Share
722
Senior MemberSenior Member
722

PostFeb 24, 2012#301

ttricamo wrote:
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.
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.

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.
If I'm not mistaken, it's because the only way the Planning Commission is allowed to overturn a Preservation Board decision is if there was a procedural error in the way the PB hearing took place. It doesn't seem like there was, so if that's true, then this there may be case that this was, in fact, illegal.

Further, if it is legal, then it highlights a disturbing fact that the PB is effectively useless, if the PC can overturn them for seemingly anything.
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 25, 2012#302

rawest1 wrote:
ttricamo wrote:
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.
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.

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.
If I'm not mistaken, it's because the only way the Planning Commission is allowed to overturn a Preservation Board decision is if there was a procedural error in the way the PB hearing took place. It doesn't seem like there was, so if that's true, then this there may be case that this was, in fact, illegal.

Further, if it is legal, then it highlights a disturbing fact that the PB is effectively useless, if the PC can overturn them for seemingly anything.
exactly.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostFeb 25, 2012#303

The assumption was that the Planning Commission would have to find something wrong with the Preservation Board ruling because the PC is only able to review the same information as the PB reviewed. Obviously the PC decided to overturn the decision simply because it didn't like the earlier decision.
1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostFeb 25, 2012#304

And there were new arguments brought forth, such as the threat to move to the county. I was at the PB hearing and this little nugget was not part of Biondi's testimony then. `
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 25, 2012#305

does anyone know where to find a description of the planning commission's authority? city charter?

PostFeb 25, 2012#306

imran wrote:And there were new arguments brought forth, such as the threat to move to the county. I was at the PB hearing and this little nugget was not part of Biondi's testimony then. `
i'm pretty sure he did state at the PB meeting that they would not rule out moving to the county if they were not allowed demolition, along with references to how they were offered land in Maryville 60 years ago yet chose to stay in the city. veiled threats. i also recall conversations on here about how they would abandon the city's underprivileged.
1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostMar 10, 2012#307

I wish Lawrence Group wouldve created something like this for the site instead.

*Not sure why it didnt resize*

278 unit apt complex in South Lake Union (Seattle)
678
Senior MemberSenior Member
678

PostMar 11, 2012#308

stlien wrote:I wish Lawrence Group wouldve created something like this for the site instead.

*Not sure why it didnt resize*

278 unit apt complex in South Lake Union (Seattle)
Wasn't that the original idea kinda before the market crashed?
1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostMar 11, 2012#309

Im not sure they were to add the new construction around the historic building. I think it was just a rehab to have 165 apts.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostMar 12, 2012#310

Will SLU seek subsidy for this project?
1,218
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,218

PostMar 30, 2012#311

The demo has started on the metal building and newer brick addition to the main corner building along Chouteau. Meanwhile the grass grows on the other side of the street. On a more upbeat note, two large sculptures were installed in the newly improved Grand Ave. medians across from Cardinal Glennon Hosp.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMar 30, 2012#312

^ That's the worst upbeat note I've read in a long time. :(
2,427
Life MemberLife Member
2,427

PostApr 06, 2012#313

Now this is an urban campus:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198676
3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostApr 06, 2012#314

^cool pics. saint louis used to have buildings too... the maim problem here, of course, is that Biondi has as much as said that he wants a suburban campus, an "oasis" in the middle of the dirty, evil city. he wants patients to be able to "take a stroll through a park-like setting" (paraphrasing one of his comments from the Pevely Preservation Board meeting, in reference to the HUGE vacant lot across Chouteau from the Pevely site). i believe biondi came to saint louis from boston, didn't he? which is why i find it so surprising that he has such utter contempt for historic buildings. at any rate, i wish he would go back to boston - lots of great old buildings there for him to rape.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostApr 06, 2012#315

^There's nothing wrong with green space within the campus boundaries, but when those boundaries extend demolishing edges then it no longer becomes urban. With green space everywhere it matters less while urban form becomes valued due to scarcity. This process reaches a point where it no longer functions and the campus is no longer enjoyable on foot. As with some areas in our City, I think that line has already been crossed for SLU. The damage done will remain and limit the potential of this corridor for many decades. City officials should really take the blame as they let this happen by handing over land use authority to this non-profit, unaccountable institution. Of course most of them attended SLU...
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostApr 06, 2012#316

^ and the argument used over and over again is literally "there's not urban context left, we already demolishing the neighborhood so this building/complex is now out of place, so please let us tear it down."
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostApr 09, 2012#317

^That's a false argument and rather Orwellian.

There is a national trend underway of younger and older people moving back towards the core. They want alternative forms of transportation, which can never be provided in suburban areas. SLU and the City of Saint Louis are losing out on this opportunity by continuing these demolitions in areas of the City which are ideal places for growth. Downtown, Midtown, and the Central West End should be places for intensification through infill and rehabilitation.

Urban universities are supposed to be anchors of investment creating housing not only for their students but also their employees. They should be stimulating demand for not demolishing viable supply. If SLU made this area attractive people would want to live in Midtown rather than commuting from somewhere else. The City needs to lead on this issue since Biondi clearly is not. Residents should demand forward-thinking land use policies that prevent these outcomes. As we all agree, by turning Midtown into a suburban wasteland they are making it less marketable for investment.
Biondi's actions are detrimental to Grand Center, the Gate District, Midtown Alley, and every other place that borders Midtown.

Biondi is operating on the suburban auto-oriented scale while the areas that saw population growth since 2010 are doing the opposite. This should be among the most expensive place in the region to live yet through these outcomes it's still a dead zone. After decades of failed efforts at turning this area around, clearly it is a good time to question the current trajectory.

There's a lot going on right now it seems, as I heard on KWMU that MODOT will not be considering highway removal as an option for the Arch. Though is there any group working to address [EDIT] the SLU/Midtown issue? It seems some progress has been made in the Central West End since the San Luis came down. Could the same happen here? Is it possible to intervene regarding the site plan that SLU chose for their new facility? If it's going to be built then improvements should be made.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostApr 09, 2012#318

"I heard on KWMU that MODOT will not be considering highway removal as an option for the Arch. Though is there any group working to address this issue?"

citytoriver.org
827
Super MemberSuper Member
827

PostApr 10, 2012#319

One other thing that stikes me about this conversation is the power some give to Fr. Biondi...I wonder just how much he is acting like a dictator and how much he is responding to the wishes of SLU stakeholders to include students...The most powerful way to affect change in SLU's building policy would come from angst and protest within the student and alumni population, not interested but somewhat removed citizens...As far as I know, students do not seem to be overly upset with the vision and reality of their campus...Or if they are, they do not care enough to make real efforts to correct the current vision...
195
Junior MemberJunior Member
195

PostApr 10, 2012#320

As far as I know, students do not seem to be overly upset with the vision and reality of their campus...Or if they are, they do not care enough to make real efforts to correct the current vision
Unfortunately, if you swap out "students" for "St. Louisans", and "campus" for "city" you could use say the same thing about almost every problem the city faces.

I wish I could say I'm not part of the problem.
2
New MemberNew Member
2

PostApr 11, 2012#321

Speaking as a former student, I absolutely love the direction that the campus is going and has been going for quite a while. The look of the campus continues to improve year after year. I will continue supporting and donating to SLU and hope that they continue to improve midtown Saint Louis
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostApr 11, 2012#322

RobbyD wrote:One other thing that stikes me about this conversation is the power some give to Fr. Biondi...I wonder just how much he is acting like a dictator and how much he is responding to the wishes of SLU stakeholders to include students...The most powerful way to affect change in SLU's building policy would come from angst and protest within the student and alumni population, not interested but somewhat removed citizens...As far as I know, students do not seem to be overly upset with the vision and reality of their campus...Or if they are, they do not care enough to make real efforts to correct the current vision...
The student paper ran a story highlighting the need for student housing and advocated for retaining the Pevely complex for medical students and others. I hope that people don't overlook that SLU is making big investments and by no means is everything they do bad at all. Most people (including me) don't hate SLU, or think that every move sets the city back. We know that the university is operating in a challenging urban environment. Yet there are specific instances of wrong-headed decisions that we criticize. When we do we're told we're obstructionists, don't want to see progress and are ignored.
136
Junior MemberJunior Member
136

PostApr 11, 2012#323

stl8580 wrote:Speaking as a former student, I absolutely love the direction that the campus is going and has been going for quite a while. The look of the campus continues to improve year after year. I will continue supporting and donating to SLU and hope that they continue to improve midtown Saint Louis
Just to re-affirm, this is a thread about the future Med Campus (suburban campus) not the Main Campus (urban campus) in Mid-Town.

But if you are supporting commuting by automotive transit, poor urban (redact) poor wanna-be urban design, large swaths of lawn and fountains (which I'm sure your donations pay to up-keep), and buildings that don't constitute as a collective campus due to their auto-centric design...
stl8580 wrote:...I absolutely love the direction that the campus is going...
really? REALLY?

Does Biondi teach a brain-washing course on planning and design?
1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostApr 11, 2012#324

And as an alumnus of SLU medical school myself, I do not support the senseless obsession with grass and cheap looking gates. And all this at the expense of an existing urban context. And those pointy sculptures in primary colors do not make it any better.
1,218
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,218

PostMay 09, 2012#325

Man, that Pevely smoke stack is coming down quickly...
Read more posts (208 remaining)
Share