I like the rendering as well...I'm thinking another issue here is the visibility of the dairy site...maybe the SLU facility could be built elsewhere on the vast landscape SLU owns, but none provide the option of being an entrance to the south grand medical campus...the larger reality here is that midtown is in desperate need of continued investment...let's hope the past doesn't impede the future and st Louis can continue moving forward in a reasonable way....
@urban...
I think a realistic vision of what the areas around SLU can become needs to be found...between the large railroad gulch, old industrial complexes, large warehouse spaces, sprawling, open space campuses, and near consensus within the market that this is not the place to live and raise a family, there are significant obstacles to replicating the vibrancy and density of other st Louis neighborhoods...
Some very cool things are happening in midtown, but it seems to me SLU cannot operate in an idealistic vacuum...density is going to be nearly impossible to ever achieve in what was likely a spread out, semi industrial area to begin with...
I think a realistic vision of what the areas around SLU can become needs to be found...between the large railroad gulch, old industrial complexes, large warehouse spaces, sprawling, open space campuses, and near consensus within the market that this is not the place to live and raise a family, there are significant obstacles to replicating the vibrancy and density of other st Louis neighborhoods...
Some very cool things are happening in midtown, but it seems to me SLU cannot operate in an idealistic vacuum...density is going to be nearly impossible to ever achieve in what was likely a spread out, semi industrial area to begin with...
The largest reality here is that Saint Louis University runs a teaching hospital for its medical school and nursing and allied health professions program. It would be utterly ludicrous for it to build the ambulatory care facility anywhere but within a few blocks of its medical teaching facilities.
The other reality is that, on the north campus, SLU has a history of losing lovely old buildings (DeSmet, Sodality, the Resurrectionist house) because it deferred maintenance so long that they were crumbling and it was very easy to make a financial case for demolition vs. renovation. And any number of buildings that SLU at one time or another wanted to plow under have ended up as integral parts of the campus and next-to-campus fabric (the loft apartments in the old Warehouse of Fixtures building, Beracha Hall, the Coronado, the Moto Museum-Triumph-Ignatio complex).
That last group is what has me somewhat puzzled about Steve Smith's passionate involvement pushing for demo of the Pevely building. He more than almost anyone knows about successful adaptive reuse of old buildings.
I can't speak to the present (although I'm sure not much has changed), but in ancient times, when he who is called Boy George chanted, med student housing was a real issue. The ones I knew who lived on campus were inconvenienced by the lack of ways to get to the med campus, especially when the Fireline wasn't running (which was basically after 7 p.m. and on weekends). Others clustered into LacledeTown, which isn't really an option any more. I find it difficult to believe that the main Pevely building wouldn't end up 100 percent occupied whether it went market rate or med-only housing.
The other reality is that, on the north campus, SLU has a history of losing lovely old buildings (DeSmet, Sodality, the Resurrectionist house) because it deferred maintenance so long that they were crumbling and it was very easy to make a financial case for demolition vs. renovation. And any number of buildings that SLU at one time or another wanted to plow under have ended up as integral parts of the campus and next-to-campus fabric (the loft apartments in the old Warehouse of Fixtures building, Beracha Hall, the Coronado, the Moto Museum-Triumph-Ignatio complex).
That last group is what has me somewhat puzzled about Steve Smith's passionate involvement pushing for demo of the Pevely building. He more than almost anyone knows about successful adaptive reuse of old buildings.
I can't speak to the present (although I'm sure not much has changed), but in ancient times, when he who is called Boy George chanted, med student housing was a real issue. The ones I knew who lived on campus were inconvenienced by the lack of ways to get to the med campus, especially when the Fireline wasn't running (which was basically after 7 p.m. and on weekends). Others clustered into LacledeTown, which isn't really an option any more. I find it difficult to believe that the main Pevely building wouldn't end up 100 percent occupied whether it went market rate or med-only housing.
I’m glad the corner building is going to be saved. However, I don’t think preservation of the buildings alone is actually the ideal situation. What we really want is SLU to invest $75M on this parcel of land but create a development that is far more urban in context. While that idea is implied in some of the commentary on this thread and comments made in the Preservation Board Meeting, it’s never an idea or plan that is implemented/encouraged/driven through the urban planning or permit acquisition process.
In other words, the ideal situation is a compromise between a developer who wants to spend $75M on a parcel in the City and the City’s need to foster urban appropriate development standards. Because the City isn’t savy enough to make that happen near term, Preservationists have to block the demolition (and subsequent development, suburban albeit) of sites that currently have “historic” buildings that are urban in context. That seems, to me, like a “lesser of two evils” type of outcome.
I wouldn’t have a problem with razing the Pevely Building if SLU replaced that building with an urban appropriate building similar in placement on the parcel and double the height of the milk offices (on the sidewalk, urban in design, etc.). I personally would rather see this type of development then retrofitting the old Pevely structure (which will cost way more than demolition) or development of a suburban hospital (that belongs on New Ballas). How does the City frame the development conversation with SLU in this context?
Still have the developer spend the $75M. Knock down the buildings. Build something else better and urban in context. Done.
Sidebar: Is there some sort of mathematical factor used by Urban Planners to determine the ideal equilibrium between “new buildings” and adaptive reuse of historic buildings? Perhaps using larger urban cities as a benchmark? That is backpocket information I would want if I were in charge of ensuring the continued growth and success of the City St. Louis.
In other words, the ideal situation is a compromise between a developer who wants to spend $75M on a parcel in the City and the City’s need to foster urban appropriate development standards. Because the City isn’t savy enough to make that happen near term, Preservationists have to block the demolition (and subsequent development, suburban albeit) of sites that currently have “historic” buildings that are urban in context. That seems, to me, like a “lesser of two evils” type of outcome.
I wouldn’t have a problem with razing the Pevely Building if SLU replaced that building with an urban appropriate building similar in placement on the parcel and double the height of the milk offices (on the sidewalk, urban in design, etc.). I personally would rather see this type of development then retrofitting the old Pevely structure (which will cost way more than demolition) or development of a suburban hospital (that belongs on New Ballas). How does the City frame the development conversation with SLU in this context?
Still have the developer spend the $75M. Knock down the buildings. Build something else better and urban in context. Done.
Sidebar: Is there some sort of mathematical factor used by Urban Planners to determine the ideal equilibrium between “new buildings” and adaptive reuse of historic buildings? Perhaps using larger urban cities as a benchmark? That is backpocket information I would want if I were in charge of ensuring the continued growth and success of the City St. Louis.
- 11K
"I personally would rather see this type of development then retrofitting the old Pevely structure (which will cost way more than demolition)..."
This is a false choice. Retrofitting any structure is going to cost way more then demolition. However, the result is not of equal value. A retrofitted structure continues to support activity, commercial, residential, etc. and can be retrofitted again and again. Demolition is final and removes all future possibilities.
I agree with most of your comments. If SLU had proposed a new clinic that was very urban in nature, this would be a different conversation. I don't get why they don't get that. There are examples abound from St. Louis and elsewhere to show that this works. There are also many examples of medical facilities incorporating historic structures. This isn't a decision based on what's possible, it's SLU wanting a blank slate for suburban development.
It would be great if the city worked with SLU to design a building in an urban context. However, our planning department is underfunded and understaffed. Not to mention SLU would have to come to the table. They could have at any time come to the city and said, "this is what we're thinking, what do you think?" They chose not to. They assumed that they would be allowed to tear down anything they want in the name of development.
This is a false choice. Retrofitting any structure is going to cost way more then demolition. However, the result is not of equal value. A retrofitted structure continues to support activity, commercial, residential, etc. and can be retrofitted again and again. Demolition is final and removes all future possibilities.
I agree with most of your comments. If SLU had proposed a new clinic that was very urban in nature, this would be a different conversation. I don't get why they don't get that. There are examples abound from St. Louis and elsewhere to show that this works. There are also many examples of medical facilities incorporating historic structures. This isn't a decision based on what's possible, it's SLU wanting a blank slate for suburban development.
It would be great if the city worked with SLU to design a building in an urban context. However, our planning department is underfunded and understaffed. Not to mention SLU would have to come to the table. They could have at any time come to the city and said, "this is what we're thinking, what do you think?" They chose not to. They assumed that they would be allowed to tear down anything they want in the name of development.
Which is where I really see the value in the Pevely decision and the Council Plaza outcry. In the past, SLU and other local developers/groups took advantage of the relative ineptitude (or crookedness) of the City's planning division and the citizens' dismissive, unconcerned attitude toward preservation. They didn't have to defend their actions. They didn't even have to risk looking like the bad guy.Alex Ihnen wrote:"Not to mention SLU would have to come to the table. They could have at any time come to the city and said, "this is what we're thinking, what do you think?" They chose not to. They assumed that they would be allowed to tear down anything they want in the name of development.
The Pevely decision and, to an extent, the Council Plaza reversal, was a staggering blow to the Old Guard. People in St. Louis are paying attention. And while not everyone agrees about what the outcome should have been, the discussion is being had. Look at the STLTOday comment boards...while the vast majority are against saving the buildings (nothing new there), they are talking about the National Register, the Preservation Research Board, zoning, planning, etc. They're naming names of aldermen, of business leaders, or preservationists.
For many of these people there will be an eye-opening moment coming soon when they realize "Hey, that does make sense to build up to the street" or "Hey, that building could easily be retrofitted into second-floor office space and a first-floor green grocer. That part of the neighborhood sure needs one...why, they wouldn't even have to drive down to Schnucks..."
The building, to me, is secondary. It's the culture I want to see changed and that's why it's so important that these letters of support for preservation keep pouring in and that developers are made to stand up in a public arena and admit to actively seeking destruction...then have to ask for permission from an informed public to do it.
- 3,762
is this the spread out, semi industrial area you're talking about?RobbyD wrote:I think a realistic vision of what the areas around SLU can become needs to be found...between the large railroad gulch, old industrial complexes, large warehouse spaces, sprawling, open space campuses... density is going to be nearly impossible to ever achieve in what was likely a spread out, semi industrial area to begin with...
the consensus is due to the fact that it's difficult to live and raise a family in an area where all the residences have been/are still being razed for surface parking, green space and fountains. perhaps the vibrancy and density of the neighborhood that was there previously could be replicated if there were buildings to live in instead of just parking lots and ball fields.RobbyD wrote:...and near consensus within the market that this is not the place to live and raise a family, there are significant obstacles to replicating the vibrancy and density of other st Louis neighborhoods...
Robby, with all due respect the only idealistic vacuum that SLU is operating in is its own. The preservation community would be thrilled to work with SLU on the rehabilitation of Midtown. But that means compromise, of course, and SLU has demonstrated time and again -- including with yesterday's performance at the PRB meeting -- that it has no interest in compromise and no respect for the review process. they knowingly purchased a building on the historic register fully aware that they could not use it and simply assumed they would be allowed to raze it at will. as others have asked, is that responsible planning on SLU's part? is that HONEST planning on SLU's part?RobbyD wrote:but it seems to me SLU cannot operate in an idealistic vacuum
From what I have read SLU submitted their plans, if you can call them that, to cultural resources the day of the meeting. I don't see how city staff can be blamed when the process is messed up. Applicants for any type of development should be required to submit site plans, elevations, sections, and renderings to applicable departments several months before the meeting.
Cultural resources and other departments should be required to post these online when they receive them. Their decisions should not be posted online a few days before the meeting.
I was astounded to hear that old buildings cannot be used for medical facilities. If that's the case they should have presented floor plans showing it cannot be done.
SLU thinks they can do whatever they want. They do not want public participation. If they valued the public they wouldn't have created a fortress campus. They wouldn't have lobbied for the removal of city wide preservation review. They wouldn't have purchased a historic building thinking the jobs argument would simply win out. SLU will continue to be an impediment in St. Louis and I wonder if these buildings will still be standing in a year or two. It is winter and fires can easily be blamed on the homeless.
Cultural resources and other departments should be required to post these online when they receive them. Their decisions should not be posted online a few days before the meeting.
I was astounded to hear that old buildings cannot be used for medical facilities. If that's the case they should have presented floor plans showing it cannot be done.
SLU thinks they can do whatever they want. They do not want public participation. If they valued the public they wouldn't have created a fortress campus. They wouldn't have lobbied for the removal of city wide preservation review. They wouldn't have purchased a historic building thinking the jobs argument would simply win out. SLU will continue to be an impediment in St. Louis and I wonder if these buildings will still be standing in a year or two. It is winter and fires can easily be blamed on the homeless.
Saving the pevely building is a laudable effort...and maybe a small step forward in revitalization of the area...fine...
Let's not lose sight of the fact though that the line of others looking to invest south of lindell along grand isn't exactly long and illustrious...from what I have seen, that is likely a function of the barriers of a highway and the railroad gulch as much as anything else...the effects of those realities have been well documented on this site...and steeper declines of neighborhoods have occurred where no institutions have raised anything...
Has SLU helped itself as much as it could have via neighborhood revitalization? I really don't know...probably not...is SLU why most moved away? That's a stretch imo...
Let's not lose sight of the fact though that the line of others looking to invest south of lindell along grand isn't exactly long and illustrious...from what I have seen, that is likely a function of the barriers of a highway and the railroad gulch as much as anything else...the effects of those realities have been well documented on this site...and steeper declines of neighborhoods have occurred where no institutions have raised anything...
Has SLU helped itself as much as it could have via neighborhood revitalization? I really don't know...probably not...is SLU why most moved away? That's a stretch imo...
The notion that SLU is an impediment to the city simply astounds me...and is just as harmful undercurrent of attitude as those who would just as soon raze everything...
Given the history of tearing buildings down in this city, right or wrong, SLU proceeded like most other institutions around...lol...I'm glad they are being asked to explain their position...urban_dilettante wrote:is this the spread out, semi industrial area you're talking about?RobbyD wrote:I think a realistic vision of what the areas around SLU can become needs to be found...between the large railroad gulch, old industrial complexes, large warehouse spaces, sprawling, open space campuses... density is going to be nearly impossible to ever achieve in what was likely a spread out, semi industrial area to begin with...
the consensus is due to the fact that it's difficult to live and raise a family in an area where all the residences have been/are still being razed for surface parking, green space and fountains. perhaps the vibrancy and density of the neighborhood that was there previously could be replicated if there were buildings to live in instead of just parking lots and ball fields.RobbyD wrote:...and near consensus within the market that this is not the place to live and raise a family, there are significant obstacles to replicating the vibrancy and density of other st Louis neighborhoods...
Robby, with all due respect the only idealistic vacuum that SLU is operating in is its own. The preservation community would be thrilled to work with SLU on the rehabilitation of Midtown. But that means compromise, of course, and SLU has demonstrated time and again -- including with yesterday's performance at the PRB meeting -- that it has no interest in compromise and no respect for the review process. they knowingly purchased a building on the historic register fully aware that they could not use it and simply assumed they would be allowed to raze it at will. as others have asked, is that responsible planning on SLU's part? is that HONEST planning on SLU's part?RobbyD wrote:but it seems to me SLU cannot operate in an idealistic vacuum
I also think that reasonable people can conclude historic buildings are not worth saving...there are some who do not adhere to the ideals of urban preservationists...that doesn't make them evil or dishonest imo...I do not adhere to the preservationist "religion" but I do feel there is reason to smartly save many historic structures...the pevely likely being one...
Doug wrote...
RobbyD wrote...
Just because it costs more to save a historical building doesn't make it an irrational decision. There's other benefits, cultural and aesthetics being a couple, that makes it reasonable.
That's an ignorant thing to say. Midtown would be nothing without SLU and the students they've brought to the area when Midtown wasn't a destination. I hope you're joking and just trying to get a rise out of people with the fire comment.SLU will continue to be an impediment in St. Louis and I wonder if these buildings will still be standing in a year or two. It is winter and fires can easily be blamed on the homeless.
RobbyD wrote...
. I assume you think your reasonable. So why do you writeI also think that reasonable people can conclude historic buildings are not worth saving.
?...but I do feel there is reason to smartly save many historic structures...the pevely likely being one...
Just because it costs more to save a historical building doesn't make it an irrational decision. There's other benefits, cultural and aesthetics being a couple, that makes it reasonable.
- 11K
^ Right. On balance, SLU is clearly a huge asset, IMO. On the other hand, SLU has depopulated this part of town, buying and demolishing dozens and dozens of residences. That has a negative impact on the city. There should be a process that gives historic buildings that are adaptable several years to find a new use. There are a huge number of buildings across that city that were vacant for years and are now incredible assets to the economy and life of St. Louis. It's shortsighted to say, "Oh, we can't get financing this year, or maybe next, so let's demo this building."
^^ read again what I said...my point is that there are reasoned arguments to save the building and reasoned arguments to demolish the building...I agree with your reasons for saving the building...some may discount those reasons however and that doesn't make them evil...just in need of persuasion to see things differently...
Are there clean up costs associated with reuse of the pevely complex? Is there any increased cost of significance? If so, those objections should be met directly and with substance...ultimately I think the moral high ground some preservationists adhere to is over blown...SLU must firstly and efficiently meet its teaching and apostolic mission, but it must do so in the context of the larger community within which it exists and serves...
Are there clean up costs associated with reuse of the pevely complex? Is there any increased cost of significance? If so, those objections should be met directly and with substance...ultimately I think the moral high ground some preservationists adhere to is over blown...SLU must firstly and efficiently meet its teaching and apostolic mission, but it must do so in the context of the larger community within which it exists and serves...
^I know your point, but the lines in your last statement contradicted each other.
- 710
If SLU would act in good faith and stop making their own ideas up about urban planning as they go and be a little bit more...academic, we wouldn't have these exercises. They brought everything on themselves by failing miserably to adhere to even the most basic best practices that most decent urban universities acknowledge. I look at SLU from the outside as a resident of St. Louis City and a frequent traveler to other cities, and see a university in suspended animation, stuck in a post war rut. Frankly, I get the vibe from SLU that it resents being an urban university, and I'm dissapointed that it's not living up to it's huge potential as a catalyst for rebuilding midtown.
You know, I thought that there would be a day when I'd stop seeing that smirk from former St. Louis residents or SLU alumni when I mention what SLU is up to (tearing down) now to make the area around campus even more desolate, Detroit-like, and uncomfortable for pedestrians/students on top of the problems it already has, but here we are yet a generation later.
You know, I thought that there would be a day when I'd stop seeing that smirk from former St. Louis residents or SLU alumni when I mention what SLU is up to (tearing down) now to make the area around campus even more desolate, Detroit-like, and uncomfortable for pedestrians/students on top of the problems it already has, but here we are yet a generation later.
Well, it seems to me that because one position is reasonable does not mean the "opposition" is irrational...I think it depends on what outcome one is seeking...pat wrote:^I know your point, but the lines in your last statement contradicted each other.
- 2,386
I am glad the preservation board did the right thing and mandated the preservation of this building. SLU continues to amaze me in their quest for lawns and fountains. The StLToday story quoting the architect literally said they wanted the building demolished to make way for a fountain and lawn. Absolutely unbelievable.
As forumers have stated above, this has nothing to do with the potential uses of the structure.
I also agree that we as a city need to continue this to send the message that poorly planned and city killing structures can no longer be tolerated from any institution. Glad the citizens are forcing quality development.
The "It's better than nothing" argument is tired and should no longer fly, because "it's better than nothing" is going to begin changing to "that isn't better than what someone else is going to do."
Edit: It is also absolute FACT that SLU has DOZENS of bulldozed properties that could hold this structure perfectly well fountain, lawn, and all. They have no credible argument to validate their hope of demolition for this land as well. There literally is NONE when you take into account their already established land holdings that currently contain nothing but grass.
As forumers have stated above, this has nothing to do with the potential uses of the structure.
I also agree that we as a city need to continue this to send the message that poorly planned and city killing structures can no longer be tolerated from any institution. Glad the citizens are forcing quality development.
The "It's better than nothing" argument is tired and should no longer fly, because "it's better than nothing" is going to begin changing to "that isn't better than what someone else is going to do."
Edit: It is also absolute FACT that SLU has DOZENS of bulldozed properties that could hold this structure perfectly well fountain, lawn, and all. They have no credible argument to validate their hope of demolition for this land as well. There literally is NONE when you take into account their already established land holdings that currently contain nothing but grass.
newtoSTL2020-- your comments would make a great Letter to the Editor!
I know the explanation will probably be something about caves, but honestly - look directly across Grand, where SLU built a beautiful, interesting research building in the middle of a gigantic, wasted green lawn. I like green grass as much as anyone, but couldn't that building have been at either end of that lot, and a massive ambulatory care center built next to it?
^ A quick look at Google Earth shows that a rather large building used to hug the SE corner of Grand and Chouteau as recently as 1998. By 2002, that building was gone.
Is part of the problem here that they don't pay property taxes so there's a disincentive missing for large grassy meadows and parking lots?
I think that's part of it, but that's something that's true for all non-profit hospitals/universities/colleges/churches/charities, not something that's specific to SLU.quincunx wrote:Is part of the problem here that they don't pay property taxes so there's a disincentive missing for large grassy meadows and parking lots?
Matt Yglesias had a post about this a while ago (see also this older NYT article about charitable exemptions and an Atlantic Cities article about non-profit hospitals specifically). The example Yglesais goes through is more applicable to a city with a land scarcity issue, which is a little different than our problem of sprawl/landbanking, but I think the underlying distortion is the same.
I'm sure SLU and similar organizations (WashU/BJC, SSM, etc) make PILOT payments of some sort to the city, but I doubt that the payment is linked in any way to property ownership (anyone have any info on what sort of payments these large non-profits make to the city?). I think a better system might be to have lower PILOT payments and assess a property tax to non-profits who own over x amount of "unimproved land" (parking garages, surface lots, green space) only on the unimproved land. That would spare smaller non-profits with thinner margins from the brunt of a new tax and would prompt larger non-profits to minimize parking, build garages over surface lots, and keep green space to a tasteful minimum.
That policy might not work (I'm sure there are a lot of unintended consequences I haven't thought of) or be politically feasible (I can't imagine the heavy lifting that would have be done to get something like this put in to action), but I think it's worth thinking about ways we can promote density on a policy level.