^Good analogy. I do fear that, by the time I am as old as some of you guys on this forum (not to be ageist), much of our built environment will be irreplaceably damaged.
Issues can often be complex with various interested parties. Our leadership is basically a distillation of all St. Louisan's interests and just because you believe a given way doesn't necessarily mean most do. For our built environment to progress, some old buildings must make way for new. Not to mention, think about the jobs that are created in doing so.ThreeOneFour wrote:Doug wrote:The obvious long term solution is new political leadership.
Yep. The more I look around, the more I get the impression that the majority of people in power simply don't seem to care.
- 3,762
^ progress does not occur by leveling sound, functioning, occupied buildings (as this one recently was) amidst a sea of already empty lots. i'm sorry but how do temporary construction jobs and minimum-wage strip mall jobs justify this waste of resources? not to mention the jobs that have potentially been lost due to this condemnation. if we were to "emergency condemn" every building that has suffered minor damage like this the entire city would (will?) be leveled. the roberts bros have jumped on (arranged?) this condemnation so fast its pretty clear they have some fast money-making (i.e. cheap-ass strip mall) planned for this corner. maybe i'm jumping the gun but ... please give me some happier alternatives.
A 1975 HUD report found that rehabilitation not only is more environmentally sound due to resource conservation, but it also creates more jobs. Moreover, unions actually supported the rehabilitation of Real Estate Row because they believed it would create more jobs quicker. This information is available in Larry Giles' Gateway Mall Scrapbook available at the Missouri History Museum Library on Skinker.
So why does it seem builders are so reluctant to rehabilitate? I just don't understand it.
Some options to stop a demolition that is not in a preservation review district or a local historic district:
(1) Buy the building
(2) Convince the owners not to demolish it
This is the classic "throw your hands up in the air" response from leaders in St. Louis City today...Sad...
For our built environment to progress, some old buildings must make way for new. Not to mention, think about the jobs that are created in doing so.
Because we ALL know what will go in its place will NOT COMPARE to what's currently there. If you were talking about tearing this building down for a seven story mixed use project, I'd probably be all for it. Sadly, we know it will be some little pathetic cinderblock dollar store or worse..surface lot... Thank you ROBERTS BROS...really impressive. We need to somehow weaken their stranglehold of the area just north of the CWE. They are preventing it from exploding.
For our built environment to progress, some old buildings must make way for new.
I agree with this basic logic. Not all buildings can or should be saved. What makes St. Louis such a wonderful place is its architectural heritage and mix of styles, but for that same mix to grow in the future, some current structures must be sacrificed.
The issue is not as much with the destruction of one building, but with the potential of what ugliness will take its place.
JCity wrote:Some options to stop a demolition that is not in a preservation review district or a local historic district:
(1) Buy the building
(2) Convince the owners not to demolish it
This is the classic "throw your hands up in the air" response from leaders in St. Louis City today...Sad...
Considering who he works for, we couldn't have expected a different answer
- 3,762
^ we're not talking about the switzer or the mullanphy here. we're talking about MINOR damage. certainly this building CAN be saved. it SHOULD be saved, if not solely because it was IN USE prior to this damage, then because its demo sets a dangerous and wasteful precedent. if this building were COLLAPSING and there were some well-designed mixed use planned for its place this would not be such an issue. but that is definitely not the case here. a mix of styles alone does not make STL great. who's going to enjoy the lovely mix of styles? the tumbleweeds? what MADE STL great were her at-one-time functioning neighborhoods.
p.s. please don't misinterpret the caps as yelling - just emphasis.
p.s. please don't misinterpret the caps as yelling - just emphasis.
we're talking about MINOR damage. certainly this building CAN be saved. it SHOULD be saved, if not solely because it was IN USE prior to this damage, then because its demo sets a dangerous and wasteful precedent. if this building were COLLAPSING and there were some well-designed mixed use planned for its place this would not be such an issue.
I would hope City residents would be willing to tear down buildings in more cases than just imminent structural failure. As I said before, the concern is more so about the potential replacement than the building itself.
- 3,762
JMedwick wrote:we're talking about MINOR damage. certainly this building CAN be saved. it SHOULD be saved, if not solely because it was IN USE prior to this damage, then because its demo sets a dangerous and wasteful precedent. if this building were COLLAPSING and there were some well-designed mixed use planned for its place this would not be such an issue.
I would hope City residents would be willing to tear down buildings in more cases than just imminent structural failure. As I said before, the concern is more so about the potential replacement than the building itself.
what, in your opinion, are justifyable reasons for tearing down a sound, urban-friendly building that is contributing to the life of the neighborhood? no sir, in this case my concern is NOT about the potential replacement - i said IF the building were not salvagable THEN the replacement would be a concern. this is about WASTE and IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE to our history FOR NO VALID REASON (other than the roberts making more money).
^ Oh bah. Cities evolve. Get over it. We can't and shouldn't preserve everything. Should we senselessly tear down buildings? No. Should we allow our cities to evolve? Yes.
Market forces, constrained by the notion that the City should be pushing for higher densities and good urban form. Tearing down a building to move backward on the scale (low density suburban stuff) doesn't make any sense.
what, in your opinion, are justifiable reasons for tearing down a sound, urban-friendly building that is contributing to the life of the neighborhood?
Market forces, constrained by the notion that the City should be pushing for higher densities and good urban form. Tearing down a building to move backward on the scale (low density suburban stuff) doesn't make any sense.
- 5,433
innov8ion wrote:Issues can often be complex with various interested parties. Our leadership is basically a distillation of all St. Louisan's interests and just because you believe a given way doesn't necessarily mean most do. For our built environment to progress, some old buildings must make way for new. Not to mention, think about the jobs that are created in doing so.
True enough, but our leaders need to understand the importance of our built environment. Other cities have great cultural institutions. Cities large and small in every part of America have embraced biotechnology, which was the thing sold to us by regional leaders as the thing that would put Greater St. Louis back on the map in terms of relevance and economic prosperity. So, what is there that makes St. Louis unique and something worth preserving?
Our built environment sets us apart from other places more than any other characteristic, and preserving it as much as possible (and educating citizens about the need to do so) should be a priority for our elected officials. The current administration has accomplished many great things that have improved the quality of life in St. Louis, but publiceye's response makes it abundantly clear that preserving our city's rich architectural heritage isn't all that important.
Sacrificing the old for the new must happen at times if a city is to progress and ensure the best and highest use of properties for sustainable neighborhoods. Far too often in St. Louis, though, buildings are needlessly sacrificed in the name of progress. Sometimes the end result is a fast food restaurant, sometimes it's a parking lot, and sometimes it's simply a vacant lot. There are too many examples of senseless demolitions, and we are squandering our city's potential if we don't take a closer look at what we're losing in the process.
At minimum, neighborhood boundaries should be redrawn for more continuity between residential and commercial areas so people living near commercial corridors can become stakeholders in the commercial area's future as well as their neighborhood. And I still believe a citywide architectural review would go a long way toward ensuring preservation wherever possible, and to encourage new development that is sustainable, compatible with urban design where appropriate, and is the best and highest use for the land in question.
MattnSTL wrote:Not some, that is all.
I should have expanded on my reply to PublicEye. That is all of the options because for some reason, alderman can individually choose not to have their ward included in preservation review. Who in the world thought this was a good idea except for a way for the alderman to have another muscle to flex that they should in no way be involved with because they generally don't have the slightest idea of what should be done with regards to historic preservation. Sorry for the giant runon.
- 3,762
JMedwick wrote:^ Oh bah. Cities evolve. Get over it. We can't and shouldn't preserve everything. Should we senselessly tear down buildings? No. Should we allow our cities to evolve? Yes.
bah what? you just agreed with me.
JMedwick wrote:Market forces, constrained by the notion that the City should be pushing for higher densities and good urban form. Tearing down a building to move backward on the scale (low density suburban stuff) doesn't make any sense.
i'm sure that constraint will be foremost on the roberts' minds when they're tearing down the existing good urban form. and i'm sure the walgreens that is likely to replace it will have equally wonderful urban form. when was the last time market forces in STL produced good urban form? urban form these days is a gimmick that "market forces" use to sell condos on a few walkable blocks while they level everything else for cars.
It could be argued that one of the last times market forces in St. Louis produced "good urban form" is the Roberts Tower.
/just sayin
/just sayin
- 3,762
^ agreed. i guess my point was that the roberts aren't concerned with JMedwick's proposed constraint. the roberts tower is opportunistic, not altruistic. business as usual. it's just sad that good urban design has become a niche market in STL.
I went by this building this afternoon and it is a disgrace. Fantastic building on a corner with a lot of potential. Mark my words, if they succeed in making this building unstable (which they are rapidly doing; it actually looks like it could become very dangerous quickly) and taking it down, they will also take the rest of the building to the south along Kingshighway (which up close is a different building) and the row of buildings to the east along page (which can't be seen in the picture). They will say they can't work with the lot on the corner by itself, not enough room to maneuver, not enough room for a "good" project. They will all go. It is really a shame too because these are solid, well-executed, attractive, functional buildings. I know, we've already been over this. :-#
I agree with what JMedwick has said here. He said that not all old buildings should be saved, even if they aren't under structural duress. But if you're going to tear such buildings down, ensure they will be replaced by something that improves the area on the whole.urban_dilettante wrote:JMedwick wrote:^ Oh bah. Cities evolve. Get over it. We can't and shouldn't preserve everything. Should we senselessly tear down buildings? No. Should we allow our cities to evolve? Yes.
bah what? you just agreed with me.
What you said was different and I quote, "no sir, in this case my concern is NOT about the potential replacement - i said IF the building were not salvagable THEN the replacement would be a concern. this is about WASTE and IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE to our history"
Anyway, I hear the objections and generally agree that a "decent" building shouldn't be replaced with a piece of crap. Honest effort should be performed to adapt the future use to the building. Or if developers want to start anew and create something better, bully for them. But just to tear such a building down and replace it with a piece of crap is a bit troubling unless it's otherwise benefitting the community by providing a needed service in that location that couldn't otherwise be adapted for. Just my opinion and I think it is in line with JMedwick, ThreeOneFour, and most of you save for some nuances.
we should have a protest at the building. call the news/media. ANYONE?
I am down for a protest, you guys know me.
The only issue is that will the Roberts Brothers actually care? And how will a protest be received?
I am more inclined to protest the demolitions which are occurring city wide, rather than this specific building.
We need to organize into a movement rather than simply have a few scattered objections.
The only issue is that will the Roberts Brothers actually care? And how will a protest be received?
I am more inclined to protest the demolitions which are occurring city wide, rather than this specific building.
We need to organize into a movement rather than simply have a few scattered objections.
- 10K
Doug wrote:The only issue is that will the Roberts Brothers actually care?
I don't know. It might be good to show them that people out there care, but then again, the Roberts Brothers have "f-you" money, so they might not care.
What exactly are you considering protesting? Please be both concise and cogent.
- 1,517
I would say that the protest could be summed up as concerned citizens working to inform a development company that has a mission to attract investment in north St. Louis that it is abusing that mission with this case of demolition by neglect.