Preservation Priorities

STLEnginerd · PostMar 25, 2014#12014-03-25T21:44+00:00

I was thinking about imminent demolition of several properites all of which are worth opposing for various reasons. I notice the general opinion isn't really coordinated or consistent. I came up with a quick list of proposed demos and the reasons to oppose the demo and was wondering where peoples priorities lye.

4490 Lindell (next to Gyo Obata designed MCM, demo for parking, violate form based code, but developer says parking is necessary to save more architecturally relavent Obata building)

Castle Ballroom (extremely Historically and Culturally relavent building, long vacant, neglected and storm damaged, demo likely for "public safety") (might be to late on this one as I haven't heard whether demo has started yet.)

Blumeyer Projects (14 story building on the north edge of Grand Center. Probably needs extensive renovation but it is probably structurally in good shape. Never offered for sale as far as i know and will become "greenspace")

Empire Brewing Building in Cortex ( Very attractive building with what is likely a very interesting history. Developer plans to replace with very desirable research technology facilities, but mainly the demo seems wasteful as the project area could EASILY accomodate the building by sacrificing a small amout of surface parking.

Lewis and Clark Library (MCM library in St. Louis County where good architecture can be hard to find as it is, new library has promised to incorporate themost significant architechtural feature, the stained glass window, into the new facility that replaces it)

Incarnate Word (Old convent that was temporarily used for student housing at UMSL. Very nice architecture and again being replaced with greenspace. Again in the county and next to a campus with a serious lack of historically relavent architechture. Apparently would cost a mere 11M to renovate where new construction would likely be significantly more.)

Any others people can think of. How would people rate these as far as worth fighting for. The problem it seems is there are so many structures that are worth preserving imminently threatened and such a weak system to enforce their protection.

dmmonty1 · PostMar 26, 2014#22014-03-26T03:11+00:00

I would add, not because I've heard of any imminent plans for demolition but because of the danger of these falling to demolition by their neglect:
Carr School
St. Mary's Infirmary
Bethlehem Lutheran Church

STLEnginerd · PostMar 26, 2014#32014-03-26T11:01+00:00

^so would you rank any of those as more "important" to save than the ones I mention. Everyone's opinion is valid I just get personally confused why some seem to rise to the top of the priority pool while others don't seem to get a response.

For instance "the saucer". There was a significant and coordinated vocal response to it potential demo and I think preservationists were instrumental in saving it. It definitely shows their power to disrupt a demo. The Lindell CVS was another significant success for preservationists where they managed a win win with the AAA building preserves AND a new urban CVS.

Preservationists have dug up historic lineage of buildings, suggested alternative site plans, appealed to governmental authorities. Etc etc.

Given that my subjective view of the preservation community is that the current Lewis and Clark library is the highest priority. Complete with renderings of potential additions to provide a alternative path. This even while the county has already committed to preserving the stained glass and prominently displaying it in the new library. Alternately the potential loss of the Empire Brewing building on Sarah seems to amass barely a whisper of opposition. I realize we expect a very important project to be built there but based on the current proposed site plans the proposed buildings could easily be rearranged to preserve the small building and incorporate it into the plan with a loss of a dozen surface lots. It seems to me an early response would be most important here because the political will to change course after working drawings have been developed is much more difficult considering the scale of the project and lack of checks to development in CORTEX. I personally sent a message to Wexford, the developer, encouraging them to consider preserving it, and waiting for a response.

I am mostly just trying to understand where most people's priorities lye in terms of preservation and why certain projects are more worth fighting than others.

For the record my priorities from the ones I listed would be.

Immaculate word (there is a petition out there to push for preservation and BelNor seems against demo, but UMSL seems to be deaf to the protests)
Empire brewing (it's such a nice little building and such a pointless demo IMHO)
Blumeyer projects (renovate and reuse as market rate or veterans housing)
Castle ballroom (I'd put it higher if It hadn't been storm damaged if still spend public moneys to mothball it though)
4490 Lindell (I am pretty indifferent to the loss of the building, but I can see for based code as important to hold the line on)
Lewis and Clark library (suburban style building and assuming the county honors their commitment to preserve the stained glass I probably would lean to favoring demo)

Carr school and St. Mary are tough ones for me simply because of how far gone they are. Same for Clemens mansion. I'd be in favor of the city reclaiming these properties and putting money toward stabilizing them. At the same time they definitely fall into a different category of demo by neglect. I need toresearch Bethlehem church before I form an opinion.

roger wyoming II · PostMar 26, 2014#42014-03-26T13:37+00:00

^ Off the top of my head the Palladium and downtown Locust corner building/ old art house are two that have been in the public eye as well.

It is a fascinating subject of why certain buildings may get more of an popular effort behind them than others. You addressed some of the factors such as potential cost and what plans may be in place to replace the potential loss, but I think a couple things you left unmentioned:
--certain kinds of architecture have a particular lobby, for example Mid-Century Modern
--buildings that represent the last kind of style or cultural epoch tend to have a raised profile, for example with the last of the dance halls in the Castle and Palladium

I also think even a building's location has a role.... the Saucer and Pevely dairy were seen by lots of preservation-minded people regularly as part of their life routine.... others like Empire beer building may have never have been seen before by many. Out of sight, out of mind as they say.

urban_dilettante · PostMar 26, 2014#52014-03-26T22:01+00:00

i guess i would prioritize large ornate buildings over smaller/less ornate/farther gone buildings.

here are a few off the top of my head, in order-ish of priority:

Lemp Brewery Complex
St. Liborius Church <--- I'm very partial to this one.
Crunden-Martin Complex
Incarnate Word Convent
St. Mary's Infirmiry

Clemens Mansion
Palladium
Empire Brewery Office
Castle Ballroom

PostApr 13, 2014#62014-04-13T18:02+00:00

per Landmarks Assn. Bethlehem Lutheran suffered a rear-wall collapse on Friday and is now under full demolition...

goat314 · PostApr 13, 2014#72014-04-13T18:10+00:00

Wow that is a shame, such a beautiful building.

dmmonty1 · PostApr 13, 2014#82014-04-13T20:10+00:00

Damn, that was on my list...we need to stabilize these treasures, pronto!

urbanpioneer · PostApr 14, 2014#92014-04-14T00:33+00:00

No question, the highest preservation priority is saving the state historic tax credit program. The program saves many, many buildings from demolition. Simultaneously. Year after year. Not only is it Missouri's all-time best economic development program, it's easily the best way to help save our state's amazing historic building stock, mid-century modern buildings included. Even modest reduction to the program's cap will halt redevelopment. While other states are creating their own HTC programs modeled after ours, Missouri is cutting back on a program that is proven to both create jobs and have a great ROI for our state's tax dollars. There's no question that saving the HTC program is by far the biggest priority facing preservation today. And likely next year too.

Andrew Weil form Landmarks had a great segment on NPR. http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/com ... md.twitter

#saveMOHTC

Northside Neighbor · PostApr 14, 2014#102014-04-14T19:03+00:00

The best way to save a building from demolition is to find a new use for it. Vacancy leads to demolition.

It's also interesting when you think how the buildings all in this discussion are really those cool, bigger, landmarky buildings.

Absent the discussion are average neighborhood properties.

Which is more important - saving that corner mixed use commercial building located in a generally intact historic neighborhood, or, saving say Bethlehem Lutheran, which on its own was once a mighty building, but now is lost to a sea of much decay in Hyde Park?

I say the corner building in an intact historic neighborhood is more important to preserve than a building like Bethlehem Lutheran Church.

dmmonty1 · PostApr 15, 2014#112014-04-15T02:49+00:00

Except that a mixed use corner building is much easier to replace using today's construction techniques than a church of this caliber; it is essentially irreplaceable

Northside Neighbor · PostApr 15, 2014#122014-04-15T14:09+00:00

Context is important. The area around Bethlehem Lutheran is losing, losing, losing its context.

Resources are scarce, and funding for saving churches is even scarcer. They must rely on donations. No public funding is available.

If we did a political cartoon about this situation, there'd be a line of architectural enthusiasts on the sidewalk outside the building, voicing outrage over the loss of Bethlehem Lutheran.

Meanwhile, in the background, sits a broad landscape of countless historic buildings across St. Louis, all in much better shape than Bethlehem, yet in need of serious help today to avoid future losses. Those buildings are waiting for help and in competition for scarce resources. Look around town. There are plenty of examples.

If people want to help prevent demolitions of buildings like Bethlehem Lutheran, go to church, donate money to churches, work with church leadership, work with neighbors, etc.

Or chime in with the choir of outrage at the point of finality. It's dramatic, gets an emotional reaction from people, but face the fact that it does little to change the trajectory of historic preservation in St. Louis.

south compton · PostApr 15, 2014#132014-04-15T14:30+00:00

Northside Neighbor wrote:The best way to save a building from demolition is to find a new use for it. Vacancy leads to demolition.

Couldn't agree more.

gary kreie · PostApr 15, 2014#142014-04-15T14:45+00:00

Could someone like Landmarks Association come in as a friendly agent to help broker three-way swap deals that keep an historic building, but let the new development build next door, say, on undeveloped, architecturally insignificant, or parking-only property? The developer wins, the community wins, the guy with the undeveloped property wins. How can we make it so the guy with the historic building wins too?

The goal should be to replace current architecture with only better architecture, if there is other insignificant property nearby, to gradually raise the average architectural beauty of the area.

Often, if we just wait, a new generation of people with better ideas comes along and does something great with a beautiful building eventually, if we can keep the current generation from razing it just because it is underutilized and in disrepair at the moment. We've seen it time and time again. (There was even a time when some people in Paris wanted to raze Notre Dame Cathedral because it was old and nearly abandoned and in disrepair, but Victor Hugo came along and mounted a campaign which eventually saved it.)

http://nadeaubarlow.com/how-did-victor- ... otre-dame/

Northside Neighbor · PostApr 15, 2014#152014-04-15T15:19+00:00

It's not very often that people with historically significant buildings are proposing demolition.

Sometimes it happens when a QT or Walgreens comes to town, offering high prices, so the building owner is tempted with a good money deal.

In places like the CWE, Soulard, and Lafayette Square, neighbors protect historic buildings, with local historic district ordinances backing them up.

The fine grain of parcel by parcel historic preservation is an arduous task. Landmarks advocates, but has little funding. Some aldermen advocate. Neighborhoods are all different.

Generally speaking, the western half of the city lacks much of a historic preservation ethic, while the eastern half of the city has historically significant architecture, there's a big difference between north and south city in terms of market and demand for old buildings.

The best place for these conversations to happen really is at the neighborhood level. Neighborhood groups can collaborate on long range community strategies with key partners. In that realm, an invited Landmarks Association has much more leverage.

So much happens in a vacuum. This current saga of Bethlehem Lutheran is one more such story. The building sat alone and vacant for decades with no advocate. Listing it on Landmark's "threatened list" didn't do much.

Bottom line is that people need to be engaged. Who was engaged with the Bethlehem church property all these years? Seriously? Anyone outside the church?

But now that it's gone, the building's loss is inspiring outrage in the broader architectural, historic preservation community. That's really not an effective approach to preserving buildings.

roger wyoming II · PostApr 15, 2014#162014-04-15T15:30+00:00

^ I really don't see any outrage; just sadness and frustration. Contrast with outrage over Pevely or San Luis, which were needless.

Northside Neighbor · PostApr 15, 2014#172014-04-15T15:45+00:00

There's some pretty hyperbolic rhetoric about this on Facebook. And to be honest, even if the reaction is mostly sadness and frustration, even that is a bit hard to take.

It's fine to be sad and frustrated, but what we have here in St. Louis is more a disorder.

We keep doing the same thing - getting bummed out about building losses - but essentially doing nothing differently and wishing for different results.

We need coherent strategies for making a difference.

urban_dilettante · PostApr 15, 2014#182014-04-15T16:44+00:00

NN, no offense but I don't really see your lecturing us on outrage as much different from the outrage itself. The lecture (not just from you) has become as predictable and unproductive as the outrage. Everybody knows that things need to be done differently but viable ideas and the means to implement those ideas are in short supply. Like roger I don't really see any outrage here–mostly just people mourning a loss. And in any case neither sadness nor outrage precludes the development of "coherent strategies".

roger wyoming II · PostApr 15, 2014#192014-04-15T17:39+00:00

Good news from UMSL:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/04/15/ ... buildings/

Hopefully they hold off demo for good.

Northside Neighbor · PostApr 15, 2014#202014-04-15T17:42+00:00

Viable ideas are not in short supply. The means to implement them are more challenging. That's where the coherent strategy is needed.

Not everything will happen.

Today, Antonio French is suggesting "parity" as the theme for the newly opening session of the Board of Aldermen.

Does parity mean putting more $$$ into North City, perhaps equally by ward?

If so, that probably does not equate to a coherent strategy of building on strength.

dmmonty1 · PostApr 16, 2014#212014-04-16T00:45+00:00

I can understand that this congregation couldn't afford to maintain the building, and I can understand that their mission is about the people in the neighborhood, not the buildings. That's all well and good. What I have a problem with is that there seems to have been no attempt to sell the building to someone who could have maintained it. If I'm wrong about this, correct me and I'll reconsider my position. The fact is, if you own a building that contributes to the history and character of a neighborhood then you, as a good neighbor, have an obligation to either maintain it or give it up (meaning sell it) to someone who can take care of it. This kind of neglect is not benign, it leaves tremendous scars on our neighborhoods and should not be tolerated.

PostApr 16, 2014#222014-04-16T04:05+00:00

This whole Bethlehem Lutheran thing has got me thinking that we really need to start being more proactive if we've any hope of saving our built environment.

The next "most endangered" on my list is the old St. Mary's Infirmary...it appears to have been owned by a "St. Mary's Development LLC" for the last 7 years, and according to Geo St. Louis they haven't paid their taxes on it in any of those years. It is obvious that there has been no "development" in that time; not even stabilization, only further deterioration.

What are the options for getting the mystery men hiding behind an LLC to take responsibility for their property, or to give it up so that someone who gives a damn can step in and save it?

Northside Neighbor · PostApr 16, 2014#232014-04-16T11:19+00:00

Amen, dmmonty. You are exactly right. We need to be more proactive. There are ways to find an LLC. File a lawsuit against the organization just like any other corporation for violating the city's building code..

Presbyterian · PostApr 16, 2014#242014-04-16T16:35+00:00

dmmonty1 wrote:This whole Bethlehem Lutheran thing has got me thinking that we really need to start being more proactive if we've any hope of saving our built environment.

The next "most endangered" on my list is the old St. Mary's Infirmary...it appears to have been owned by a "St. Mary's Development LLC" for the last 7 years, and according to Geo St. Louis they haven't paid their taxes on it in any of those years. It is obvious that there has been no "development" in that time; not even stabilization, only further deterioration.

What are the options for getting the mystery men hiding behind an LLC to take responsibility for their property, or to give it up so that someone who gives a damn can step in and save it?

The city listed it on their tax sale list in September for $119,056.00. I don't know whether there were any interested purchasers.

dmmonty1 · PostApr 16, 2014#252014-04-16T21:10+00:00

When you buy something at a tax sale, is the price listed what you pay, or do you pay additional back taxes, liens, etc. as well? Also, if it's being sold at a tax sale, does that mean the city actually owns it now?