^Appears so.
- 3,762
are you talking about the northwest corner of the intersection? there are no longer any buildings on that site. it's been cleared. based on high priest Biondi's comment about wanting patients to be able to take a walk in the forest (or something like that) i wouldn't be surprised if that site becomes a useless park.ttricamo wrote:^ 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.
up to 50% of the cost could have been covered by historic tax credits. also, similar projects have been completed elsewhere, in much more expensive cities (e.g. NYC), for the same cost that SLU projected. i'm not certain, but i'd be willing to bet that those involved in the design charette did work up some numbers. but once again, strict preservation was the not the sole goal. if SLU had presented something with an urban form (efficient siting, built to the sidewalk, etc) and a decent design, i'm quite certain there would have been little if any dissent.ttricamo wrote:Have any of you worked the numbers? Or, are you just wanting to save the building no matter the cost?
me too. i think he is sincerely a smug, competitive a**hole. and i think it was more important to him to win this battle for SLU's continued privilege and exemption from city ordinances than to acknowledge that their planning is sh*t, and that they really had no reasonable argument for "needing" to tear down Pevely. i really don't get the support for a PRIEST who blatantly lies to get what he wants (e.g. they "considered" saving the facade and smokestack, but then magically the smokestack is too dangerous and costly to save), who expects exemption from laws that the rest of us are bound to follow, who ridiculously threatens to move AN ENTIRE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SCHOOL out to the suburbs if he doesn't get his way (again, the comparison to a child's tantrum is apt here), and who is willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to circumnavigate inconvenient laws. something very telling, i think, is that the planning commission okay'd the demo of every single structure on the site. either A) Biondi never intended to save any part of the complex (i.e. he blatantly lied) or B) he wants to teach us all a lesson. yes, sir, he's a stand-up guy.rawest1 wrote:I think he's being mostly sincere.
If SLU obtained rights to it, that means anyone else could have. No one else did, because there is no one else.quincunx wrote: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.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.
- 2,386
^This incesant free market non-sense is tiring.
I am sure any developer in their right mind would have attempted to get into a bidding war with an institution with a billion dollar endowment at the hight of the '09 credit crisis. Would have made it a very fiscally viable project, I am sure.
SLU wants this to "create a gateway" to their medical campus. This is a direct quote from BIONDI. They are literally buying everything in this area to create their vision of a manicured suburban medical campus. THEY FLAT OUT SAID THIS. I really do not understand what you are failing to comprehend here. If you are in agreement with this developmental approach to the city by SLU that is fine. You are free to have your own opinion.
Please feel free to start a thread about SLU's new ambulatory medical facility at this site. You can discuss this project there.
(I hope I am not over-stepping forum rules here. This discussion (IMO) should be split to this current issue and SLU's proposed facility. It would lead to a more clear discussion of both (once again IMO))
I am sure any developer in their right mind would have attempted to get into a bidding war with an institution with a billion dollar endowment at the hight of the '09 credit crisis. Would have made it a very fiscally viable project, I am sure.
SLU wants this to "create a gateway" to their medical campus. This is a direct quote from BIONDI. They are literally buying everything in this area to create their vision of a manicured suburban medical campus. THEY FLAT OUT SAID THIS. I really do not understand what you are failing to comprehend here. If you are in agreement with this developmental approach to the city by SLU that is fine. You are free to have your own opinion.
Please feel free to start a thread about SLU's new ambulatory medical facility at this site. You can discuss this project there.
(I hope I am not over-stepping forum rules here. This discussion (IMO) should be split to this current issue and SLU's proposed facility. It would lead to a more clear discussion of both (once again IMO))
I don't blindly support SLU. As I said, if some other developer was able/willing to do something with the Pevely complex, then I'd be all for them trying.. As far as I can tell, no one has run the numbers... in the "three-to-five years" this has supposedly been an issue, there have been no independent studies, no estimates on how much it would cost to save the building. The only number I've seen is SLU's estimate of $500,000.00 just to save the smokestack, but since you don't trust SLU, you're flat-out denying the accuracy of such a figure.
I'm not going to touch your "free market nonsense" statement, because all I have to say is I don't think the free market is nonsense, and is in fact highly important to the stability and continued prosperity of our economy. You're welcome to disagree, but this is not the place for such a debate.
Further, I still remain unconvinced that this area, bordered by that mile-long depressed train yard and surrounded by a university campus, could be turned into some thriving, vibrant, urban area with tons of foot traffic and whatever else you need for sustained infill and vibrancy.
In the end, I believe that an updated medical center, with more jobs and a new purpose for land that is currently unused anyway, is better than what we've got now, and I'm standing by that until shown why it isn't. Yes, even if it's on a manicured, "suburban-style" campus.
I'm not going to touch your "free market nonsense" statement, because all I have to say is I don't think the free market is nonsense, and is in fact highly important to the stability and continued prosperity of our economy. You're welcome to disagree, but this is not the place for such a debate.
Further, I still remain unconvinced that this area, bordered by that mile-long depressed train yard and surrounded by a university campus, could be turned into some thriving, vibrant, urban area with tons of foot traffic and whatever else you need for sustained infill and vibrancy.
In the end, I believe that an updated medical center, with more jobs and a new purpose for land that is currently unused anyway, is better than what we've got now, and I'm standing by that until shown why it isn't. Yes, even if it's on a manicured, "suburban-style" campus.
SLU is not going to move to the suburbs. The cost of doing that would be too high. That is not an option for them. The City should enforce its laws. Biondi shouldn't treat this section of the city as his own kingdom, implementing his own vision of what the city should look like. Though government needs to send the signals that the development game has changed.
The plan which they proposed should be rejected by the Planning Commission
The plan which they proposed should be rejected by the Planning Commission
- 3,762
no offense, but i think you're ignoring reality. in fact, someone else did try. a language immersion school offered to purchase the building. i don't know the details, but i suspect that Biondi shot it down b/c they already had big plans for the site. you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that there was considerable interest in the complex within the short 3 years that it was vacant. nothing happened not because there was no interest. nothing happened because the economy tanked. nothing has happened pretty-much anywhere over the last two or three years.rawest1 wrote:If SLU obtained rights to it, that means anyone else could have. No one else did, because there is no one else.
you mean like it used to be? when there was also a mile-long depressed train yard and university campus (oh, and an entire neighborhood and multiple business districts) there?rawest1 wrote:Further, I still remain unconvinced that this area, bordered by that mile-long depressed train yard and surrounded by a university campus, could be turned into some thriving, vibrant, urban area with tons of foot traffic and whatever else you need for sustained infill and vibrancy.
- 2,386
The free market is most certainly not non-nonsense. It is critically important to the history and future of the greatest country in the world (america).I'm not going to touch your "free market nonsense" statement, because all I have to say is I don't think the free market is nonsense, and is in fact highly important to the stability and continued prosperity of our economy. You're welcome to disagree, but this is not the place for such a debate.
Your assertion that this specific situation has anything remotely to do with the free market in non-sense. Once SLU decided they wanted this area for their "gateway" to the medical campus, free market and any other other options went out the window, and therefore, your comments referencing the free market are non-sense.
If you don't understand what we are talking about in this regard, I suggest you attempt to buy something that SLU wants to own.
I see where all of you are coming from. I think people need to look harder at the process for preservation in this city.
I guess my original point was just that I think a modern medical facility will be better for the area than what we've got, and I don't think in this economy that anything better will be feasible for a very long time.
But I understand your guys's point, and to an extent I agree. I should have made that clearer, and it's my mistake that I didn't.
Having been involved with SLU for five years now, I suppose my view has been tainted; I am jaded to the point where I have pretty much resigned to the fact that SLU gets what they want in Midtown. I don't see that ever changing. But I don't think it's as bad as some of you are making it out to be. They have done much good for the area.
That's all I've really meant to convey.
I guess my original point was just that I think a modern medical facility will be better for the area than what we've got, and I don't think in this economy that anything better will be feasible for a very long time.
But I understand your guys's point, and to an extent I agree. I should have made that clearer, and it's my mistake that I didn't.
Having been involved with SLU for five years now, I suppose my view has been tainted; I am jaded to the point where I have pretty much resigned to the fact that SLU gets what they want in Midtown. I don't see that ever changing. But I don't think it's as bad as some of you are making it out to be. They have done much good for the area.
That's all I've really meant to convey.
- 2,386
^Deff agree that the medical center is good for the area and is deff much better than what currently exists there. That is certainly not disputable.
The problem in my eyes lays in how SLU conducts itself (I think they are reckless believe themselves to be infallible among many other things) and their ideas and plans for the development of the area. I find their handling of this particular situation in general to be patently disrespectful and borderline tyranical. In turn as a StL City afficionado, I cannot help but take this treatment personally.
The problem in my eyes lays in how SLU conducts itself (I think they are reckless believe themselves to be infallible among many other things) and their ideas and plans for the development of the area. I find their handling of this particular situation in general to be patently disrespectful and borderline tyranical. In turn as a StL City afficionado, I cannot help but take this treatment personally.
I honestly think someone could very easily say the same thing to you and the others that are fired up about the decision by the Planning Commission.urban_dilettante wrote:no offense, but i think you're ignoring reality.
- It would seem as though everything has happened above board (relatively speaking). It is within the purview of the Planning Commission to reject/uphold the decision of the Preservation Board. And, they decided to reject their decision. SLU had the right to present a case that affects this decision.
- At the end of the day, SLU owns the land and all improvements upon said land. I emphasize "land" because that is where the true value (from a commercial development perspective) of this piece of real estate resides. SLU can do whatever they want with this piece of property (within the law). They bought it. They have legal right to it. Someone tried to buy it from them and the purchase price wasn't large enough If you have an issue with SLU's vision (which, while ugly, is not by any means illegal) you should have bought the land/building yourself before SLU. Sorry to be cliche but that is how property rights work.
- Most of you are mad at SLU. That is misguided. You should be mad at the City's complete lack of oversight and firm direction from a urban planning perspective. It is only because of the City's bungling that SLU (and others) are able to come in and build ugly suburban buildings.
Without tighter boundaries or guidelines, anybody can build whatever they want. This will continue to happen.
This sums up a lot of my thoughts on the matter very nicely.ttricamo wrote:I honestly think someone could very easily say the same thing to you and the others that are fired up about the decision by the Planning Commission.urban_dilettante wrote:no offense, but i think you're ignoring reality.
- It would seem as though everything has happened above board (relatively speaking). It is within the purview of the Planning Commission to reject/uphold the decision of the Preservation Board. And, they decided to reject their decision. SLU had the right to present a case that affects this decision.
- At the end of the day, SLU owns the land and all improvements upon said land. I emphasize "land" because that is where the true value (from a commercial development perspective) of this piece of real estate resides. SLU can do whatever they want with this piece of property (within the law). They bought it. They have legal right to it. Someone tried to buy it from them and the purchase price wasn't large enough If you have an issue with SLU's vision (which, while ugly, is not by any means illegal) you should have bought the land/building yourself before SLU. Sorry to be cliche but that is how property rights work.
- Most of you are mad at SLU. That is misguided. You should be mad at the City's complete lack of oversight and firm direction from a urban planning perspective. It is only because of the City's bungling that SLU (and others) are able to come in and build ugly suburban buildings.
Without tighter boundaries or guidelines, anybody can build whatever they want. This will continue to happen.
Although I admittedly don't know enough about "the reality of the situation" in order to say who's ignoring it or not.
- 2,386
^Good points.
There is a level of frustration, I believe, primarily due to the fact that SLU knowingly purchased a building on the historic registrar with the intentions of demolishing the building. This states to the community, "we don't care what you are attempting to do, this is what I want." Compound this with the fact that they did so while other parties were interested in the site with the intention of re-using the structure, in addition to the fact that they already own multiple plots of land for years that continue to go undeveloped, and I would imagine even the most ardent anti-preservationists could at least see where much of this angst is coming from.
There is a level of frustration, I believe, primarily due to the fact that SLU knowingly purchased a building on the historic registrar with the intentions of demolishing the building. This states to the community, "we don't care what you are attempting to do, this is what I want." Compound this with the fact that they did so while other parties were interested in the site with the intention of re-using the structure, in addition to the fact that they already own multiple plots of land for years that continue to go undeveloped, and I would imagine even the most ardent anti-preservationists could at least see where much of this angst is coming from.
- 3,762
again, though, the either/or scenario is a false choice -- a lie -- that SLU cultivated in true Fox News fashionnewstl2020 wrote:^Deff agree that the medical center is good for the area and is deff much better than what currently exists there.
i was specifically addressing rawest1's assertion that nobody else was interested in Pevely, and that that part of Midtown could never be dense and urban due to the rail yard and campus... just like it was 70 years ago despite those things.ttricamo wrote:I honestly think someone could very easily say the same thing to you and the others that are fired up about the decision by the Planning Commission.
according to the Mayor, the commission is limited to ascertaining whether the preservation board violated any regulations in coming to their decision. funny how there was no discussion of this whatsoever at the meeting, which instead consisted of the same sales pitch made at the PRB meeting, a few apparently pointless questions from the committee, and a bunch of threats to move to west county. if that's what you call "above board" then we are at ethical odds. i'm quite certain that, unless Slay was lying about their jurisdiction, the committee's decision would be overturned in court because they very clearly overstepped their authority. obviously Biondi knows that nobody has the resources to fight SLU in court.ttricamo wrote: - It would seem as though everything has happened above board (relatively speaking). It is within the purview of the Planning Commission to reject/uphold the decision of the Preservation Board.
given what i said above, i don't believe they stayed within the law. and i think that could be proven.ttricamo wrote: - ... SLU can do whatever they want with this piece of property (within the law).
.ttricamo wrote: Without tighter boundaries or guidelines, anybody can build whatever they want. This will continue to happen.
i can't build whatever i want. you can't build whatever you want. but SLU has been ignoring boundaries and guidelines for years. you're right, this will continue to happen, but not for lack of quidelines. it will continue because SLU doesn't respect those quidelines, because Biondi thinks he's above everyone else, and he knows he can get what he wants by kicking and screaming and threatening everyone like a child. say the city adopted a new urban zoning that required sidewalk fronting buildings with minimal setbacks. very strict quidelines about siting, etc. Now say Biondi kicks and screams and demands a variance or else they're going up and move to the county. what do you think is going to happen?
Agreed that this is ultimately a failure of our government (it's hard to absolve SLU of all responsibility, though). Either the Planning Commission didn't follow the regulations or the regulations laying out the guidelines they can use to overturn the Preservation Board are poorly written. Anyone know what those regulations actually are? I don't even know where to look for something like that.
Quick question. Who owns the billboards on the recently cleared land? Used to be CBS outdoor, but they are not listed on their website. I'm thinking a large bold BIONDI IS A LIAR facing east.
- 2,386
I like "Biondi's March" but most people would probably just assume it is a march madness reference 
Before Ivy Preston came into the meeting room,I heard Bondi's party whisper about where she was and that they hoped she would be coming soon. After what she said at the meeting I can see why. They had obviously talked to her before the meeting. She was the most vocal supporter of the SLU agenda. She looked down her nose at the Pevely documents, managed to let everyone know that her son goes to the Clayton school district and then quickly went on to propose the motion to reverse the demolition denial for the office building.
It was unreal watching this unfold.
It was unreal watching this unfold.
- 11K
Landmarks put together a the list of Commission members and how they voted on each item:
Link: http://www.landmarks-stl.org/news/a_vot ... eeting_co/
Link: http://www.landmarks-stl.org/news/a_vot ... eeting_co/
After a lengthy decision on the wording of the motion, a motion to reverse the decision of the office building with the condition that building permits must be obtained first was seconded. A break down for the reversal of the Preservation Board voting proceeded:
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: No
Motion passed
The second motion was for the reversal of the smokestack decision and the issuance of an unconditional demolition permit for the smokestack. During questioning, commissioners asked why the smokestack appeared in renderings of the future project but now an unconditional permit was needed. Smith stated that the rendering were preliminary. He continued by saying that the smokestack was unsound and would need $500,000 in repairs. Plus, the smokestack hinders future expansion of the site. The breakdown of voting followed:
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: No
Motion passed
The third item to be voted upon was the reversal of the decision for the dairy and allow the issuance of an unconditional demolition permit. The breakdown of voting followed:
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: Aye
Motion Passed
The last item was the garage. A motion was made to reverse the Preservation Board's decision and allow the issuance of an unconditional demolition permit.
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: Aye
Motion Passed
- 1,218
^now I know who not to vote for in the treasurer's primary.
^True that. An indication on which would win in a contest between an old building and a new parking garage.
If everyone is so outraged by the aforementioned, then I would suggest flooding the mailboxes of those who voted in favor of Pevely demolition. Start social media pages to get the word out. Talk to everyone you know that is against this set of events. Provide a template for each letter and provide addresses for the offices of each person.Alex Ihnen wrote:Landmarks put together a the list of Commission members and how they voted on each item:
Link: http://www.landmarks-stl.org/news/a_vot ... eeting_co/
After a lengthy decision on the wording of the motion, a motion to reverse the decision of the office building with the condition that building permits must be obtained first was seconded. A break down for the reversal of the Preservation Board voting proceeded:
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: No
Motion passed
The second motion was for the reversal of the smokestack decision and the issuance of an unconditional demolition permit for the smokestack. During questioning, commissioners asked why the smokestack appeared in renderings of the future project but now an unconditional permit was needed. Smith stated that the rendering were preliminary. He continued by saying that the smokestack was unsound and would need $500,000 in repairs. Plus, the smokestack hinders future expansion of the site. The breakdown of voting followed:
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: No
Motion passed
The third item to be voted upon was the reversal of the decision for the dairy and allow the issuance of an unconditional demolition permit. The breakdown of voting followed:
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: Aye
Motion Passed
The last item was the garage. A motion was made to reverse the Preservation Board's decision and allow the issuance of an unconditional demolition permit.
Susan Stauder: Aye
Terry Kennedy: Aye
Fred Wessels: Aye
Rich Bradley: Aye
Dan Jay: Aye
Ivy Pinksten: Aye
Tom Shepard: Aye
Dave Visintainer: Abstained
Ted Spaid: Aye
Patrick Brown: Aye
Motion Passed
- 3,762
oh, yes, this was all completely above board. i don't know how much more evidence people need that Biondi is a crook. too bad that white collar isn't a shock collar.
This is not a rhetorical question: What about the voting roll has proven something underhanded took place? I'm asking because I don't see it. While I agree that the process completely blows, I'm not seeing anything illegal or nefarious at play here.urban_dilettante wrote:oh, yes, this was all completely above board. i don't know how much more evidence people need that Biondi is a crook. too bad that white collar isn't a shock collar.
For clarification, I'm saying the process by which someone can circumvent the Preservation Board decision by lobbying the Planning Commission is pretty crumby. That said, it is legal and within the powers of the Planning Commission. It seems as though you're saying the process that Biondi followed was somehow illegal?
Again, not rhetorical; just trying to grasp the situation as I may be viewing things incorrectly.