"the reality is that many of the brick ladies in st Louis are not that far from falling down on their own..."
I think that's a gross exaggeration that only serves to try to justify demolishing those that aren't anywhere close to falling down. All the more reason to preserve the buildings that are solid and can be reused.
^I thinking in terms of 10 to 20 years and basing that off my experience working in north st Louis neighborhoods for a couple years in the 2000s...
Saving solid buildings is the key imo...they all won't be saved and they all won't be razed...and yes, I agree that the obvious bias is towards demolition...
Noticed on the way to work this building south of the Pevely complex is currently being demolished. http://g.co/maps/56beh
Is this part of the proposed ambulance care facility?
Vanishing St Louis had a post on this building. The site plan for the Peveley that was shown at the preservation board meeting showed a parking lot here.
Yet Another SLU Demolition: the David P. Wohl Sr. Mental Health Institute
More green space...great - as a landscape architect/urban planner I would be ecstatic for this but green space to SLU means large turf areas with a few sparse trees and in a suburban setting that is inconvenient for anyone to use (i.e., Doisy Research Center).
geoffksu wrote:More green space...great - as a landscape architect/urban planner I would be ecstatic for this but green space to SLU means large turf areas with a few sparse trees and in a suburban setting that is inconvenient for anyone to use (i.e., Doisy Research Center).
Way to turn MidTown into MidSubrubia Biondi...
I hear what you are saying. It would be nice if they had more diversity. Honestly, the water and maintenance on all that lawn has to add up.
Given that St. Louis is naturally woodlands, and prairie, I wonder why they don't try to build off the benefits of natural landscapes, which IMO are much more appealing. Adding some seasonal interest versus the same shade of green?
Plus there are the financial benefits...Lets see, mowing the grass once a year versus weekly to bi-weekly? Watering very frequently versus infrequently?
And yes the Doisy Research Center landscape is a bit bland and lacking functional interests.
Undoubtedly by now you have read or seen in the media that the University is seeking permission to demolish the former Pevely Dairy industrial complex so that we may build a new, state-of-the-art Ambulatory Care Center. I have discussed the need for this project many times . . . but let me reiterate that our patients, faculty physicians, students, and medical residents deserve a world-class facility.
. . .
After the Preservation Board's decision, the University began exploring all of its options. I am confident that we will prevail in our efforts to provide health care in the heart of the City for adults and children in the St. Louis metropolitan area.
. . .
It is important for you to know that if the University is not permitted to move forward with the Ambulatory Care Center, our ability to deliver cutting-edge health care to present and future patients in Midtown St. Louis will be greatly compromised. Moreover, this project is absolutely critical to the future health and viability of our physicians' practice, which as I previously noted, contributes approximately one-third of our annual operating revenue. I firmly believe that St. Louis should not have to compromise the health of its citizens to preserve blighted, unusable industrial buildings.
Again, they've presented the fallacious all-or-nothing argument that health care CAN ONLY BE PROVIDED AT THIS CORNER AND NOWHERE ELSE.
I also find it interesting that the segment of the letter immediately prior to this one announces a pay freeze for all University employees. This statement makes it sound like the construction of the Ambulatory Care Center at this location will be the only thing that saves the purportedly imperiled University.
It seems that Msr. Biondi is not adverse to older architecture...His campus is full of it...
I wonder if there is a reason this site is presented as seemingly an all or nothing proposition...
SLU is about to provide the most comprehensive health care options for many underserved citizens in St. Louis...The importance of this is obvious to everyone...More important than any structure...Which is why its confusing that SLU won't compromise on the structures location...
To suggest that SLU's overridding goal here is to tear down a building seems silly...Is this a battle of ego and will? Or is there another issue that prevents SLU from considering other options? Is this a money issue? I really don't know...
Yes, it appears that SLU is ready to abandon their mission of serving children and the at-risk population, unless they're allowed to tear down whatever the want and built whatever they want. I have yet to see any local news org ask Biondi or SLU that, or a similar question.
^^^ He sounds to me like a self-righteous ass playing victim and delivering false choices in hopes that we won't notice that he STILL hasn't given any reason as to why-oh-why they just can't build their ambulatory center anywhere else in the entire city. if he can give a legitimate reason i'll eat my words. the fact that he hasn't, even after all of this opposition, suggests that there isn't one.
We need a mole inside the University then lol...or at least someone who knows someone in the know at SLU...
The notion that a "Darth Biondi" exists who would forgo providing substantial medical services for the underserved because he's not allowed by the government to tear down a building (a historic registry building no less) on property his Church owns seems a distortion of reality...
It seems the SLU medical school needs this building...Clearly the citizens of St. Louis need this building...Surely a compromise can be reached?!
Look - SLU assumed that they would be allowed to demo the building - National Register, or no. History told them that they would be allowed to do this. They ignored direct and very pointed warnings that the issue would be contested. They hastily had their architect throw together a single rendering showing the best (cheapest, most conventional) building form possible and presented it as an either/or. OF COURSE SLU wants a blank slate, what owner/developer wouldn't? They've been allowed a blank slate over and over again. This time they have not - so far - and they're pouting about it. IMO - it's rather straightforward.
^It is straightforward in as much as we know...I agree with the notion that SLU assumed it would be business as usual...And I agree that it is likely SLU is looking for the most cost effective solution here...And I agree that SLU is savvy enough to play politics in order to meet its goals...
I personally do not believe, however, that SLU leadership looked at many options for the new ambulatory center and decided that the driving force should be eliminating the Pevely Complex...I mean maybe in fact they have made a caluclated move to buy up everything, clear cut and start over...Maybe that strategy, if it exists, comes from either perceived or real cost concerns about integrating older architecture into current/future function and form...IRDK
But I'm not sure every developer wants a blank slate...I'm not sure SLU does...There are too many examples of competent and beautiful reuses of buildings for me to believe that...It is possible that the obvious conclusions of reuse or other site location are not so obvious...It is frustrating to me that SLU has not been more forthcoming about why teh Pevely site is teh only site...And maybe they don't really have an answer to that........
I think it is reasonable to assume that SLU's chief goal and concern is expanding its medical campus and providing health care for the underserved...
I understand that the only option left for those who value the pevely complex may be to stand in front of the tank, so to speak...I also understand that this might leave the preservationist movement looking more obstructionist and less progressive...And that is unfortunate...
SLU wants a corner site - it's simply more prominent, easier to find. No one (that I know) thinks that SLU's mission was to demo Pevely. Yes, their chief goal is healthcare, serving patients, and doing so at the least cost so as to maximize profit and reinvestment.
My personal opinion is that opposition to the Pevely demo would be quite blunted if only SLU proposed an urban building for the corner. They literally propose a fountain and some bushes. This is the larger issue with Pevely and preservation in the city in general: what we're getting in place of significant buildings is quite literally vacant lots.
The message to SLU: #1 - push the facility up to Grand and re-use the Pevely building. #2 - if you still insist on demo in 12 months, propose an urban building for this prominent corner of our city.
Perfectly stated Alex. I've said that before on this board. I'm not opposed to demolition if the development in it's place meets or exceeds the use of the land where the demo is performed, and provides the proper setback and urban characteristics it should at the location.
STL Biz journal just ran an editorial in support of SLU's plan for the Pevely Complex. Anyone with a subscription able to let the rest of us know more about the meat of the article?
Sorry it's sideways. Here's my response that wrote in an email conversation about the op-ed:
Where to begin? I don't think that this opinion is particularly informed, or correct. One can argue whether the complex should be listed, but that's not the decision of the Preservation Board. He dwells on the architecture of the Pevely plant, yet no one defended the buildings on the basis of extraordinary architecture. He mocks Plaza Square by recalling playing with Kenner Building Sets - I'm guessing he's more than eligible for National Register status himself and just can't believe something from his childhood could be considered "historic". He ignores the fact that most National Register nominations for buildings in St. Louis are sought by developers seeking historic tax credits and not brick-hugging preservationists. And no one's "pleading for saving the Pevely smokestack" because there's white brick on it. SLU planned to retain it anyway. Finally, he buys into the lie that the choice was either an abandoned warehouse loved by preservationists or a $75M healthcare facility.
The National Register is a tool - for local governments to categorize their history, for state governments to assess worthiness of tax credits, etc. It's the National Park Service that makes the decision regarding listing on the National Register. I suppose that local entities could ignore the designation, or the state and city could develop its own criteria? All of this makes the Op-Ed rather shallow and the grievance misplaced.
Great op/ed, Alex. Unfortunately, the Business Journal published yet another overly-simplistic editorial in the most recent issue in favor of demolishing the Pevely building. Read here (pg. 64): http://digital.bizjournals.com/launch.a ... 3e08&skip=
To me, this is a case of the Business Journal protecting/promoting its own.
They want to give their advertisers (or their buddies) who want to remain silent and not get involved in a controversy, but who could benefit from demo, a platform.
