i don't disagree that it has a psychological impact, just as several other non-tourist-oriented projects not mentioned would have a psychological impact. the problem is, the article is about the blues museum, tourism, and the revitalization of the riverfront, none of which have anything to do with SLU Law. if the article had suddenly interjected a nod to the Jefferson Arms instead of SLU Law in between two paragraphs talking about Saint Louis' musical heritage (yep, read it again) it would have read just as awkward. however, you're right that, if the author had mentioned the Jefferson Arms, i would not be so critical because the Jefferson Arms and Teach for America have not recently tried to demo a national register building, and have not subsequently been the subject of numerous opinion pieces and op eds exalting their infinite virtues and condemning those holding them to the ordinances. Biondi is clearly on a PR offensive. now, i'm not saying that Biondi necessarily had anything to do with the SLU mention in the Tribune article - perhaps the author is just sympathetic to SLU. but i don't understand how you can deny that a stand-alone reference to SLU Law is completely out-of-place in that article.
The meeting to review the Pevely decision is 2/22? Any plans taking place to bolster the decision to keep the building?
- 11K
^ The review is of the process followed by the Preservation Review Board - if they followed the rules. No new information is allowed to be presented. Basically, "Did the Preservation Review Board follow the rules and act in a lawful manner?" They will not take testimony from the public at this hearing. As I understand it, this is rather straightforward - the Pres Board did follow the rules. Of course stranger things have happened.
- 3,762
^ stltoday ran a story in which a member of the planning commission (can't recall a name at the moment) was quoted as saying they have the power to overturn the PRB decision. no details offered about how they're restricted to assessing whether or not the PRB followed the rules. that worries me a little. i'm also not sure why they need to hear oral arguments from anyone if all they're doing is basically reviewing the minutes from the meeting. that also worries me, because argument implies that SLU might be able to "persuade" them even if the PRB followed all the rules, and the commission could just make up some justification based on how they were "persuaded".
I drove by this building yesterday to see the doc at SLU...I'm really not sure what saving this building will really do on the ground in Midtown in terms of promoting urbanism...The entire front facing Chouteau (a long stretch) is brick wall...Turn the corner onto Grand and there is nothing obvious to promote street activity within the Pevely complex...I mean the Dairy was originally designed as an industrial space to push out the city and bottle and distribute milk inside the campus...Further, that run west along Chouteau and south along Grand will likely never be dense urban environments...There's massive railroad infrastructure west until you cross Vandeventer and head into the Grove...The long walk between the Medical Campus and the Main Campus could be a logical spot for development, but there's probably 6 to 8 blocks of gulch containing railroad infrastructure...
I understand the aesthetic the building gives to those who drive, walk or ride by...But I don't see the idea that urban fabric on the street can be anchored around that location...
I understand the line in the sand many want to draw because of the ravages of the wrecking ball in St. Louis...But principle always needs to aligned with each situation and the real prospects that exist...
I am not an urban planner...I don't claim to be an expert here...I don't really have a historical ax to grind either way...That's just my opinion driving through...I get that urban fabric has to start somewhere...I just don't think it will ever occur right next to so much industrial infrastructure when reality no longer requires the density be found there...
I understand the aesthetic the building gives to those who drive, walk or ride by...But I don't see the idea that urban fabric on the street can be anchored around that location...
I understand the line in the sand many want to draw because of the ravages of the wrecking ball in St. Louis...But principle always needs to aligned with each situation and the real prospects that exist...
I am not an urban planner...I don't claim to be an expert here...I don't really have a historical ax to grind either way...That's just my opinion driving through...I get that urban fabric has to start somewhere...I just don't think it will ever occur right next to so much industrial infrastructure when reality no longer requires the density be found there...
- 2,386
^The building that is being aimed to be saved is the main building on the corner, I don't believe this includs the massive brick walled building that continues down the street.
The biggest issue here (for me, and others have stated as well) is not the historical preservation of Pevely. I would be ok with leveling Pevely if an urban building that enhanced the streetscape was built in its place. The issue is that SLU's planning is horrendous and suburban, which destroys the fabric of the city. The preservation of Pevely (for me) is a means to an end. As of now, we don't have the proper code to force SLU to build quality development, so we need to use the presevation board to effect this change.
Once again this is just me.
The biggest issue here (for me, and others have stated as well) is not the historical preservation of Pevely. I would be ok with leveling Pevely if an urban building that enhanced the streetscape was built in its place. The issue is that SLU's planning is horrendous and suburban, which destroys the fabric of the city. The preservation of Pevely (for me) is a means to an end. As of now, we don't have the proper code to force SLU to build quality development, so we need to use the presevation board to effect this change.
Once again this is just me.
^That's fine, but do you think utilizing the Preservation Board will bring about a change in SLU's practices...
I would say again that this spot in Midtown will likely never have a dense fabric and maybe never should have? The area has a heavy industrial feel with tons of railroad infrastructure...
I noticed the other day the arched walk way connecting the Doisy Health Science building with another structure...It really looks and feels monastic in scale, form and function...I wonder if SLU feels it is more realistically dealing with the size of the footprint between the Med Campus and Main Campus given what else is in the neighborhood...
There are neat things happening up the street in Grand Center...The new hotel will change the heart of that neighborhood...And thats exciting to me...But pushing south through all that railroad and also the real industrial/dead space up and down Chouteau after the railroad...I just don't know what folks really expect SLU to do...Right now they are the only game in town along that stretch...
They are clearly not building with good urban design...I get that...My point is that even if they did, I'm not sure how that would change much given the other external realities between the campuses...
I would say again that this spot in Midtown will likely never have a dense fabric and maybe never should have? The area has a heavy industrial feel with tons of railroad infrastructure...
I noticed the other day the arched walk way connecting the Doisy Health Science building with another structure...It really looks and feels monastic in scale, form and function...I wonder if SLU feels it is more realistically dealing with the size of the footprint between the Med Campus and Main Campus given what else is in the neighborhood...
There are neat things happening up the street in Grand Center...The new hotel will change the heart of that neighborhood...And thats exciting to me...But pushing south through all that railroad and also the real industrial/dead space up and down Chouteau after the railroad...I just don't know what folks really expect SLU to do...Right now they are the only game in town along that stretch...
They are clearly not building with good urban design...I get that...My point is that even if they did, I'm not sure how that would change much given the other external realities between the campuses...
Well said.newstl2020 wrote:^The building that is being aimed to be saved is the main building on the corner, I don't believe this includs the massive brick walled building that continues down the street.
The biggest issue here (for me, and others have stated as well) is not the historical preservation of Pevely. I would be ok with leveling Pevely if an urban building that enhanced the streetscape was built in its place. The issue is that SLU's planning is horrendous and suburban, which destroys the fabric of the city. The preservation of Pevely (for me) is a means to an end. As of now, we don't have the proper code to force SLU to build quality development, so we need to use the presevation board to effect this change.
Once again this is just me.
^^^I would also add that it's hard for me to understand leveling buildings with architectural significance if the costs are not irrational in not doing so...(or not (triple negative lol))...
It seems fairly obvious that beauty and substance only enhance one's development, not hinder it...
I did not realize that it might be possible to carve up the Pevely campus into architectually significant parts and more pedestrian parts...Probably the devil in teh regulation details? Save all of a historic building/campus exactly or none of it?
It seems fairly obvious that beauty and substance only enhance one's development, not hinder it...
I did not realize that it might be possible to carve up the Pevely campus into architectually significant parts and more pedestrian parts...Probably the devil in teh regulation details? Save all of a historic building/campus exactly or none of it?
- 2,386
^^^I completely disagree with every assertion you list above.
But yes, it is possible to save portions of the facility and not others (which is what I believe should be done). From what I *think* I know of the situation, the main corner building and the smoke-stack are the only things the board is actively trying to keep. Everything else is free to demo in order to build their necessary facilities.
But yes, it is possible to save portions of the facility and not others (which is what I believe should be done). From what I *think* I know of the situation, the main corner building and the smoke-stack are the only things the board is actively trying to keep. Everything else is free to demo in order to build their necessary facilities.
^Wow...not into the new hotel in Grand Center I suppose...
I'm also confused then on how there can be such a strong consensus around the detrimental effects of I-70 downtown, but seemingly no real attention paid to the effects of permanent railroad infrastructure in Midtown...Doesn't the industrial nature of Midtown along the rail lines seem to intuitively argue against new future dense development when there is so much 'nonmultirail' hacked up land available?
I'm also confused then on how there can be such a strong consensus around the detrimental effects of I-70 downtown, but seemingly no real attention paid to the effects of permanent railroad infrastructure in Midtown...Doesn't the industrial nature of Midtown along the rail lines seem to intuitively argue against new future dense development when there is so much 'nonmultirail' hacked up land available?
I think people in general agree that the rail infrastructure is as disruptive as downtown I-70, the difference in emphasis is logistical. It's actually possible and practical to decommission downtown I-70, but the rails are often privately owned and heavily used and there's no real practical alternative to them, so we're stuck with them as they are for the time being.RobbyD wrote:I'm also confused then on how there can be such a strong consensus around the detrimental effects of I-70 downtown, but seemingly no real attention paid to the effects of permanent railroad infrastructure in Midtown
Urban form along Grand is only part of the equation, though I do think that if we had an urban environment north of Forest Park Parkway and south of Chouteau, the gap in between wouldn't feel like such a deal breaker (especially with a streetcar running along Grand). In my view, Chouteau should be developed as another Lindell-Olive, a major east-west corridor, passing through/by the Grove, Lafayette Square, La Salle Park, and Downtown. Lindell-Olive certainly has some major de-urbanized stretches, but in many other places it's a good representative of how an attractive urban street can look in St. Louis. It's a 50-100 year goal, but we only get there by planning for it today and expecting new buildings to have an urban form (like most others I'd like for SLU to preserve the main Pevely building and incorporate it into their new outpatient building, but if they proposed a suitably urban building I'd certainly consider the trade).RobbyD wrote:There are neat things happening up the street in Grand Center...The new hotel will change the heart of that neighborhood...And thats exciting to me...But pushing south through all that railroad and also the real industrial/dead space up and down Chouteau after the railroad.
Lol, I love the idea that what's been holding St. Louis back is an unwillingness to bend the rules for powerful organizations/businesses and make shady deals in backrooms out of the public eye. Hasn't that been a big part our economic development strategy for the past 50 years?downtown2007 wrote: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
^^I hear what you are saying...there will be attention given to obstacles that can be removed...makes sense...I just wonder what kind of urban landscape is reasonable to expect along chouteau and the grand bridge...driving through the area again the other day, parts of it feel like the north river front with truck yards, large warehouses, and multiple rail...just not the obvious hot bed for new urbanization...there are so many other neighborhoods that need to come online before significant investment takes place there imo...
I think it reasonable that SLU build out a larger campus footprint and then see what kinds of development spur along the edges rather than the tentacles of the university and the city needing to intertwine and forge a brand new neighborhood...
I think it reasonable that SLU build out a larger campus footprint and then see what kinds of development spur along the edges rather than the tentacles of the university and the city needing to intertwine and forge a brand new neighborhood...
- 2,386
Urban planning and development standards shouldn't be about what the current situation is. If we do things that way there is never improvement in the uran form/fabric.
It should be about what we want to area to look like in the future. This is not about what the current state of grand South of the rail-yards. This is about the past and future states of the area.
So, respectfully, I don't really care what you think of the current area. I care about the impact that SLU's present day decisions are going to have on the area 30 years from now. That is why I (and I think I could say we) reject SLU's plans for this site.
It should be about what we want to area to look like in the future. This is not about what the current state of grand South of the rail-yards. This is about the past and future states of the area.
So, respectfully, I don't really care what you think of the current area. I care about the impact that SLU's present day decisions are going to have on the area 30 years from now. That is why I (and I think I could say we) reject SLU's plans for this site.
- 3,762
i think that's completely unreasonable. basically you just said that the city should hand over midtown to SLU, no strings attached. that's not how cities work. the city has every right - nay, responsibility - to intertwine its tentacles into SLU's development practices. no, we shouldn't just let SLU demolish stuff and "see" what happens. the city should PLAN for a dense, urban environment and hold SLU to those plans. it might take a while but that's the only surefire way. perhaps we should just give over each part of the city to its wealthiest resident institution and let them all do as they wish? that would be the fair thing to do, i suppose.RobbyD wrote: I think it reasonable that SLU build out a larger campus footprint and then see what kinds of development spur along the edges rather than the tentacles of the university and the city needing to intertwine and forge a brand new neighborhood...
Exactly. This applies to Union Station as well.newstl2020 wrote:Urban planning and development standards shouldn't be about what the current situation is. If we do things that way there is never improvement in the urban form/fabric.
It should be about what we want to area to look like in the future. This is not about what the current state of grand South of the rail-yards. This is about the past and future states of the area.
Agreed that we'll see continued development in Midtown Alley, the Grove, Downtown, etc. sooner and in larger scale than some stretches of Chouteau, but I still think it's a corridor with a lot of potential, especially if we begin by laying the groundwork for it today.RobbyD wrote:just not the obvious hot bed for new urbanization...there are so many other neighborhoods that need to come online before significant investment takes place there imo...
I'm not sure anyone cares what I think of the situation on the ground in midtown...my point is that the issues around grand and chouteau are as much a product of the serious industrial use in the area as anything else...of course government can shape development and type of investment in an area, and this should be done intelligently...but we should bear in mind that the good urban density that was in the area, I would imagine, arose not via government mandate and smart zoning but via common sense building and design approaches to the form and function of the city at the time it was built...OBVIOUSLY city planning is required for good urban development...and we should try and plan for the best into future, but I also believe that honest admissions of what 30 or 50 years into the future will actually look like given the past 30 to 50 years combined with even the rosiest projections of growth during that time...newstl2020 wrote:Urban planning and development standards shouldn't be about what the current situation is. If we do things that way there is never improvement in the uran form/fabric.
It should be about what we want to area to look like in the future. This is not about what the current state of grand South of the rail-yards. This is about the past and future states of the area.
So, respectfully, I don't really care what you think of the current area. I care about the impact that SLU's present day decisions are going to have on the area 30 years from now. That is why I (and I think I could say we) reject SLU's plans for this site.
IOW, imo neither SLU telling the city what its going to get nor the city telling SLU what its going to will work...there has to be a partnership created...well see what happens...hopefully preservationists will not be seen as spitting into the wind and SLU will be a source economic progress...it could happen...
- 2,386
I agree that there should be a partnership. This should be done via SLU proposing something that maintains and builds the urban fabric (ie not suburban design and no more lawns and fountains) that also serves the purpose of their new ambulatory care center. I don't think that this would be very hard to do, nor do I think it would be cost prohibitive to do. Nor do I think this is unreasonable to ask of the University. Especially considering they bought a building on a historic register. Knowing this before they purchased the building, I find the intitial design they proposed insulting to the citizens of StL.
Could you expand on this portion of the thought? I think I know what you are getting at, but I don't want to misinterpret.RobbyD wrote:I'm not sure anyone cares what I think of the situation on the ground in midtown...my point is that the issues around grand and chouteau are as much a product of the serious industrial use in the area as anything else...of course government can shape development and type of investment in an area, and this should be done intelligently...but we should bear in mind that the good urban density that was in the area, I would imagine, arose not via government mandate and smart zoning but via common sense building and design approaches to the form and function of the city at the time it was built...OBVIOUSLY city planning is required for good urban development...and we should try and plan for the best into future, but I also believe that honest admissions of what 30 or 50 years into the future will actually look like given the past 30 to 50 years combined with even the rosiest projections of growth during that time...newstl2020 wrote:Urban planning and development standards shouldn't be about what the current situation is. If we do things that way there is never improvement in the uran form/fabric.
It should be about what we want to area to look like in the future. This is not about what the current state of grand South of the rail-yards. This is about the past and future states of the area.
So, respectfully, I don't really care what you think of the current area. I care about the impact that SLU's present day decisions are going to have on the area 30 years from now. That is why I (and I think I could say we) reject SLU's plans for this site.
IOW, imo neither SLU telling the city what its going to get nor the city telling SLU what its going to will work...there has to be a partnership created...well see what happens...hopefully preservationists will not be seen as spitting into the wind and SLU will be a source economic progress...it could happen...
Could you make a case for why it would make sense? I sometimes find that if I drop all the realism that blocks creativity then I can come up with something I didn't see/think before. That doesn't mean we come up with unrealistic responses, but rather find ones that were blocked by particular things we keyed on that created a barrier in our mind. I would look to see if there are some precedents where such urban redevelopment has worked.RobbyD wrote:I drove by this building yesterday to see the doc at SLU...I'm really not sure what saving this building will really do on the ground in Midtown in terms of promoting urbanism...The entire front facing Chouteau (a long stretch) is brick wall...Turn the corner onto Grand and there is nothing obvious to promote street activity within the Pevely complex...I mean the Dairy was originally designed as an industrial space to push out the city and bottle and distribute milk inside the campus...Further, that run west along Chouteau and south along Grand will likely never be dense urban environments...There's massive railroad infrastructure west until you cross Vandeventer and head into the Grove...The long walk between the Medical Campus and the Main Campus could be a logical spot for development, but there's probably 6 to 8 blocks of gulch containing railroad infrastructure...
I understand the aesthetic the building gives to those who drive, walk or ride by...But I don't see the idea that urban fabric on the street can be anchored around that location...
I understand the line in the sand many want to draw because of the ravages of the wrecking ball in St. Louis...But principle always needs to aligned with each situation and the real prospects that exist...
I am not an urban planner...I don't claim to be an expert here...I don't really have a historical ax to grind either way...That's just my opinion driving through...I get that urban fabric has to start somewhere...I just don't think it will ever occur right next to so much industrial infrastructure when reality no longer requires the density be found there...
The reason I say all of this is not because I disagree with your points (I think they are worth considering) but I wonder if you wished the situation were different that it were. I think the process I outlined above might be something you would find interesting and I think your analytical ability coupled with that process could spur some really interesting ideas for what you would change to make density work there.
If you are not interested then just disregard the above, but it seems like an exercise that you might enjoy, especially with your perceived passion for analyzing these kinds of urban redevelopment efforts. Cheers.
- 3,762
just thought i would link this here. SLU could build 10 ambulatory centers on the vacant land they own, but why do that when you can knock down a perfectly good building and still have all that vacant land?
http://preservationresearch.com/2012/02 ... iry-plant/
http://preservationresearch.com/2012/02 ... iry-plant/
Ha...I used to be absolutely fascinated as a kid by books on ancient Rome and its urban solutions to problems long before electricity and the combustion engine...zun1026 wrote:Could you make a case for why it would make sense? I sometimes find that if I drop all the realism that blocks creativity then I can come up with something I didn't see/think before. That doesn't mean we come up with unrealistic responses, but rather find ones that were blocked by particular things we keyed on that created a barrier in our mind. I would look to see if there are some precedents where such urban redevelopment has worked.RobbyD wrote:I drove by this building yesterday to see the doc at SLU...I'm really not sure what saving this building will really do on the ground in Midtown in terms of promoting urbanism...The entire front facing Chouteau (a long stretch) is brick wall...Turn the corner onto Grand and there is nothing obvious to promote street activity within the Pevely complex...I mean the Dairy was originally designed as an industrial space to push out the city and bottle and distribute milk inside the campus...Further, that run west along Chouteau and south along Grand will likely never be dense urban environments...There's massive railroad infrastructure west until you cross Vandeventer and head into the Grove...The long walk between the Medical Campus and the Main Campus could be a logical spot for development, but there's probably 6 to 8 blocks of gulch containing railroad infrastructure...
I understand the aesthetic the building gives to those who drive, walk or ride by...But I don't see the idea that urban fabric on the street can be anchored around that location...
I understand the line in the sand many want to draw because of the ravages of the wrecking ball in St. Louis...But principle always needs to aligned with each situation and the real prospects that exist...
I am not an urban planner...I don't claim to be an expert here...I don't really have a historical ax to grind either way...That's just my opinion driving through...I get that urban fabric has to start somewhere...I just don't think it will ever occur right next to so much industrial infrastructure when reality no longer requires the density be found there...
The reason I say all of this is not because I disagree with your points (I think they are worth considering) but I wonder if you wished the situation were different that it were. I think the process I outlined above might be something you would find interesting and I think your analytical ability coupled with that process could spur some really interesting ideas for what you would change to make density work there.
If you are not interested then just disregard the above, but it seems like an exercise that you might enjoy, especially with your perceived passion for analyzing these kinds of urban redevelopment efforts. Cheers.
I think that it is so terribly important to bear in mind that while great urban spaces have intelligent planning and governing, the real power behind them are the people who desire en masse to be there...it can sometimes feel here in st Louis that we are trying to create the music and expect to hear it before the choir shows up and the band is here...the fragile population gains and over all mind set of the city needs real accomplishments now to secure a prosperous future...not in 50 years...SLU is presenting real and significant growth in midtown...for this we should be giddy...especially given the implosion of anything beyond industrial along chouteau west of SLU and around the grand bridge...
I spent 5 great years in Athens, GA attending the univ of geo...a great southern state school...there the campus was separate from wonderful downtown Athens and other points east and west...I guess I see SLU through this lens...given the vast swath of land in midtown, I could see SLU building a campus how it sees fit and then connecting to the city on its boundaries much like wash u or the Jawja campus down in little a town...
Were never going to fill up this city to Manhattan levels of density...but we are going to have some amazing neighborhoods and centers of activity...I would love a job to brain storm ways to credibly suggest solutions for SLU...I do feel very strongly the we should forge a new urban landscape that takes what we know works but also what new technology, new life styles allow ...I'm not sure shoe horned Paris or new York is the goal...I think an urban space that allows all of us to be together bit also respect our space and distance should be allowed...
IOW if we can capture and provide what people left the city FOR we will attract enough back to make the city work...constantly talking about what people were running from does not allow us to think that through enough imo...(its why I question the simplistic racism that is purposed as explaining "what he heck happened")
