urbanSTL

In Pakistan there is a marble memorial to the nation’s founder that is along these lines
It conveys a solemn mood and sense of loss as you enter the downturned mouth.
Maybe I should think of the proposal as a mausoleum mourning the demise of urban potential at this Main Street lot.

Reminder that the Preservation Board meeting is at 4 today

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2-docx.pdf

Powell Hall's team gave a whole lot of word salad at the preservation board meeting today about why they had to demolish the house. Kept talking about the "fire wall."

Steve Smith offered land on Sam Shepard Dr. for the house.

Preservation Board just granted preliminary approval by a 3-2 vote. Yes: Richardson, Robinson, Coatar. No: Killeen, Allen.

Really disgraceful that they are going to tear down such an architectural gem to build an unnecessary and uninspired addition. 

^I completely whiffed it on the meeting anyway, though I'm not really sure I could have articulated any legal basis to require preservation. There really probably isn't one. The only thing that I can think of that might work would be getting their big donors to put pressure on them to save the house, but I can't imagine any of the larger donors would really favor it.

I appreciate Steve Smith offering land for a new home for the house. The man has done an awful lot for this part of the city. Just think of the Moto Museum block, City Foundry, Angad Hotel, and maybe the Sovereign (not sure what's up there). The biggest challenge here now is simply fundraising. The clock is ticking. Many in the preservation community want that house saved and moved, but will the talkers put up money to do that or will the mission fast become to force the hand of the Symphony to put up the money to move the house? It's not meant to snarky, just a genuine question.

The new renderings of the expansion make me like it a bit more and it's grown on me as a result. The preservation board, in my view, made the right call tonight. We can always debate over stuff like this and the more debate the better. But at the end of the day, the house did to fall within a preservation review district (or whatever it is). It also wasn't on the city's list to be reviewed if this event ever came up. Technically if the Symphony wanted to demolish it without submitting plans, they could've but what's telling here is they didn't. 

I appreciate their organization and really like the idea that they're willing to invest $100 million into their icon, but this seems like a well-orchestrated game of calling one's bluff (in this case the "one's" is the preservation community). Who will blink first? The preservation community or the Symphony? If the preservationists pull off what I feel is the impossible (fundraising the needed money to move the house, then successfully moving the house without causing significant damage), I'll be truly impressed.

For now, and as I've said on my Facebook, I'm supporting the demolition of the house in favor of this new addition on the basis that... 

1. The new addition fits in with the "artsy" new buildings that have gone up in Grand Center in recent years.
2. The $100 Million restores and modernizes a St. Louis icon for decades to come.
3. A large chunk of a surface parking lot is built on.
4. We get another structure designed by a world-renowned architecture firm in the neighborhood and in the city.

Sure, the house looks decent but some homes in Compton Heights, Lafayette Square, and the Central West End just seem better in my view. I know that's controversial to say, but the viewpoint comes from my walks I took while everyone stayed at home from March-April 2020. I took the time to observe houses and old buildings throughout a good portion of the central corridor and my feelings/opinions of them were formed by those walks. 

1.   Yes, the house should be saved. All the money and know-how to move it across the parking lot is right here in STL. Should be a no-brainer. 

2.   The new entrance/addition is pretty awesome. One of the few times we get a chance to add a significant building by internationally-renowned architects to a prominent venue here in STL. 

3.   These two points are not mutually-exclusive. 

Another example of why we should have city-wide preservation review.
Regardless, you don't need the law to tell you to do the right thing.

Powell Hall is an urban building designed to fit into a dense part of town. I would rather see the space filled with a mixed use building with similar massing to the Angad across the street. Could even still have another entrance.

The proposed entrance is beautiful and architecturally significant, but damn do I just keep watching Grand Center squander it's potential as a dense and mixed use bookend to the highest potential half of the central corridor.

As a symphony musician (15+ years), the new building will directly impact my life. 

The symphony bought that building around 7 years ago. It was condemned and uninhabitable when they bought it. There was talk of doing something with it early on, but the cost was always prohibitive (as far as priorities go) as an event/donor space for what would be required to actually make it work.  No, the symphony doesn't want to operate a cafe or maintain some hotel space.  I agree its a nice building, and this area has lost a lot of them, but I knew as soon as the symphony bought it, it would be torn down at some point. They have been talking expansion for decades, and really came to a head 5 years ago. Ms Pultzer was the head of committee to design this and she wanted a significant architecture firm to design it. They brought in 3 firms and chose this design (though it has changed a little since I saw preliminary designs about a year and half ago but its basically the same). There has been a silent campaign for the past year or so and Id say a lot of the money has already been raised.  The new space will make the musicians area ADA compliant (currently most of its in the basement which floods every now and again which can only be reached by stairs). Hopefully, there won't be giant lines for bathrooms out front when the hall is full, and the ability to warm up in a practice room as opposed to random places around backstage will be welcome. Better climate control on stage (so instruments don't crack - yes that happens now on stage). Actual spaces for the choir (currently when used they have to hang around on stairs and backstage (which the stage goes almost to the back wall of the current building) The giant music library will also be put in a better place than the current small underground area. I could go on and on, but this addition will be great, and also a plus for attracting more world class talent to the symphony (we have international auditions and compete, like other firms, for talent that could go to other cities . We just lost a member to the San Francisco  symphony).

The footprint is such that the building was always going to be in the way and, as we know, it is cheaper to build new than try to rehab a condemned building that space doesn't really work for the needs of the symphony. I'd love for somehow people raise money to move the building, but I'll believe it when I see it. Could it somehow been integrated? I'm sure it could, but for the price point - that same money could be used for more space and more effective space for what is required. So the question was - save the building or more practical space to be utilized and integrated into the new building. I'll always choose more practical space for us.  There were plenty of things they wanted to add but had to cut in this design. More rehearsal space, extra space for the youth symphony to name a few. 

At any rate, most musicians are really excited by this major upgrade - as we have seen the backstages of LA, San Fran, Philly, etc and ours doesn't compare (Berlin has a cafeteria and the musicians can get a beer at intermission but I digress). It will be nice to not have water stained ceilings and the odd sewer smell when changing for concerts.

Just spitballing here, but it's probably more of the cost to move + cost to renovate, update to code, etc right?  I could see renovating the house alone quickly getting into the six figures.

I don't think its "Kinda funny  they want the others to do it." They want the cheapest cost to save money and time - ie use money for the end goal which is more building for the symphony. If the symphony had wanted to save the building or thought it cost effective to do so, that would have been part of the plan. It will cost more to move/stabilize than to demolish. I don't think your numbers add up.  You are looking at a million to update and move.  The house was condemned.  The symphony isn't in the real estate business and doesn't also want to coordinate moving, rehabbing etc.  Also that corner that was previously mentioned is owned by Third Baptist and used as a parking lot for them. Im not sure what is done with the stone building next to it, as I have never actually seen it in use. When it was up for sale a decade ago the symphony looked into buying it but it needed a lot of work to rehab it, and wasn't seen as a practical use of the non profit's money. 

The brand new houses by the contemporary art museum go for 400,000-600,000. Brand new, Why would the symphony want to invest all the money and time to move fix and then try to sell the house just to possibly break even?  

^Buddy, I get that you're partial to your employer, but literally every private landowner in St. Louis says the same thing and if we had listened to them we would have lost like hundreds of historic architectural treasures.