opposition to the demolition of the Century, if they let a handful of residents overturn this residential highrise (that's well in demand, might I add), I would be very surprised. (I would also be quite frusterated).
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostFeb 16, 2006#272

I will sign as well, though my electronic mark might not mean much.



Anyways, I think that if a group of forumers were intersted and chose to group up, go to the CWE, and get folks to sign on it would be fine. It is just important that if the pettition etc. were presented publicly, it is clear a CWEr must be the head of the thing, otherwise it will carry little value.



So, I anyone gonna roam out and get something started? Is something already afoot? Who where lives in the CWE?
835
Super MemberSuper Member
835

PostFeb 16, 2006#273

I do. In fact, I live directly across Lindell from the proposed development. I would be honored to head up a pro-density foot squad.
217
Junior MemberJunior Member
217

PostFeb 22, 2006#274

No time to lose. Citizens for Responsible Development is getting press in the West End Word.



And they've got a web site as well: http://www.stlouiscitizens.org/
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostFeb 22, 2006#275

They may have a website, but we have a bigger one right here. Now we just need more signatures than them. I know that they won't be able to stop it though. I will be going to a meeting with the alderwoman from that area this week and next week, so I will see what she has to say, moreso than what that article has.
Read more posts (246 remaining)
Share