Yes. We'll post the letters here soon.
There was a strong anti-preservation-review letter in the Post a couple of days ago:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... 88059.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... 88059.html
Link to letter in STL Biz Journal: http://flic.kr/p/bm4TTR Image is too wide to post and have be legible.
It says "Oops! don't have permission to view this photo." Apparently it's been made private?Alex Ihnen wrote:Link to letter in STL Biz Journal: http://flic.kr/p/bm4TTR Image is too wide to post and have be legible.
According to Michael Allen, SLU is appealing the Preservation Board's decision regarding the Pevely complex TODAY-- Feb. 1st at 5:30pm, 1015 Locust, 12th floor.
![]()
Photo courtesy of Michael Allen.
Photo courtesy of Michael Allen.
- 11K
The appeal is asking the Planning Commission to find some kind of procedural error in the Preservation Board's vote. According to several people I've talked to, it's very unlikely that it will succeed - their opinion was that the Pres Board followed the rules. Also, the Planning Commission does not general take public comments.
Correct as usual Alex. This meeting is to determine whether they will actually hear an appeal at a later date. They did not opt to hear an appeal on the Cupples 7 decision a while ago, so hopefully that is a precedent.
hmmmmmmmmmm. I can't help but think Biondi is throwing the City a bone with the Law School move in the hopes of getting a greenlight for the Pevely demo.
At the very least, he's showing the City that SLU, for better or worse, still can make an impact in terms of the revitalization of DT.
This will be very interesting in terms of how this plays out.
At the very least, he's showing the City that SLU, for better or worse, still can make an impact in terms of the revitalization of DT.
This will be very interesting in terms of how this plays out.
- 11K
^ If that's the case, it will be a test for the city as to whether they (continue) to bend and break rules as favors, or follow their own ordinances.
- 30
The review of all four cases associated with the Pevely preservation was the first item on the agenda at the Planning Commission meeting tonight.
Here is what the power point slide on the matter said:
"In reviewing the decisions of the Preservation Board, the Planning Commission shall be limited to determining the correctness of the provisional decision by reviewing the record as adduced before the Planning Board in light of the applicable and appropriate standard. The Planning Commission may consider both oral and written arguments, but no new or additional evidence need be considered. The Planning Commission shall in writing affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Board."
After the motion passed, Father Biondi, Steve Smith of the Lawrence Group, and I believe two other men, got up and left the meeting.
They set a date of February 22nd to review the matter.
Here is what the power point slide on the matter said:
"In reviewing the decisions of the Preservation Board, the Planning Commission shall be limited to determining the correctness of the provisional decision by reviewing the record as adduced before the Planning Board in light of the applicable and appropriate standard. The Planning Commission may consider both oral and written arguments, but no new or additional evidence need be considered. The Planning Commission shall in writing affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Board."
After the motion passed, Father Biondi, Steve Smith of the Lawrence Group, and I believe two other men, got up and left the meeting.
They set a date of February 22nd to review the matter.
If that is indeed the case, then it should be open and shut: the preservation ordinance is absolutely unequivocal on the matter. It states that the demolition of sound, high-merit buildings will not be approved. Since no new evidence can be presented at the Feb 22 meeting, but oral arguments will be heard, I think that a group of people signing up to speak and simply reading that section of the preservation ordinance, one after another, might have the desired effect.
- 11K
^ I believe that only oral arguments from the Preservation Board and SLU will be heard, not the public. It's too bad that some media (KWMU) is reporting:
I'm sure they would view it as semantic detail unnecessary to report, but it's important. The commission is reviewing whether the Preservation Board followed procedure. SLU is looking for a loop hole, a clerical error - they have not been granted a chance to re-argue their case.The St. Louis city Planning Commission has agreed to consider whether Saint Louis University should be allowed to tear down three buildings at the old Pevely Dairy site in midtown to build a new ambulatory care center.
- 3,235
Bill weighs in on the Pevely/SLU Law situation. He claims the city owes SLU a favor. I disagree
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... mode=story
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... mode=story
Certainly Bill is reflecting the old school mentality in St. Louis. I predicted this type of move may happen.
How this plays out is going to be very fascinating.
How this plays out is going to be very fascinating.
Can't wait for Bill to retire.ttricamo wrote:Certainly Bill is reflecting the old school mentality in St. Louis.
And soon!
I pray someone from the forum takes his place.
- 11K
^ Working on it! At least sort of, in one realm, pitching an idea... 
- 710
I do believe in making deals, however re: SLU, a strong message needed to be sent. Maybe in the future there will be more give and take.
For some reason I always value Bill McClellans POV, maybe I just like the guy.
For some reason I always value Bill McClellans POV, maybe I just like the guy.
lets take a look at whats proposed in Cicero
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 11.graphic
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 7005.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 11.graphic
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 7005.story
- 3,762
anyone notice the very awkward and, i'm sure, completely coincidental reference to SLU law moving downtown in the Tribune piece about the National Blues Museum?
Link to forum post that links to Tribune article:
http://www.nextstl.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 8&start=15
Link to forum post that links to Tribune article:
http://www.nextstl.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 8&start=15
Lol! Fear the papists! Lol!
Seriously, that line about SLU gives credibility to the riverfront resurgence narrative, points to the big perception bump the move gives to downtown...could also be another part of Pope Benedict s desire to control the world...though its doubtful all that many even realize st Louis university is even catholic...
Seriously, that line about SLU gives credibility to the riverfront resurgence narrative, points to the big perception bump the move gives to downtown...could also be another part of Pope Benedict s desire to control the world...though its doubtful all that many even realize st Louis university is even catholic...
- 3,762
^ nope. SLU has nothing to do with the subject of the article (no more-so than a handful of other developments anyway, none of which were mentioned). see my other post here:
http://nextstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 8&start=15
and again, they got a free building adjacent to the legal district. not sure how that implies anything about a downtown resurgence, especially with regard to the riverfront. also, i mentioned nothing about catholicism.
http://nextstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 8&start=15
and again, they got a free building adjacent to the legal district. not sure how that implies anything about a downtown resurgence, especially with regard to the riverfront. also, i mentioned nothing about catholicism.
To say it again, the move of the law school has a psychological impact...I would imagine the vast majority of folks are not terribly interested in the coming and goings of downtown st Louis...hearing that a big league law school has moved downtown, for whatever reason, will perk up some ears and give credibility to the downtown (hence riverfront) resurgence narrative...I do agree the thought seems a bit incongruous with the flow of the article...but any protect could have been highlighted...the most recent "significant" happening was chosen to highlight the trend...
I brought up catholicism...just expressing some personal chuckles over the knock on the catholic school...wondering if this point would have been brought up if the article highlighted the Jefferson arms project instead...my hunch is no...but as always, I could be wrong...
I brought up catholicism...just expressing some personal chuckles over the knock on the catholic school...wondering if this point would have been brought up if the article highlighted the Jefferson arms project instead...my hunch is no...but as always, I could be wrong...