urbanSTL

vollum wrote:Inferior to what other plans? I had no idea there were other plans. Some have suggested the building with the ugly tudor facade could be turned into gem with a few gallons of paint. I think it would take at least a couple of million dollars. And, you would end up with a two (not three) story building on small footprint. The facade on Locust is three but most of the building is two stories. And, the cost per square foot would be? And, you could lease it or sell it for? I don't think that dog will hunt.

At this point, this plan is inferior to the alternative of letting the buildings stand until a better idea comes along. Demolition of the buildings for another building is one thing, but demolition for a driveway and parking seems utterly pointless and counter to the principles that make a downtown vibrant, especially when there are vast seas of asphalt just a block or two away from this location.



I know some here enjoy being the devil's advocate, and others simply want to see the buildings go given their present state, but is anyone here seriously suggesting a driveway is the best and highest use of this land? I'd like to think our civic leaders and developers have learned something in the dozen or so years since the Ambassador Theater was senselessly sacrificed for the hopelessly sterile and pointless US (then Mercantile) Bank Plaza. Clearly they haven't learned a damn thing.



And Doug brought up a great point- market conditions. Who's to say we're not going to wind up with another vacant lot like the one where Skyhouse was supposed to rise at Washington Avenue and 14th Street? This is a legitimate concern, but we live in a city where NO legitimate concern EVER gets in the way of a demolition permit.

I walked by these buildings at lunch since I also wanted to check out the progress at the new Left Bank Books location, and the more I think about the potential of losing 921 and 923 Locust, the more it irritates me.



Frankly I think there should be a moratorium on the demolition of historic buildings (obviously "historic" would have to meet some sort of official definition) in downtown St. Louis until some type of comprehensive preservation plan can be established. Too much has already been lost. This proposal smacks of the long lost Ambassador Theater down the street- plopping a suburban-style circle drive onto downtown's only intact corner west of Ninth Street is an utterly ridiculous idea, especially given the vast surface lots and other "driveways" scattered around downtown.



Our leaders continue to ignore the value of our built environment, the one thing that truly separates St. Louis from other American major cities. These buildings may be nondescript, the Tudor may be in dire need of a makeover with or without its present facade, but I want to see something more progressive. Originally we were talking about a condo tower here, and now we're talking about a hotel lobby and some asphalt. Obviously a moratorium should acknowledge the best and highest use of the land and accommodate new construction accordingly, but I don't think this proposal qualifies as the best and highest land use by any stretch.



Oh, and did anyone happen to notice the occupancy rate of downtown hotels? And how about that recession? The Roberts Brothers may have spread their money around our fair city over the years, and it's good to see them going forward with Roberts Tower while other major projects in downtown have been postponed or scrapped altogether, but is that reason enough to blithely demolish even more of our urban fabric?



I noticed a relatively trivial yet nifty detail that will be lost on the 917 building if these plans go forward. On the west wall there is a ghost sign advertising the Scruggs Vandervoort and Barney Annex, which is worthy IMHO since there's no visible trace of the department store's history on the main building (The Syndicate) across the street. And it goes without saying what happened to the other adjacent building that was once part of that store as well.



I'd like to know more about this hotel, the proposed timeline, and why plans for something much more significant at this corner were scrapped. I'm sure we'll find out after the buildings are demolished, assuming the project isn't cancelled once there's a pile of rubble on that corner.

So, if the Civil War-era building at 923 Locust were saved, but there is nothing left under the Tudor facade worth saving, I think it could still be restored/reconstructed to make a great-looking and interesting building even with the Tudor facade in place.



For example:

I noticed a relatively trivial yet nifty detail that will be lost on the 917 building if these plans go forward. On the west wall there is a ghost sign advertising the Scruggs Vandervoort and Barney Annex, which is worthy IMHO

It is an historic tax credit project. Its plans will require state and federal review. It is not in a local historic district. The Preservation Board will not review it.



The Preservation Board will review the design of the new structure west of 917, as condition placed on the demo of the two western buildings.

publiceye wrote:

but these are the renderings that were submitted to the CRO for the Preliminary Review on October 27th.

No, those are two of the renderings submitted to the CRO. A new drawing was submitted for preliminary review.

It isn't on Killeen's website. Did those at the meeting get to see it? Will the public get to see it before these buildings are demolished?

publiceye wrote:

I can come up with a relatively simple solution to those "problems" in a few hours, that doesn't require the demolition of two historic buildings.

That's great news.

My point was, that the case has not been made or even debated as far as I can tell - but, no, I could not attend the meeting - that the hotel project would not be viable, with 919 and 923 Locust left intact and incorporated into the project. Is anyone even trying to make that case? If so, that is nonsense, it just takes experience and creativity.



If they are not trying to make that case, then why are the alternatives not being explored? Because it is inconvenient? Because it will cost more? Because they won't have a covered entrance and swimming pool? What is the excuse? Is anyone asking these questions, or are they afraid to rock the boat?

vollum wrote:Some have suggested the building with the ugly tudor facade could be turned into gem with a few gallons of paint.

That is clearly a reference to my earlier post, but that is not what I said.

vollum wrote:And, you would end up with a two (not three) story building on small footprint. The facade on Locust is three but most of the building is two stories.

So? That'd be roughly the same height as the new lobby addition, but it would leave the streetscape intact.

vollum wrote:I think it would take at least a couple of million dollars.<snip> And, the cost per square foot would be? And, you could lease it or sell it for? I don't think that dog will hunt.

How do you know? Again, is anyone trying to make the case that the net cost of incorporating the historic buildings versus the cost of demo and construction of the new lobby, is prohibitive?



And who is talking about leasing or selling them? Why can't the space be incorporated into the hotel project? 923 Locust would make great restaurant/ bar space for the hotel. So what if the floors don't line up??? That happens all the time with buildings in dense historic areas all over the country, and Europe, and there are solutions for that. As for needing windows on 917, a little creativity with the layout plan on the lower floors, and incorporation of 919, and its not an issue.

Did those at the meeting get to see it?

Yes.

vollum wrote:Inferior to what other plans?

because, if not for the Roberts, no plans would ever emerge ever again for these buildings. EVER. just like there were never any plans BEFORE the Roberts came along. just like all the other buildings DT that sat vacant for so many years that have recently been restored instead of demolished ... oh, wait.



and, of course, another hotel is a WONDERFUL idea because there aren't enough hotels DT already ... oh, wait.

vollum wrote:Some have suggested the building with the ugly tudor facade could be turned into gem with a few gallons of paint.

where? nobody suggested that.

publiceye wrote:

Did those at the meeting get to see it?

Yes.

To clarify: Members of the Preservation Board saw the renderings. The audience did not.

^That's what I thought.

^^ The applicant brought a new sketch and set it on an easel in the front of the room next to the podium.



Several contributors to this forum spoke, as did the alderwoman and the director of the SLDC.

ThreeOneFour wrote:Oh, and did anyone happen to notice the occupancy rate of downtown hotels? And how about that recession? The Roberts Brothers may have spread their money around our fair city over the years, and it's good to see them going forward with Roberts Tower while other major projects in downtown have been postponed or scrapped altogether, but is that reason enough to blithely demolish even more of our urban fabric?

The recession won't last forever. Also our urban fabric isn't being demolished -- it's just evolving. We all are aware that the built environment must meet the needs of today and tomorrow. If it doesn't, than change is inevitable. Everything is impermanent.

^ If you'll re-read my comments, you'll notice I never suggested the recession would last forever. In fact, there are still many good signs of progress around town despite the bleak national economic outlook, less than stellar regional economic figures, and the litany of scaled back and cancelled projects around town.



That said, I'm not inclined to think it's a great time to open yet another hotel in a downtown that struggles to fill the ones already there, but I suppose the Roberts Brothers are comfortable enough with their plans to proceed. Or at least they're comfortable enough to show the Preservation Board some renderings knowing nothing will ever stand in the way of a demolition permit in this town if a well-connected developer wants it badly enough.



Just because this driveway might yield more signs of life than the pigeon landing strip that is U.S. Bank Plaza doesn't mean it should get what has become the automatic rubber stamp for such misguided projects. You may not worry about these buildings per se, but you should worry about a city whose leaders and developers couldn't care less about preserving what is perhaps its strongest competitive advantage- its built environment. A downtown in which the best and highest use of its land is not valued will never live up to its full potential.

The hotel doesn't directly compete with existing hotels per se. It's a boutique hotel. To my knowledge, this will be the first in downtown St. Louis, MO.



If you think mere buildings are one of the the city's strongest competitive advantages, you're mistaken. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the architecture downtown. But even if you were to believe that the built environment is one of our strongest competitive advantages, these buildings aren't historically significant. Please tell us which register these buildings are listed on. And it's only your opinion of what the best and highest use of the land is.



There are more incisive comments on this topic here: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/?p=4227#comments. I don't blindly support preservation in every case. We can agree to disagree.

Not all significant buildings are on the National Register. It takes a fair bit of money to get a building registered.



In my opinion, the urban design is more important than the buildings. It just so happens that in this case, the existing buildings are better than the plans. It's all about the use of the land. A driveway is never the highest and best use of a given piece of property. If a proper design is presented, I am OK with the demo. Although 923 Locust may be the oldest commercial building left downtown. That should be taken into consideration.

MattnSTL wrote:In my opinion, the urban design is more important than the buildings. It just so happens that in this case, the existing buildings are better than the plans. It's all about the use of the land. A driveway is never the highest and best use of a given piece of property. If a proper design is presented, I am OK with the demo. Although 923 Locust may be the oldest commercial building left downtown. That should be taken into consideration.

And the problem with demolishing smaller buildings like these is that they cause the remaining buildings to become islands. Check out the Omni Hotel on Pine for an example. It basically sits by itself, surrounded by parking and a driveway. I forget that it's even there sometimes, but if its surroundings would have been preserved, it would have had the opportunity to be a part of a thriving, active block.

innov8ion wrote:If you think mere buildings are one of the the city's strongest competitive advantages, you're mistaken. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the architecture downtown. But even if you were to believe that the built environment is one of our strongest competitive advantages, these buildings aren't historically significant. Please tell us which register these buildings are listed on.

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my previous posts, but my beef with this plan has less to do with the demolition of the existing buildings per se than (1) the replacement building's complete lack of urban design and its poor relation to surrounding buildings and (2) our leaders' penchant for rubberstamping developments that destroys our urban fabric and ignores the lessons other cities large and small learned many years ago about the value of preserving our built environment and appropriate urban design for new downtown construction.

And it's only your opinion of what the best and highest use of the land is.

I agree with MattnSTL here- a driveway is never and can never be considered the best and highest use of land in downtown. I would not be opposed to the demolition of these buildings if we were talking about new construction with similar setbacks and massing as those that are being replaced. But while I may agree these buildings may rank low on the subjective scale of what's historic and what's worth preserving, I cannot believe we're once again talking about replacing perfectly viable if not necessarily attractive buildings solely for the purpose of providing some windows for a boutique hotel and a shorter stroll to one's vehicle.

I don't blindly support preservation in every case.

Same here. I just question St. Louis' so-called decision makers that blindly support demolition every time prominent developers ignore the lessons learned about what makes urban areas vibrant in favor of convenient parking and vehicular access for their developments.

Jmedwick hits on an important point to me. Historic tax credits have fueled development beyond St. Louis expectations. But most of those developments have been residential/loft. Which has made a buck for developers and created a niche residential/work environment along Washington Ave. The other incentives being offered is tax abatments or TIF's, keeping a law firm downtown as well as street improvements for Ballpark Village resprectively.



None of these tax incentives are sustainable. These tax incentives are gimme's that do little to adress a core business issues in terms of the cities payroll tax , size of city govt or infrastructure. Until some serious reforms are in place, downtown property is going to be undervalued due to lack of demand from businesses who are passing over downtown. (Centene could have easily built anywhere else in downtown, they only consideration was probably a view of center field). Which makes it easy for Robert Brothers to put forth a development as this while the city is no position to turn anything down considering. The city would be in much better position to draw a line if they would follow through with bigger issues.

As a result, the brothers revised the entrance with a covered drive.

so ... like the covered drive at a gas station? a big car port? what does this mean? it doesn't really sound any more attractive than a coverless drive. certainly not as attractive as two corner buildings.

^Maybe, hopefully, it'll be like the porte cochere at the Renaissance Grand, with the building over the drive, or the drive into the building (depending on your perspective). In other words, the replacement building should be at least 4 stories, with the facade of the upper stories even with the sidewalk.



This would be better than the previous design, but there is no good reason that these two historic buildings can't be incorporated into the hotel project and therefore must be torn down.



From the P-D article:

The Robertses' early plan for an entrance drive at the downtown Indigo dismayed city officials and some building preservationists. They lamented that replacing the 118-year-old, three-story corner building at 923 Locust with a drive would ruin the streetscape at Locust and 10th streets.

Not that it matters, but I thought it was proven that at least portions of this building were considerably older than that?

As a result, the brothers revised the entrance with a covered drive. On Oct. 27, the city's Preservation Board approved their request to demolish 923 Locust and 921 Locust, the four-story building next to what will be the hotel tower. Steve Roberts said the company considered incorporating 921 Locust into the hotel until they discovered its wooden beam construction of 1916 doesn't comply with modern eathquake-resistant building codes. Another obstacle was 921's floor levels, which are mismatches for the adjoining 917 Locust, which was built in 1913.



"We spent a lot of money for those buildings, but under any scenario we couldn't make them work," he said.

What a huge pile of steaming bullsh*t.

Roberts said the design might still change slightly, depending on the requirements of state and federal building preservation officials who control the tax credits the brothers plan to seek for the project.

Fine they can tear these buildings down, but if they insist on doing so they should not be granted historic tax credits, state or Federal. Granting them tax credits is a perversion of the tax credit legislation.

jlblues wrote:

As a result, the brothers revised the entrance with a covered drive. On Oct. 27, the city's Preservation Board approved their request to demolish 923 Locust and 921 Locust, the four-story building next to what will be the hotel tower. Steve Roberts said the company considered incorporating 921 Locust into the hotel until they discovered its wooden beam construction of 1916 doesn't comply with modern eathquake-resistant building codes. Another obstacle was 921's floor levels, which are mismatches for the adjoining 917 Locust, which was built in 1913.



"We spent a lot of money for those buildings, but under any scenario we couldn't make them work," he said.

What a huge pile of steaming bullsh*t.

And it smells like the steaming pile that DESCO and its allies used to justify demolition of the Century Building. If developers were allowed to demolish every structure in St. Louis simply because they didn't comply with modern earthquake-resistant building codes, what in the hell would be left standing?



Developers doing business in St. Louis might as well drop the charade whenever they want to demolish structures regardless of their historic status. It's not like the powers that be are going to say no to a demolition permit- especially not when it's requested by the Roberts Brothers.



And don't these guys own the former WS Hotel at Washington Avenue and Fourth Street? Until the announcement was made about the buildings at Tenth and Locust streets back in August, I had assumed the downtown Hotel Indigo would go there. That building needs all the help it can get.