urbanSTL

Someone needs to cough up some concrete plans

urban_dilettante wrote:^ 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".

and that's exactly what happened. as it always has been and ever shall be in saint louis, those with the money dictate the city's destiny and the laws only apply when it's convenient for them. makes me wonder whether i should bother moving back. seems rather hopeless.

SuburBiondi

Applebiondee's

Bed Bath and Biondi

rawest1 wrote:May I ask how it's different elsewhere? If you have money, you get things done. This is the same as it is in Chicago, New York, Springfield, Las Vegas, or Festus.

unfortunately all i can do is respond to your anecdote with another, and that is to say that i'm sure there are places in which such elitist favoritism in the city government is, if not less present, at least less detrimental. sadly saint louis is a hell of a lot more fragile, urban-wise, than chicago and new york. it has considerably more vacant land and considerably less historic building stock to spare. thus in chicago and new york this type of loss isn't nearly as noticeable. saint louis, over the past six decades or so, has become more like vegas, springfield and festus than chicago or new york. midtown is pretty much there already (though festus might be more dense). so perhaps it's not necessarily different than some other places but it NEEDS to be different because this same-old-sh*t isn't working and hasn't been for a long time. in the meantime we get more prairie and surface lots and a building that looks like it should be sitting alongside a highway out in chesterfield, though with less connection to the sidewalk. progress.

SO STUPID! Let them run far, far away into the county! UMSL would have a beautiful new home in midtown and become a more competitive university. Let them swap campuses with UMSL, plenty of old country club houses in the neighborhood for their country club attitudes.

Alex Ihnen wrote: St. Louis has been demolishing its history for seven decades - huge swaths of the city, small corner shops, homes, historic buildings. Has it worked?

This statement and question need to be repeated over and over, shouted from the rooftops, posted on billboards...whatever it takes to get our leaders to wake up!

What does this say about the power and value of our Preservation Board when their decisions can be overturned so easily?

Never mind the disappointment of losing a landmark like the Pevely Building...I worry about what this means for future preservation efforts in the City of St. Louis.

It wouldn't surprise me if they were all paid off. They all voted for demolition minus the mayor. Who gets to save face by 1. not showing up and 2. voting on the side of the people. The board's decision was made before the meeting.

This is sad and unfortunate.

Sad because the citizens of StL are neglected in order to satisfy a bully.

Sad because SLU as a monied institution has the opportunity to be an example of good practice to lead the city into the future, but instead chooses to threaten the city like a child who doesn't get their way.

Unfortunate because Biondi's March continues. It's almost as though he has a personal competition going with the ghost of General Sherman.

As an alumni of SLUH (the original university) I am embarassed to be associated with this in any manner. My personal apologies. I have never been ashamed to say I am connected to SLUH or SLU, but today I most certainly am.

stltoday wrote:In remarks to the commission before the votes Wednesday evening, Biondi did not tie the Pevely matter to the law school relocation. But he said the decision to move the law school is "a clear sign" of SLU's commitment to the city.

Then why threaten to leave for West County?

In remarks to the commission before the votes Wednesday evening, Biondi did not tie the Pevely matter to the law school relocation. But he said the decision to move the law school is "a clear sign" of SLU's commitment to the city.

I don't get the commitment statement when the building they are moving to was donated to them. If not for that, would they still have moved downtown and waved their "commitment to the city" flag?

I'm not buying Biondi's "commitment to the city" nonsense. Why even bother saying that, he clearly had the board in his pocket.

I think making use of that land is better than letting the abandoned Pevely facility sit there.

What tenants were considering moving into the Pevely building recently?

This space is ready to be used by SLU now, and they have the plans drawn up and ready to go

1 - So you think SLU making use of the land is better than letting nothing sit there. Good point. SLU should start by making use of the ACRES of lawns they have in the area that are currently just sitting there, most specifically DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

2 - What is SLU considering doing with their other land holdings recently? They have no plans to do anything with the massive amounts of unused land that they are currently holding.

3 - Once again, SLU's land holdings are obviously not "ready to go" as they have (ONCE AGAIN) ACRES AND ACRES AND ACRES of land that is fenced off and sitting grassed in this area. What do they have that is "ready to go" for the rest of their holdings? Wouldn't you think they should start there first?


The argument that "no one has done anything with it so why stop SLU they are willing to invest" is ignorant bullsh*t. SLU has and is doing NOTHING with the majority of the land they own in that area.

^But you really don't see the irony in stating that "they are ready to build something and no one else will so we shouldn't get in their way" while they hold an almost identical parcel of vacant land directly across the street that they have absolutely zero plans for?

Newstl2020 wrote:
As an alumni of SLUH (the original university) I am embarassed to be associated with this in any manner. My personal apologies. I have never been ashamed to say I am connected to SLUH or SLU, but today I most certainly am.

Hold on, don't just go throwing the institutions under the bus over a building. As a SLUH grad, I get frustrated when they do things like destroy historic buildings, but both SLUH and SLU have been around for 200 years. There's a lot more history to be proud then shame for one building.

I mean, do you honestly think SLU is actively just buying land and trying to level the city so nothing's left on purpose? Do you really think they're trying to destroy midtown, the area that they've invested countless millions (billions?) of dollars in for like a hundred years now?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do think SLU is actively just buying land and trying to level the city so nothing is left on purpose. Biondi literally said as much during the hearing last night.

I don't think they are trying to destroy midtown. I think they are trying to create a suburban campus that they feel enhances midtown. It does not. So no, I don't think they think that they are trying to destroy midtown. I am sure they feel as though they are the almighty saviors for the area and the city. But they are wrong.

It doesn't really matter what their intentions are. To me at least, it matters what they are actually doing.

^ to be fair, we don't know what plans exist for the other parcel of land. Also, its not vacant; there are several buildings on that block and no one has any clue what type of remediation is needed to develop the site.

That really is my main objection to blanket Preservation: it often ignores most commercial development processes or best practices. If it takes $.5M just to re-tuck point the smoke stack, how much money does it cost to update the historic building on the corner? Have any of you worked the numbers? Or, are you just wanting to save the building no matter the cost?

To the Preservationists:
I'm not attacking your position. I happen to like the corner building. I'm merely suggesting (as I did several pages ago) that you need more to your argument than merely saving a building because of its designation. If you have no grasp of the financial implications of your suggestion, I can't imagine you're going to be taken seriously.

Also, I think this absolutely proves (and gives future legal precedence) that the Preservation Board is completely useless in attempting to save Historic Buildings as the Planning Commission can override the Board ruling outright. Thus, you as a community need to re-evaluate your leverage points. Clearly the Preservation Board is not the answer.

Again, I'm merely providing some tools that I think you could implement to bolster your argument and save more buildings. You may also want to consider some sort of "action committee" that can quickly turnout alternate solutions (with take-offs and budgets) to support your argument for saving buildings.

Of course, and I've maintained this point over several threads, the only way you actually get in front of saving these buildings and preventing back-door deals is to have a complete overhaul of the the City's Urban Plan. Legally, that seems to me to be the only recourse: showing that by allowing SLU to demo the building they've grossly neglected the City's comprehensive Urban Plan.

Either way, I hope this outcome is a net-positive for the City.

rawest1 wrote:I mean, do you honestly think SLU is actively just buying land and trying to level the city so nothing's left on purpose? Do you really think they're trying to destroy midtown, the area that they've invested countless millions (billions?) of dollars in for like a hundred years now?

No, SLU's not trying to knock down buildings in Midtown for the fun of it. What they're trying to do is build a suburban campus (lot of greenspace, buildings with large set backs, buildings with a lot of space between them). That's what I think is the problem here, I don't think SLU is some evil organization, I think that what they want is suburban rather than urban is is not a good plan/precedent for how a city should be developed.

rawest1 wrote:Look, if there was another entity that was willing to use the land and had plans and money to do so, I'd be more sympathetic. As it is, SLU's the only one stepping to the plate.

People keep bringing this point up, but it's not like the buildings has been empty that long. It's not surprising that Yackey was unable to get funding for a residential complex during a huge international credit crunch, Mills can't even get funding for a slam-dunk project in the CWE. This building was sold by Pevely about 5 years ago, this isn't some decrepit building that's been sitting vacant for 20 years.

^^The cost is SLU's estimate. SLU does not want to rehab the building, therefore they would have SIGNIFICANT incentive to vastly overstate the associated costs.

If SLU didn't want to renovate the building because it did not suit their purpose and would have cost to much, maybe, JUST MAYBE, they shouldn't have bought the building in the first place? Seems like a bit of a lack of planning on their part. Not like this historical designation got slapped on the propoerty after they purchased it.

Unless of course, they feel they can do whatever they want and are systematically buying everything they can get their hands on in the area to tear it down and build their suburban vision of their campus.

Keep telling yourself they aren't just leveling this whole area.

rawest1 wrote:Look, if there was another entity that was willing to use the land and had plans and money to do so, I'd be more sympathetic. As it is, SLU's the only one stepping to the plate.

Was there even a chance for someone else to acquire the building? Was there a for sale sign on it? It's empty because SLU choses for it to be empty.

Additional question, as ttricamo brings up, what is the Planning Commission's job? I thought this was a meeting to determine if the Preservation Board followed it's own rules, not a meeting that makes the Preservation Board's meeting irrelevant. Anyone know what the rules are here? Is the Preservation Board pointless?