3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostOct 16, 2020#676

MarkGroth2020 wrote:
Oct 15, 2020
Anyone have access?

"City lawmaker plots demolition review changes after soccer stadium controversy"

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2020/10/15/lawmaker-plots-demolition-review-changes.html
A city of St. Louis lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would change how certain demolitions are approved after a pair of controversies, including buildings in Downtown West that are falling for soccer stadium surface parking.
Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia said she would introduce a bill next week that would force the director of the city's Cultural Resources Office to refer certain demolition applications to the city's nine-member Preservation Board.
Currently, the director must refer only demolition applications for buildings designated as "high merit" in preservation review districts, areas in which the Board of Aldermen has determined "demolition review is in the public interest." The director alone can OK demolitions for other types of structures, described as "qualifying" and "merit" buildings, in unusual circumstances.
Ingrassia said her legislation, at a minimum, would force the director to also refer merit buildings to the Preservation Board.
"We want to make sure there are protections in place when situations come up like the ones surrounding the (Major League Soccer) stadium and 201 S. Jefferson," Ingrassia said.
In both cases, Cultural Resources Office Director Dan Krasnoff, part of Mayor Lyda Krewson's administration, OK'd demolitions without consulting the Preservation Board, as current law allows.
In a presentation to the Preservation Board earlier this month, Krasnoff said he approved demolition of the soccer-affected properties, 1900-12 Olive St. and 1901 Pine St., for various reasons.



For example, he called some "not particularly noteworthy for architecture or design," and cited a nearby block of mostly vacant buildings, posing questions about whether the affected structures could otherwise be redeveloped.
The soccer team, called St. Louis City SC and led by Carolyn Kindle Betz, a member of the Taylor family of Enterprise Holdings, has also said it could put structured parking with ground-floor retail on the lots, Krasnoff noted. He said construction of the stadium, on a site west of Union Station and north of Market Street, would displace 500 current parking spots, necessitating the need for more surface parking.
Recommended

Krasnoff also said he approved demolition of the mid-century modern 201 S. Jefferson Ave. building for a new Starbucks because it had been vacant for four years. The owner of the merit structure, Missouri Real Estate Insurance Agency, had also suffered economic hardship, and had made financial commitments with Starbucks that were "contractural and binding," Krasnoff said.



But one Preservation Board member, Randy Vines, criticized Krasnoff's stadium decision, saying that surface parking replacing usable buildings "is about the lowest we can go in terms of our standards and civic self esteem."
Another member, Michael Killeen, said he favored changes to the law that would force Preservation Board review of more demolitions.
"We need to do something about this," Killeen said.
people like Dan Krasnoff who can't understand the value of historic buildings over surface parking are a never-ending plague in this city.

PostOct 16, 2020#677

^^ made me f*cking furious.

2,481
Life MemberLife Member
2,481

PostOct 16, 2020#678

^^Why did they put up a photo of the rear of the 19xx Olive buildings...?

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostOct 16, 2020#679

urban_dilettante wrote:
Oct 16, 2020
MarkGroth2020 wrote:
Oct 15, 2020
Anyone have access?

"City lawmaker plots demolition review changes after soccer stadium controversy"

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2020/10/15/lawmaker-plots-demolition-review-changes.html
A city of St. Louis lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would change how certain demolitions are approved after a pair of controversies, including buildings in Downtown West that are falling for soccer stadium surface parking.
Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia said she would introduce a bill next week that would force the director of the city's Cultural Resources Office to refer certain demolition applications to the city's nine-member Preservation Board.
Currently, the director must refer only demolition applications for buildings designated as "high merit" in preservation review districts, areas in which the Board of Aldermen has determined "demolition review is in the public interest." The director alone can OK demolitions for other types of structures, described as "qualifying" and "merit" buildings, in unusual circumstances.
Ingrassia said her legislation, at a minimum, would force the director to also refer merit buildings to the Preservation Board.
"We want to make sure there are protections in place when situations come up like the ones surrounding the (Major League Soccer) stadium and 201 S. Jefferson," Ingrassia said.
In both cases, Cultural Resources Office Director Dan Krasnoff, part of Mayor Lyda Krewson's administration, OK'd demolitions without consulting the Preservation Board, as current law allows.
In a presentation to the Preservation Board earlier this month, Krasnoff said he approved demolition of the soccer-affected properties, 1900-12 Olive St. and 1901 Pine St., for various reasons.



For example, he called some "not particularly noteworthy for architecture or design," and cited a nearby block of mostly vacant buildings, posing questions about whether the affected structures could otherwise be redeveloped.
The soccer team, called St. Louis City SC and led by Carolyn Kindle Betz, a member of the Taylor family of Enterprise Holdings, has also said it could put structured parking with ground-floor retail on the lots, Krasnoff noted. He said construction of the stadium, on a site west of Union Station and north of Market Street, would displace 500 current parking spots, necessitating the need for more surface parking.
Recommended

Krasnoff also said he approved demolition of the mid-century modern 201 S. Jefferson Ave. building for a new Starbucks because it had been vacant for four years. The owner of the merit structure, Missouri Real Estate Insurance Agency, had also suffered economic hardship, and had made financial commitments with Starbucks that were "contractural and binding," Krasnoff said.



But one Preservation Board member, Randy Vines, criticized Krasnoff's stadium decision, saying that surface parking replacing usable buildings "is about the lowest we can go in terms of our standards and civic self esteem."
Another member, Michael Killeen, said he favored changes to the law that would force Preservation Board review of more demolitions.
"We need to do something about this," Killeen said.
people like Dan Krasnoff who can't understand the value of historic buildings over surface parking are a never-ending plague in this city.
I was recently reminded by an Alderperson that Mr Krasnoff is in an appointed position and likely has to fall in line with whatever plans come from higher up. 

2,674
Life MemberLife Member
2,674

PostOct 16, 2020#680

I don’t want to minimize the work of Ingrassia, but a huge congrats to everyone on UrbanSTL/Twitter for organizing and raising this issue.

Someone mentioned recently the role this group plays regionally, I think we can add this to a list of impact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2,928
Life MemberLife Member
2,928

PostOct 16, 2020#681

STL Biz Journal: City lawmaker plots demolition review changes after soccer stadium controversy
A city of St. Louis lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would change how certain demolitions are approved after a pair of controversies, including buildings in Downtown West that are falling for soccer stadium surface parking.

Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia said she would introduce a bill next week that would force the director of the city's Cultural Resources Office to refer certain demolition applications to the city's nine-member Preservation Board.

6,118
Life MemberLife Member
6,118

PostOct 16, 2020#682

^There are so many demolitions that SHOULD have changed the review process. It's nice to see that one finally actually might. Long time coming, and thank you Ms. Ingrassia. Nice to hear someone is listening.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostOct 16, 2020#683

For example, he called some "not particularly noteworthy for architecture or design," and cited a nearby block of mostly vacant buildings, posing questions about whether the affected structures could otherwise be redeveloped.
what threshold of long-vacant buildings being redeveloped do we have to cross before it becomes embarrassing for people to put this excuse forward as justification for demolition? similarly, what threshold of demolition for parking not re-invigorating the city do we need to cross? After nearly a century of it not working here while other cities are doing away with parking minimums and flourishing, one would think they'd get a f*cking clue. sometimes it feels like they're actively trying to keep the city from improving, but most likely it's just ineptitude and stubbornness, or nepotism.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostOct 17, 2020#684

Not much on the Oct 26th meeting agenda. The nomination of the Goodwill building on FPA is a clue as to its long term prospects for survival.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 6-2020.pdf

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostOct 17, 2020#685

quincunx wrote:
Oct 17, 2020
Not much on the Oct 26th meeting agenda. The nomination of the Goodwill building on FPA is a clue as to its long term prospects for survival.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 6-2020.pdf
Did not know that Wash U owns it.

5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostNov 18, 2020#686

I guess there's no meeting this month? The preliminary agenda has not been posted and it is less than 10 days before the meeting.

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostNov 23, 2020#687


PostDec 23, 2020#688


991
Super MemberSuper Member
991

PostDec 26, 2020#689

The proposed new construction on Maryland is the same design as what was previously built on Vista in the Grove. None of the developer names look familiar, but maybe we'll see this design start popping up as infill in other parts of the city soon.

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostFeb 21, 2021#690

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... -22-21.pdf

Agenda for tomorrow’s meeting. Nothing out of the ordinary.

5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostFeb 21, 2021#691

^Just like with the "Twisted Ranch" painted sign in Soulard or some other minor issues (I think I remember a door in some older neighborhood was rejected), the roof issue in McKinley Heights seems pointless and like a big overstep. Let private property owners do what they want to their property. Especially when it comes down to the roof. Who the hell cares?

And I like that they put in there that they got a complaint from someone about this. Typical nosy neighbors up to no good but to cause trouble. Save everyone a headache and get off your moral high horse by minding your own business.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 22, 2021#692

chriss752 wrote:
Feb 21, 2021
Let private property owners do what they want to their property. Especially when it comes down to the roof. Who the hell cares?
i agree in terms of aesthetics (within reason) but not when it comes to land use. like, a property owner should not be allowed to tear down their home and operate a surface lot, or turn their home into an auto repair shop. uses that create disturbances or lower property values should not be allowed. but that's why zoning exists, and why it's a good idea.

but, yeah, some of this "does not comply with historic district standards" garbage needs to be curbed.

677
Senior MemberSenior Member
677

PostFeb 23, 2021#693

What are the repercussions if a homeowner decides to leave their non-compliant windows, roof, door, retaining wall, etc. installed? Is the fine (assuming there is a fine) less than the cost to tear off a roof, etc.?

Also, does the city make it obvious
to property owners/purchasers that these restrictions exist before they make updates or purchase property? I get that owners/prospective owners are responsible for completing their own due diligence, but local historic district shingling standards don't seem like the most obvious item of concern.

1,877
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,877

PostFeb 23, 2021#694



-RBB

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMar 15, 2021#695

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... -22-21.cfm

Preliminary agenda for March (demo alert on Cates as already noted)

PostMar 20, 2021#696

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2-2021.pdf

Final agenda. Cates appeal not there anymore

5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostMar 20, 2021#697

imran wrote:
Mar 20, 2021
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 2-2021.pdf

Final agenda. Cates appeal not there anymore
That can either be a good thing or a bad thing.

Good meaning maybe someone will try to save it.

Bad thing meaning they approved the demolition without the need to be reviewed by the Preservation Board.

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostMar 21, 2021#698

Yeah, wouldn’t put that past the current CRO.

339
Full MemberFull Member
339

PostApr 18, 2021#699

Not sure where else to put this but check out this abomination in St. Louis Hills Estates... Is there no need for review with the Preservation Board for "renovations" of this level? This was my favorite Mid-Century Modern building in this city and now look at it! The policy for exterior alterations on brick needs to change in order to prevent atrocities like this in the future. I can't believe how anyone thought this would look good. So infuriating. 
Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 3.44.39 PM.png (3.04MiB)
Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 3.44.22 PM.png (4.4MiB)

PostApr 18, 2021#700

Yesterday:
Screen Shot 2021-04-18 at 9.48.07 AM.png (7.26MiB)
Screen Shot 2021-04-18 at 9.47.56 AM.png (7.39MiB)

Read more posts (158 remaining)