JMedwick wrote:Dallenjohn I was responding to your first post, inwhich you bring up several points that have nothing to do with what is really at issue.
In the end, from what you complain about I think your concern is that the Roberts will come along, demolish the buildings and then nothing will be built.
And thats a legitimate concern. I, nor do I think most of the posters on this board, would agree to tearing down historic strcutures with no clear plan that something will rise in its place. THe city should not grant demo permits and allow for tax abatement or TIF unless it is clear that the project will happen.
Well, certainly I would be concerned about the demolition of these buildings for a vacant lot. As you've expressed, most anyone would feel similarly.
But make you mistake: if a hotel/condo tower magically appeared tomorrow on the spot where these two buildings stand, I would still probably be against it. As I tried to explain (maybe I could've done better!), I think those buildings have inherent worth, especially within the context of Locust. They are of sound stock and can be rehabbed, so I think there is little excuse to tear them down. In my opinion (and I guess I respectfully disagree with you here), we have reached the point downtown (especially) where we can not spare what we have left. Its dwindled too far now, so I think most every building left is worth preserving downtown. I simply feel that it is responsible to do so?
JMedwick wrote:But, where we differ, is I belive that if the project will move forward, will happen, then the city should stand behind the Roberts. In such a case, the sacrifice of these two buildings is worth it. Yes, the city is fortunate that many so many buildings and neighborhoods are intact. Yet many on the preservation board act as those these places should be preserved as though time has stoped, denying the changes that come to any structure as time rolls on. These two buildings are the same. While there are important exceptions of buildings who should be preserved in a pristine manor, these two buildings do not fall in that catigory. Therefore, if a buyer wants to preserve them, let them be preserved, but if time rolls on and something else is built, thats fine too. (just so long as it is something, not a lame parkinglot) If the city is to be a dynamic and growing place it must be willing to accpet change, change in all forms.
Again, with all due respect, I do not know that I can tolerate the "sacrifice" of more of our built environment. It seems like we sacrifice this for that,a nd it is yet another excuse (I swore I wasn't going to bring up the Century in this post, but that was an argument, as I recall: sacrificing that building for the Post Office. Obviously, these are two very different situations). We've sacrificed enough, imo.
I can not speak for the Board (of course!), but I personally feel rather open-minded about preservation, with regard to your concern for the "time has stopped" mentality. Something like the Art of Living building appears to be a great compromise of historic building stock and the contemporary. I've been in some private homes that really wonderfully play the old off the new. I recall seeing a design for the Powell Square warehouse on these boards that I loved, in concept, because it had the potential to blend where we've been with where we are going. I much prefer the streetlights, say, west of Tucker on Washington to the faux historic ones east of Tucker. I am not such a fan of Laclede's Landing, for instance, as it feels resolutely calculated in its recreation, passing something that seems rather theme park off as the old (I am a fan of those buildings, but not how the area has been reinterpreted).
So, I could see some cool options for these buildings that keep them standing, but don't necessarily try to recreate 1890. I am personally flexible and think that trying to keep the context of the street is possible even with a more modern interpretation, if that makes sense? It's more about scope, scale and texture, even spirit. That would be such a fantastic challenge!
After all, it's about waste, too. I just find tearing down more wasteful and poor stewardship.
JMedwick wrote:As for the value in skyscrapers. Its not about an impressive skyline. Tall buildings have value in their density. Ask yourself, would downtown be better off adding 5 stories worth of people or 25? Thats why i support the towers. The city needs density, needs poeple, and the Roberts proposals meets those needs.
Of course I support density! But just because the city needs density doesn't mean that every corner downtown is appropriate for a twenty+ story tower. The brothers could add more stories to the Mayfair tower, perhaps? I mean, seriously. This lot is not big enough for a tower with
that much density! How many floors will be parking? How many hotel? How many huge condo? I don't know that this can be that dense a development.
And, again, we do need density, but that does not mean every spot of the city is suitable for a tower complex.
There needs to be space for offices and retail, too. Good, rehabbed space to go along with a full Syndicate & Mayfair addition. These buildings would make more excellent space for conveniences in the neighborhood, even.
JMedwick wrote:PS. If the most economicly viable option is to rehab the buildings, thats what the Roberts will do. If the best option is to build a highrise thats what will happen. Lets just wait and see what the market says before we get all worried over these two buildings.
Studies show time and again that rehabs are economically viable. Now, I can not compare it to what this developer is envisioning, but the rehab of this building would probably not be any less viable than a new construction, for sure.
And, I personally think we should be worried now. Rather than wait until the market says yes and we are too late. I just don't find it necessary to sacrifice yet another handful of buildings.
Anyway, we can have new development, we can have new towers, and we can keep the old. I firmly believe that. But this proposal is very much worth scrutinizing, imo, especially in its early stages.
