urbanSTL

jlblues wrote:I can just about guarantee that this will be a surface parking lot for the Roberts Tower, Mayfair Hotel, Orpheum, and/or the retail in the various Roberts Bros. buildings, for the foreseeable future. I understand that right now they are paying for parking in the Renaissance and/or Century garages for the needs of the Mayfair and Board of Ed building. And they will need significantly more space once the Roberts Tower opens and once they get the retail in their various buildings leased. I'm sure they are paying quite a bit, so why not tear down a couple of useless (in their view) buildings and get relatively free parking to fill part of that need.

If a parking lot is all they are doing, then the tear-down makes no sense, if the tear-down applies to only the two lots closest to the corner (923 and 919 Locust). The two lots by themselves would not be large enough to construct a garage and a surface lot would only add about 24 spaces.





With that many Roberts related uses nearby, adding only 24 spaces (plus whatever spaces are in the new Tower and the old spaces in the basement of the Board of Ed building [if they were preserved]) in a surface lot does little to help ease what they might perceive to be a parking crunch (though with three new garages within a 5 minute walk we know this is not the case).



The only way the parking theory really works is if they can add a garage and the Roberts could do that if they demolish everything on the northern side of the 900 block of Locust except for the Board of Ed building (and remember they own the whole block) or use the two lots at the end (i.e. 923 and 919) to build an extension on the Renaissance's abutting garage.

urban_dilettante wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:923 is a disaster. Good riddance, I say.

i kind-of like the faux-timber facade - maybe it adds a little diversity to the streetscape? in any case i'd rather see the facade updated than the building scrapped.

I'm with you and Framer on this, i like the Tudor, faux or not. Much better than the one down washington as far as interest goes.



Central has had a long standing dislike for this particular building. Methinks he's Irish.

TheWayoftheArch wrote:

urban_dilettante wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:923 is a disaster. Good riddance, I say.

i kind-of like the faux-timber facade - maybe it adds a little diversity to the streetscape? in any case i'd rather see the facade updated than the building scrapped.

I'm with you and Framer on this, i like the Tudor, faux or not. Much better than the one down washington as far as interest goes.



Central has had a long standing dislike for this particular building. Methinks he's Irish.

Actually, I am! On my dad's side. But my dislike is based purely on aesthetics.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Central has had a long standing dislike for this particular building. Methinks he's Irish.

Actually, I am! On my dad's side. But my dislike is based purely on aesthetics.

Oh come on. The Tutor's might not have been the most beautiful folks, but they weren't exactly ugly.

jlblues wrote:I can just about guarantee that this will be a surface parking lot for the Roberts Tower, Mayfair Hotel, Orpheum, and/or the retail in the various Roberts Bros. buildings, for the foreseeable future. I understand that right now they are paying for parking in the Renaissance and/or Century garages for the needs of the Mayfair and Board of Ed building. And they will need significantly more space once the Roberts Tower opens and once they get the retail in their various buildings leased. I'm sure they are paying quite a bit, so why not tear down a couple of useless (in their view) buildings and get relatively free parking to fill part of that need.

Remember that the Board of Ed Building connects to the Renaissance Garage on the upper floors. I don’t think they made them connect just to supplant them with a post-demo street-level lot half a block up.



I believe they recognize that one of the core attributes to all their buildings Downtown is that they are truly urban. It’s key to their product positioning and marketing plans. As well, they recognize that StL Centre failed, and Union Station is failing, because they were meant to resemble the feel of suburban environments. Plus, all those surface lots north of the Bankers Lofts building on 9th take care of much of the Orpheum’s parking needs, don’t they?



Odds are, it’s just going to be part of an Indigo Hotel. However, all of this is just us speculating, from a surface parking lot to another high rise residential project. Until we learn more real info, it’s impossible to tell what’s what. If we could, though, I’d love to see Dooley’s move into that Tudor, or maybe a nice steakhouse (with critical mass population Downtown, it would be a great Smith & Wollensky’s).

how do we know that this is indeed going to be a parking lot?

Well, dredger...



Owners in historic districts across the country realize that, though they own and pay taxes on their property, the property's contribution to a district makes them accountable to the public.



Just as you can own a yard but be forced by the city to maintain it, so too can you be coerced into keeping your building a part of the streetscape.



Now, the question is, why isn't every historic downtown building protected? We are a city that has lost far, far too much of the historic core.



Dredger, your attitude is one of the reasons we have such a stagnant economy and are, to outsiders, worthy of writing off. We have never innovated (in the correct way). The last time the city was at the forefront of a movement to "better itself", Mayor Tucker was viewing New York's attempts to "renew" its slums via mass demolitions. Unfortunately, he brought New York's avant gardism here--and in full force.



The city needs to recognize that our primary asset is our historic buildings. What JCity means is that this heritage needs protection from people out to make a short term profit.



People seem to recognize that planners have a need to consult the public, to some degree, with mega-projects. The public recognizes that these projects will conspicuously confront them for as long as they remain residents of this city.



It is no different with smaller scale projects such as the demolition of this historic blockface. Shame on the owner who fails to recognize the potential value of such property when weighed against a parking lot.



Historic rehab tax credits (Missouri's are the most generous in the country), land trusts, and other financial incentives should all be on the table.