It looks like the gas station on Grand - the Phillips 66 - has closed down. I would imagine SLU bought up all the homes and this gas station so they can own everything between SLU Hospital and Chouteau. That's going to be one damn big surgical center. Or more parking lots?
- 1,864
I believe the plan is to have a large green space with trees between the surgical center and the hospital. If memory serves right, they want a calming park like feel where patients and families can walk and escape the stress of the hospital.bk18 wrote:It looks like the gas station on Grand - the Phillips 66 - has closed down. I would imagine SLU bought up all the homes and this gas station so they can own everything between SLU Hospital and Chouteau. That's going to be one damn big surgical center. Or more parking lots?
- 3,762
I saw that too. At least we can take comfort in that Cincy didn't end up getting that. What they're getting looks more like the Sunnen Station "TOD" thing. i.e. crap.stlien wrote:This wouldve been so cool for Pevely
In Cincinnati
- 36
Drove by today, the iconic smoke stack has been demolished, as well as all the extraneous buildings. Only the Main building and one just south are up. One can still see the rubble and foundations sticking up from the outer buildings. I suppose it is just a matter of time before the main building and sign are demoed...
I passed by the Pevely building today around 3:45 as I do every day, and I did not get a great look going west on Chouteau, but it looked like a giant mangled "Y" was leaning against the north side of the building. Do we now have a "PEVEL" building?
- 11K
^SLU apparently took down the sign today, dropping the "P" in the process. Not sure what's going on here, but there's no permit on record for them to be doing any work on the building at all.
- 549
Since I was in the process of leading an effort to purchase the sign (long story), I've been talking with the demo contractor for a while. I plan on giving him a call in the morning to see what he knows about this. I examined the sign with him, and there was absolutely no indication that the sign had any structural problems or that any work was needed to secure it.
I was wondering if anyone had any plans to purchase it. This sign needs to be saved from the scrapyard, even if it ends up in a warehouse somewhere.
- 5,433
I know that Rule #1 at Saint Louis University is "Whatever Fr. Biondi Wants, Fr. Biondi Gets". But this is ridiculous and it shouldn't be allowed to happen.Alex Ihnen wrote:^SLU apparently took down the sign today, dropping the "P" in the process. Not sure what's going on here, but there's no permit on record for them to be doing any work on the building at all.
Where is our city leadership on this? Where's Mayor Slay? He tweeted about the Flying Saucer and the AAA Building and expressed an interest in saving those structures, and both of them are located quite close to the Empire of The Mighty Father Biondi. But obviously, they aren't owned by SLU, and it's painfully apparent that SLU doesn't have to abide by the laws and regulations that other institutions in the city must follow. How sickening.
- 101
Slay tweeted just today: "I've been given several different answers on the EVELY sign. None makes enough sense yet."threeonefour wrote:I know that Rule #1 at Saint Louis University is "Whatever Fr. Biondi Wants, Fr. Biondi Gets". But this is ridiculous and it shouldn't be allowed to happen.Alex Ihnen wrote:^SLU apparently took down the sign today, dropping the "P" in the process. Not sure what's going on here, but there's no permit on record for them to be doing any work on the building at all.
Where is our city leadership on this? Where's Mayor Slay? He tweeted about the Flying Saucer and the AAA Building and expressed an interest in saving those structures, and both of them are located quite close to the Empire of The Mighty Father Biondi. But obviously, they aren't owned by SLU, and it's painfully apparent that SLU doesn't have to abide by the laws and regulations that other institutions in the city must follow. How sickening.
Thanks for that wildly helpful commentary as always, Slay.
Well, it sounds like we need to spark a little debate to get the Mayor to talk. What would Lewis Reed do? Would he publicize an opinion about the Pevely situation and Biondi's relationship with the city? I've been curious about this while watching the building at Grand & Chouteau deteriorate.
- 549
I (via SPACE Architects) had been working on putting together a kickstarter campaign to acquire the sign and move it to FPSE. I had been discussing this acquisition with the demo contractor for a number of weeks, although I was never able to get a meeting with the owner of Ahrens to finalize a price. I also had some discussions with the Alderman and Park Central to find an appropriate place to put it, although no site was ultimately selected and they became silent. The idea was (is?) to create a park or other public space with the sign as the centerpiece. the kickstarter campaign would only cover acquiring the sign, and not storage or what to do with it afterwords.urbz wrote:I was wondering if anyone had any plans to purchase it. This sign needs to be saved from the scrapyard, even if it ends up in a warehouse somewhere.
When I heard that Lawrence Group was looking at alternate sites for the medical facility, I stopped work on this campaign, assuming that SLU could not legally remove the sign and that it was safe for the time being. (SLU feels that they don't need a demo permit to remove it, hence the work.) I told the demo contractor to call me if anything was to happen so I could raise the money to acquire the sign. I never heard anything and was quite shocked when I heard that the 'P' was removed. Ahrens claims that an email was sent to me, although I never received it and can't find it in my inbox. They had my phone number and did not call. On Weds, I asked them to resend this email, which they refused to do. They offered for me to come down to their office yesterday to see the email in person, and when I was block away from their office I was told that they couldn't see me, or show me the email. Ahrens feels thrown under the bus and made it pretty clear that they will not talk to me further, so not sure if the kickstarter campaign can move forward at this point.
I mentioned all of this to SLU yesterday when I had a 40 min conversation with Kathleen Brady, VP of Facility Management. I suggested that they could pay to have the sign removed and for this park as a PR move (they're essentially paying for it to be removed anyway). She was open to this and said she would pass it up the chain. I'm not holding my breath, but then again I didn't think she would return my call either. She also said she would call Ahrens to discuss this acquisition. No idea what will happen, but I'd still like to do the kickstarter campaign if possible.
City Museum was apparently in talks to purchase the sign but nothing materialized. I've heard differing accounts of who stopped talks.
I'll keep you updated as the situation unfolds...
More details form the RFT:
After "P" in Pevely Sign Crashes to the Ground, Preservationists Ask If Work Was Legal
After "P" in Pevely Sign Crashes to the Ground, Preservationists Ask If Work Was Legal
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... st_slu.phpSomething very strange is going on with the Pevely Dairy complex's iconic sign.
On Tuesday, as a crew worked to remove the "P" in the word "Pevely" atop the old factory building at Grand and Choteau, the huge character got loose from its ropes and plummeted to the street below.
- 101
I am very sorry Clagett wasn't able to at least save the sign.
Apparently SLU thinks if they quietly (oops!) remove the sign we'll forget the building ever meant anything.
Apparently SLU thinks if they quietly (oops!) remove the sign we'll forget the building ever meant anything.
Built to last, but for how long? We all want to protect architectural treasures, but sentimental attachments may be stifling creativity...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false
- 11K
Just FYI. The sign is laying on the roof of the building. They apparently don't know how to get it down without a crane.
- 3,762
when unbuilt land is scarce, then sure. but that isn't the case in st. louis. and i would argue that the poor quality of much modern construction makes the loss of historic structures that much more egregious. not to mention that older buildings are good for small business incubation.hebeter wrote:Built to last, but for how long? We all want to protect architectural treasures, but sentimental attachments may be stifling creativity...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false
i'm having trouble seeing his grievance as anything but egotism, especially in light of the 88% that apparently isn't barred from new construction, according to him. not that we should be building on every unbuilt % of the planet's surface anyway.Koolhaas asserted that some 12 percent of the earth’s surface is now barred from new construction because of various restrictive regulations—historic preservation, land conservation, and the like—and thus the full creative potential of the building art is stiflingly inhibited by what he sees as an excessive, sentimental attachment to older architecture.
- 101
Exactly! You never hear places like St. Louis, or even Chicago, brought up in arguments of this kind for exactly that reason. Even in this particular instance SLU has what are arguably easier and better locations already vacant on which to build.urban_dilettante wrote:when unbuilt land is scarce, then sure. but that isn't the case in st. louis. and i would argue that the poor quality of much modern construction makes the loss of historic structures that much more egregious. not to mention that older buildings are good for small business incubation.hebeter wrote:Built to last, but for how long? We all want to protect architectural treasures, but sentimental attachments may be stifling creativity...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false
i'm having trouble seeing his grievance as anything but egotism, especially in light of the 88% that apparently isn't barred from new construction, according to him. not that we should be building on every unbuilt % of the planet's surface anyway.Koolhaas asserted that some 12 percent of the earth’s surface is now barred from new construction because of various restrictive regulations—historic preservation, land conservation, and the like—and thus the full creative potential of the building art is stiflingly inhibited by what he sees as an excessive, sentimental attachment to older architecture.
I'll rail against NIMBY-ism as much as the next person, but tearing down historic buildings just for the hell of it is the height of hubris and short-term thinking.
It's because of things like this that I want to see Biondi go down in flames. The idea that they would not only trash this historic building for a bland sea of green space in a dense, or what was dense urban area, but rub it in by ripping down the huge historic sign is beyond shocking. Next up, the A-B sign!
- 424
Any news on this?
Please excuse any spelling errors. This post was from a mobile device with an autocorrect function.
Please excuse any spelling errors. This post was from a mobile device with an autocorrect function.
- 11K
^ It's worse, they realized the couldn't get the sign down without heavy equipment, which would require a permit, which the city is unlikely to grant, so they just knocked it down. From Grand Avenue looking north, you can see it lying on the roof of the building.