Because what this city really needs is less buildings and more cars
Jive, the report this morning on KWMU about the demolition approval stated:
Is there any reason you know of not to appeal? I assumed it'd be automatic.
This, I think, is the crux of the issue:
EDIT: the apostrophe in the URL is causing the bulletin board software to format the link incorrectly - copy-and-paste the URL to read the full story:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/ ... .Luis.demo
If a mod knows how to fix that, please feel free to edit my post.
-RBB
Opponents of the demolition can appeal Monday night's decision, but have not decided whether to take that step.
Is there any reason you know of not to appeal? I assumed it'd be automatic.
This, I think, is the crux of the issue:
Unnamed developers had apparently contacted the Archdiocese about purchasing the building and redeveloping it as apartments. The Archdiocese itself is not eligible for any tax credits as a non-profit organization, and found redevelopment prohibitively expensive, but wanted to control the property.
EDIT: the apostrophe in the URL is causing the bulletin board software to format the link incorrectly - copy-and-paste the URL to read the full story:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/ ... .Luis.demo
If a mod knows how to fix that, please feel free to edit my post.
-RBB
Unfortunate, but not surprising.
Based on reports, the large number and wide range of presenters at the meeting was no doubt impressive and clearly quite those involved in the gear-up are disappointed that so much effort amounted to so little change. Frustration is understandable.
More importantly, I think this is a learning opportunity. If St. Louis urbanists desire a City where surface parking lots are unacceptable in the most dense and vibrant of neighborhoods and the mid-century buildings are recognized as worthy of preservation, then the long term solution is not to gear up in reaction to each known threat, but work to change the system. Work to revise the zoning for areas such as the CWE conform to the community's vision and modern standards. Rather than seeking a City-wide zoning code rewrite, focus on the more progressive alderman to start the change in some parts of the City. Work to alter or create new historic districts that recognize the important of modern buildings, so that the next San Luis is recognized as a contributing historic resource.
The group brought together to stop the demolition can be a powerful agent of change in the City, though perhaps it just took a major defeat to understand the way such change should be approached (eg. not reactionary, but proactive).
Based on reports, the large number and wide range of presenters at the meeting was no doubt impressive and clearly quite those involved in the gear-up are disappointed that so much effort amounted to so little change. Frustration is understandable.
More importantly, I think this is a learning opportunity. If St. Louis urbanists desire a City where surface parking lots are unacceptable in the most dense and vibrant of neighborhoods and the mid-century buildings are recognized as worthy of preservation, then the long term solution is not to gear up in reaction to each known threat, but work to change the system. Work to revise the zoning for areas such as the CWE conform to the community's vision and modern standards. Rather than seeking a City-wide zoning code rewrite, focus on the more progressive alderman to start the change in some parts of the City. Work to alter or create new historic districts that recognize the important of modern buildings, so that the next San Luis is recognized as a contributing historic resource.
The group brought together to stop the demolition can be a powerful agent of change in the City, though perhaps it just took a major defeat to understand the way such change should be approached (eg. not reactionary, but proactive).
- 549
JMedwick wrote:More importantly, I think this is a learning opportunity. If St. Louis urbanists desire a City where surface parking lots are unacceptable in the most dense and vibrant of neighborhoods and the mid-century buildings are recognized as worthy of preservation, then the long term solution is not to gear up in reaction to each known threat, but work to change the system. Work to revise the zoning for areas such as the CWE conform to the community's vision and modern standards. Rather than seeking a City-wide zoning code rewrite, focus on the more progressive alderman to start the change in some parts of the City. Work to alter or create new historic districts that recognize the important of modern buildings, so that the next San Luis is recognized as a contributing historic resource.
The group brought together to stop the demolition can be a powerful agent of change in the City, though perhaps it just took a major defeat to understand the way such change should be approached (eg. not reactionary, but proactive).
^EXCELLENT points. You are exactly right. After how the meeting went last night, I think the preservationists in attendance would agree.
What was so frustrating about the ruling was that if the language of the CWE's Historic District recognized MCM as contributing to the character of the neighborhood (which it clearly is), then the parking lot could be stopped.
Even though 4 of the 5 clearly didn't like the idea of a surface lot. The vote was 3-2 in favor of (essentially) demolition. One guy didn't like the demolition but stated that under the language of the Historic District ordinance he had no legal power to stop demolition.
Changing the language of said ordinances is clearly the best way to stop potential future demolitions of Modern buildings.
You are right, but in this case, the lot IS ALREADY ZONED in such a way that this plan should have been thrown out immediately. It has a residential zoning classification which specifically requires parking lots to be built behind or to the side of buildings. Michael Allen articulated this point quite clearly last night, but it was ignored. This parking lot has no building and is not built to the side or rear of anything. Unfortunately, one reform that we desperately need is someone with a preservation law degree to monitor preservation board meetings and challenge them when they arbitrarily interpret/ignore/misconstrue ordinances. Right now, the lawyers on the board appear to interpret individual situations on the fly (i.e. during testimony), state what they "think" the law requires them to do, and then vote on it. NOBODY CHECKS THEM OR CHALLENGES THEM when it comes to legal issues and they walk all over us.
JMedwick wrote:Unfortunate, but not surprising.
Based on reports, the large number and wide range of presenters at the meeting was no doubt impressive and clearly quite those involved in the gear-up are disappointed that so much effort amounted to so little change. Frustration is understandable.
More importantly, I think this is a learning opportunity. If St. Louis urbanists desire a City where surface parking lots are unacceptable in the most dense and vibrant of neighborhoods and the mid-century buildings are recognized as worthy of preservation, then the long term solution is not to gear up in reaction to each known threat, but work to change the system. Work to revise the zoning for areas such as the CWE conform to the community's vision and modern standards. Rather than seeking a City-wide zoning code rewrite, focus on the more progressive alderman to start the change in some parts of the City. Work to alter or create new historic districts that recognize the important of modern buildings, so that the next San Luis is recognized as a contributing historic resource.
The group brought together to stop the demolition can be a powerful agent of change in the City, though perhaps it just took a major defeat to understand the way such change should be approached (eg. not reactionary, but proactive).
- 11K
^ I'd add that we can write whatever zoning ordinances we want, but in the end what our elected leaders want to do will be done via variances, reinterpretation or outright neglect.
Below is a section of what was to be considered yesterday. The bold is my own. Clearly these statements give plenty of justification for anyone who wanted to preserve the San Luis. The fact is that too many on the board were indifferent. Perhaps having a very clear zoning ordinance (one's in the works by the way) for the CWE would have further guided those who seem to demand clear instructions as to how to vote on issues such as these, but in the end we need people who are looking for reasons to preserve and not looking for reasons to approve demolition - which is what we have now.
Below is a section of what was to be considered yesterday. The bold is my own. Clearly these statements give plenty of justification for anyone who wanted to preserve the San Luis. The fact is that too many on the board were indifferent. Perhaps having a very clear zoning ordinance (one's in the works by the way) for the CWE would have further guided those who seem to demand clear instructions as to how to vote on issues such as these, but in the end we need people who are looking for reasons to preserve and not looking for reasons to approve demolition - which is what we have now.
In its review of the proposed construction, alteration or demolition, the Preservation Board shall consider whether the proposed work would violate the intent of this ordinance and the intent of the applicable Historic District or Landmark or Landmark Site designation ordinance as reflected in the Historic District or Landmark preservation plan, whether the proposed work would adversely affect the characteristics of the district or site which were the basis for the Historic District, Landmark or Landmark Site designation, whether there have been changes in the circumstances or conditions in or affecting the Historic District, Landmark or Landmark Site 8 since its designation, and other relevant considerations, such as the availability of economically feasible alternatives to the proposed work.
A few thoughts:
1. Grover, I don't know about Missouri courts, but New Jersey courts do not look kindly on zoning by variance, where the Board of Adjustment usurps the role of the Planning Board and governing body in determining the zone scheme for a community. I have worked with municipalities with dated zoning codes and master plans where the ZBA would give out use variances constantly and the courts ultimately began overturning those variances because municipality was engaging in zoning by variance.
2. As for what the zone permits, the best I can tell is that the property is in one of the City's three multiple family dwelling districts. In the end it does not matter which one as the City still works with antiquated staked zoning. None of the City's residential zones permit parking as a principal permitted use in the zone (a parking lot is not an accessory use or structure when it is the only use on the lot, moreover, the proposed parking lot would not qualify under the parking lot provision for conditional uses as the property would not contain a structure).
Based on the above, regardless of what the Preservation Board decided last night, it would seem the Archdioceses must seek a use variance from the ZBA for the parking lot. The Preservation Board does not have the power to grant use variances and it should have been the point to get the Board on the record stating that while they may permit demolition, a parking lot is not a suitable use for the site, thereby aiding any attempt to stop the use variance at the ZBA level. Here an updated zoning code which specifically notes that surface parking lots as principal or accessory uses are not permitted would be helpful in stopping the process. That said, under NJ land use law, the Archdioceses might try to argue the church and by extension the parking lot is an inherently beneficial use and therefore subject to a lighter standard of proof when arguing for a use variance (don't know if this is possible in Missouri).
I do agree with TGE, though, a competent land use attorney would go a long way to ensuring that you know the ins and outs of the entire system. Moreover, if the Missouri courts frown on zoning by variance, you can start challenging all the variances given due to the out of date zoning code.
1. Grover, I don't know about Missouri courts, but New Jersey courts do not look kindly on zoning by variance, where the Board of Adjustment usurps the role of the Planning Board and governing body in determining the zone scheme for a community. I have worked with municipalities with dated zoning codes and master plans where the ZBA would give out use variances constantly and the courts ultimately began overturning those variances because municipality was engaging in zoning by variance.
2. As for what the zone permits, the best I can tell is that the property is in one of the City's three multiple family dwelling districts. In the end it does not matter which one as the City still works with antiquated staked zoning. None of the City's residential zones permit parking as a principal permitted use in the zone (a parking lot is not an accessory use or structure when it is the only use on the lot, moreover, the proposed parking lot would not qualify under the parking lot provision for conditional uses as the property would not contain a structure).
Based on the above, regardless of what the Preservation Board decided last night, it would seem the Archdioceses must seek a use variance from the ZBA for the parking lot. The Preservation Board does not have the power to grant use variances and it should have been the point to get the Board on the record stating that while they may permit demolition, a parking lot is not a suitable use for the site, thereby aiding any attempt to stop the use variance at the ZBA level. Here an updated zoning code which specifically notes that surface parking lots as principal or accessory uses are not permitted would be helpful in stopping the process. That said, under NJ land use law, the Archdioceses might try to argue the church and by extension the parking lot is an inherently beneficial use and therefore subject to a lighter standard of proof when arguing for a use variance (don't know if this is possible in Missouri).
I do agree with TGE, though, a competent land use attorney would go a long way to ensuring that you know the ins and outs of the entire system. Moreover, if the Missouri courts frown on zoning by variance, you can start challenging all the variances given due to the out of date zoning code.
- 11K
My take - just in case anyone was wondering. :maddown:
http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... ocese.html
http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... ocese.html
With their vote, the Preservation Board is saying that nothing has changed since 1974. They are also ignoring commercial rehabilitation interest in the building by a respected and experienced developer and they are ignoring the best example of Mid-Century Modern reuse that sits one block away!
So the Preservation Board chose to ignore all of the above. However, it's still unclear if the plan for a surface parking lot will go forward as the City Ordinances relevant to the San Luis property state: . . .
Unfortunately, the zoning can't block the demolition, it can only (potentially) block the construction of the parking lot. Indeed, the zoning is such that the parking lot will require a conditional use hearing, which is public and will be announced in this thread. However, by that time, the building could be a smoking pile of rubble.
This is how the appeals process works according to the preservation ordinance. This means that an appellant has 30 days to file an appeal FOLLOWING the issuance of a building permit by the building division and then the Preservation Board has 45 days to schedule a meeting to hear the appeal. THIS ORDINANCE IS LEGALLY BINDING so if they rush through a demolition permit and then begin right away without adhering to this due process, they will be in violation of the law.
" SECTION FORTY-FOUR. Appeal on actions or determinations:
Demolition, Construction,
Alteration - Historic District or Landmark/Landmark Site.
Any person aggrieved by, or any officer, department, board, bureau
or commission of the City affected by, the action of the building
Commissioner with respect to a requested permit based on the Cultural
Resources Office’s application of the Landmark or Historic District
standards to a requested permit or based on the recommendations or
determinations by the Preservation Board or Cultural Resources Office
pursuant to Sections Thirty-Nine through Forty-Three, may appeal the
action of the building commissioner to the Preservation Board for
review and hearing. Such appeal shall be known as a preservation
appeal and shall be taken within thirty (30) days after the action of
the building commissioner by filing a notice of appeal with the
Cultural Resources Office specifying the grounds of such appeal.
SECTION FORTY-FIVE. Hearing on filed appeal: Demolition,
Construction, Alteration -
Historic District or Landmark/Landmark Site. Within forty five
(45) days after the filing of appeal to the Preservation Board, the
Preservation Board shall hold a hearing thereon. The Preservation
Board shall hear the recommendations and evidence submitted by the
Cultural Resources Office and by any officer, department, board,
bureau or commission desiring to be heard thereon and shall permit the
appellant and other parties to the appeal an opportunity to appear and
be heard by the Preservation Board and to submit evidence. The
Preservation Board may permit any other interested person an
opportunity to appear and be heard by the Preservation Board. The
Preservation Board may continue or adjourn the hearing or schedule
additional hearings to permit a full hearing of the appeal. The
Preservation Board shall cause all proceedings in a preservation
appeal to be suitably recorded and preserved."
This is how the appeals process works according to the preservation ordinance. This means that an appellant has 30 days to file an appeal FOLLOWING the issuance of a building permit by the building division and then the Preservation Board has 45 days to schedule a meeting to hear the appeal. THIS ORDINANCE IS LEGALLY BINDING so if they rush through a demolition permit and then begin right away without adhering to this due process, they will be in violation of the law.
" SECTION FORTY-FOUR. Appeal on actions or determinations:
Demolition, Construction,
Alteration - Historic District or Landmark/Landmark Site.
Any person aggrieved by, or any officer, department, board, bureau
or commission of the City affected by, the action of the building
Commissioner with respect to a requested permit based on the Cultural
Resources Office’s application of the Landmark or Historic District
standards to a requested permit or based on the recommendations or
determinations by the Preservation Board or Cultural Resources Office
pursuant to Sections Thirty-Nine through Forty-Three, may appeal the
action of the building commissioner to the Preservation Board for
review and hearing. Such appeal shall be known as a preservation
appeal and shall be taken within thirty (30) days after the action of
the building commissioner by filing a notice of appeal with the
Cultural Resources Office specifying the grounds of such appeal.
SECTION FORTY-FIVE. Hearing on filed appeal: Demolition,
Construction, Alteration -
Historic District or Landmark/Landmark Site. Within forty five
(45) days after the filing of appeal to the Preservation Board, the
Preservation Board shall hold a hearing thereon. The Preservation
Board shall hear the recommendations and evidence submitted by the
Cultural Resources Office and by any officer, department, board,
bureau or commission desiring to be heard thereon and shall permit the
appellant and other parties to the appeal an opportunity to appear and
be heard by the Preservation Board and to submit evidence. The
Preservation Board may permit any other interested person an
opportunity to appear and be heard by the Preservation Board. The
Preservation Board may continue or adjourn the hearing or schedule
additional hearings to permit a full hearing of the appeal. The
Preservation Board shall cause all proceedings in a preservation
appeal to be suitably recorded and preserved."
- 11K
^ But I believe that the Preservation Board hearing was in regards to the parking lot. And that the approval for a parking lot is a defacto permit for demolition. Can you explain if this is wrong?
This is from the application:
This is from the application:
All aspects of an application for excavation, construction, erection, demolition and/or alteration shall be considered as a whole by the Landmarks and Urban Design Commission and will not require separate applications or individual notices to proceed. <b>The approval of a permit for new construction thus constitutes tacit approval of any demolition required by the new construction.</b>
you're damn right Doug. This is unbelievable.Were not done with this.
I have talked to several developers that were interested in this property. -They wanted to turn it into the hip/retro hotel that we've seen in redeveloped mid century buildings across the country.
-If parking is SO important, why aren't they using the lots now as the building sits vacant?
-How in the hell is getting rid of density in our REGION'S most dense area progress?
-Has St. Louis learned NOTHING?
-Is the city bowing down to a dying organization (Catholic Church) that continues to lose more and more members in our city let alone country. --With the numbers they have now, why in the hell would they need that parking lot so badly if they didn't have one 30-50 years ago.
-Biondi levels a 1880's livery stable on Locust that was perfectly rehabable.
- The archdiocese strong arms the city into tearing down a HISTORIC building in our most dense area, and arguably most beautiful street for a SURFACE LOT. are these people retarded? am i hallucinating?
-I just found out that a member of Urban Land Institute's board sits on the real estate council of the Archdiocese; i hope he's ready to give up his seat. ULI's purpose:
ULI’s mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.
This is NOT a responsible use of land. Bye Bye, to this guy.
We are not done with this. fangs are out. RECALL LYDA!
JCity, you should turn your post into a letter and SEND IT to all media outlets.
Yes please write letters to the media -- also contact Alderwoman Krewson at (314) 622-3287 and lyda.krewson@pgav.com. We still might be able to sway her on this.
If you want I will post your letter to our blog. But we would need your entire name as I won't post anon commentary. Email it to colbert@noparkinglotonlindell.com
Best,
Doug Duckworth
If you want I will post your letter to our blog. But we would need your entire name as I won't post anon commentary. Email it to colbert@noparkinglotonlindell.com
Best,
Doug Duckworth
Oh the irony. There is a public meeting this weekend in the pursuit of a sustainable development plan for the CWE. June 27th, 9:30-11:30 @ the Schlafly Library
http://www.cwemd.org/UploadFiles/docume ... _brief.pdf
http://www.cwemd.org/UploadFiles/docume ... _brief.pdf
- 5,433
JivecitySTL wrote:--4 Archdiocese-affiliated parking lot proponents testify about how a parking lot at the corner of Lindell & Taylor is "the only option."
--25 anti-parking lot neighbors, architects, students, teachers, researchers and industry professionals testify in defiance of various aspects of that flawed argument and suggest solutions, compromises, alternatives and at least dialogue.
--Out-of-town developer with a proven track record announces his interest in renovating the building.
--VP of the Central West End Association offers a thoughtful and assertive argument against a parking lot.
--Ald. Krewson disappoints her only constituents who cared deeply enough to attend this meeting by selling out and justifying the case for a parking lot set forth by the Archdiocese. This was the biggest betrayal of the night.
--Testimony lasts a whopping 6 hours due to the overwhelming opposition to surface parking and determined appreciation for the San Luis.
--Preservation Board approves request for demolition.
And we wonder why St. Louis has a reputation of being backwards. This is a loss for the entire city. It's getting harder and harder to defend this place from naysayers. It's a city staunchly committed to mediocrity and status quo business-as-usual. How terribly depressing for all of us who strive to create something better for the future generations of St. Louisans.
I am expecting my first child (son) in August, and unfortunately by the time he's able to appreciate it, it will be very difficult for me to convince him that St. Louis was once a great city. The evidence of that legacy is growing more distant with each passing day.
I've been in and out of town for the last couple of weeks, so I'm just catching up with news and this forum, but this is absolutely depressing. And as your above post highlights, there were people there not only to express an interest in saving the San Luis/DeVille, but also developers actually interested in preserving and doing something with the structure.
How the Preservation Board can choose to ignore interested developers, concerned citizens, and decades of sound urban planning principles that have evolved after most cities large and small realized that parking-driven urban renewal was an abject failure is beyond me. I'd love to hear Publiceye's comments on this, because IMHO the Preservation Board is a miserable joke. I'm also especially disappointed in Lyda Krewson. What a &#$%ing sellout. Like I said, I'm just catching up on things, so I'd like to know what those of us that want to step up the plate can do in the bottom of the ninth inning with two outs. I'd love to see this one go into extra innings, but since the mindnumbing dedication to the status quo among those in power in St. Louis is apparently impossible to shake, I'm not very hopeful.
/sorry for the baseball analogy
- 11K
IMO - it appears that the outcome rested on Lyda's acquiesence to the Archdiocese. She stated that in her talks with them she became convinced that they will not sell the property no matter what. In truth, there's little that can be done to force a sale and if they stuck to that decision the building would continue to deteriorate, be a nuisance, the Archdiocese would be fined a few hundred dollars here and there and eventually an emergency demo permit would be issued because of a failing structure. Very, very tough call for Lyda and I vehemently disagree with her.
So what are the options if the Archdiocese simply refuses to sell? I think this is a good time to take the church to the mattress and set a precedent for urbanism!
So what are the options if the Archdiocese simply refuses to sell? I think this is a good time to take the church to the mattress and set a precedent for urbanism!
One thing anyone (and everyone) should do is go to the meeting at the library this Saturday. Krewson will be there to help put together a sustainable development plan for the CWE. Half of the meeting will be dedicated to public feedback. CALL HER OUT. CALL HER ON THE JAW DROPPING HYPOCRISY.
- 11K
^ Yeah, I'll be there (likely wearing a Red Sox hat if anyone wants to say "howdy"). Should be interesting, as much as I see, hear, think I know irony, I've never met it so clearly in person. 
Look - if we're putting together a plan for the CWE - WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU LET THE SAN LUIS BE REPLACED BY A PARKING LOT?
Look - if we're putting together a plan for the CWE - WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU LET THE SAN LUIS BE REPLACED BY A PARKING LOT?
Grover wrote:IMO - it appears that the outcome rested on Lyda's acquiescence to the Archdiocese. She stated that in her talks with them she became convinced that they will not sell the property no matter what. In truth, there's little that can be done to force a sale and if they stuck to that decision the building would continue to deteriorate, be a nuisance, the Archdiocese would be fined a few hundred dollars here and there and eventually an emergency demo permit would be issued because of a failing structure. Very, very tough call for Lyda and I vehemently disagree with her.
So what are the options if the Archdiocese simply refuses to sell? I think this is a good time to take the church to the mattress and set a precedent for urbanism!
I think the key is her stance on the parking lot not the demolition. If she will not support the use variance necessary for the parking lot (or conditional use variance if the case maybe), then the church is forced to explore a whole new series of options, including new construction and renovation. I think too often people get wrapped up in the demolition issue, but the church would not necessarily choose to proceed with demolition if they knew that the parking lot was not possible.
- 11K
^ But Lyda has stated that she doesn't want to see a parking lot there, but it would be better than a vacant, decaying building that the Archdiocese won't sell. That is, she appears to be more concerned about the potential of a vacant, deteriorating building than having a parking lot on Lindell.
Grover wrote:^ But Lyda has stated that she doesn't want to see a parking lot there, but it would be better than a vacant, decaying building that the Archdiocese won't sell. That is, she appears to be more concerned about the potential of a vacant, deteriorating building than having a parking lot on Lindell.
Chicken and the egg. Would the Archdiocese be willing to sell if they knew there was no chance at getting the parking lot they desire? As I said before, the key issue here is her tacit approval of a parking lot, not the allowance of a demolition.