^ Fair enough. And THAT, I think, was the weak spot in the opposition to the demolition/parking lot. I didn't work nearly as hard as many did (though I did E-mail, call, write and post in opposition to the demo/lot), but the message seemed a bit confused: Don't tear down a MCM beauty/the parking lot would be the worst! I did not/do not feel a since of clarity in the opposition. My personal feeling is that the greatest effort should be made to oppose a parking lot. A surface lot is in such clear opposition to smart planning for the CWE and the ongoing efforts of the Alderwoman and others (see development plan meeting this very weekend!). If the parking lot can be successfully opposed then alternatives, either renovation and replacement of mixed-use, or at least dense, development would have to be considered.
Grover wrote:^ Fair enough. And THAT, I think, was the weak spot in the opposition to the demolition/parking lot. I didn't work nearly as hard as many did (though I did E-mail, call, write and post in opposition to the demo/lot), but the message seemed a bit confused: Don't tear down a MCM beauty/the parking lot would be the worst! I did not/do not feel a since of clarity in the opposition. My personal feeling is that the greatest effort should be made to oppose a parking lot. A surface lot is in such clear opposition to smart planning for the CWE and the ongoing efforts of the Alderwoman and others (see development plan meeting this very weekend!). If the parking lot can be successfully opposed then alternatives, either renovation and replacement of mixed-use, or at least dense, development would have to be considered.
I agree completely. Sometimes, regardless of your stance on the demolition and the importance of preserving the San Luis, you have to hit your opponent where they are weakest.
On a separate matter, perhaps that was a missed opportunity, requiring the Preservation Board to consider the demolition approval only after the use variance for the parking lot was granted.
- 3,235
I would love for Public Eye to comment on this matter but I doubt thats going to happen.
What approach is everyone taking other than voicing their concern to every public official and media outlet in this city? Does anyone have a lawyer involved?
What approach is everyone taking other than voicing their concern to every public official and media outlet in this city? Does anyone have a lawyer involved?
- 835
St. Louis is such a broken city. It is one of the few places that actually strives to emulate Detroit.
- 6,775
They should have called their bluff - deny the demolition and force them to make a move. Knowing how much they love and need money, I suspect the church would have eventually sold it.
- 3,235
Well I did some research last night and once you connect the dots of the players involved in this situation its not hard to figure out why it happened. Its also even more clear that whichever stand Krewson was going to take was going to be the final decision. If Krewson said she against the demo then it wouldnt have happened. I think they need to be reminded that they are elected officials and will need our support once they are up for reelection.
JivecitySTL wrote:St. Louis is such a broken city. It is one of the few places that actually strives to emulate Detroit.
Aren't you being a little overly dramatic?
- 11K
JivecitySTL wrote:St. Louis is such a broken city. It is one of the few places that actually strives to emulate Detroit.
First. I love some of things that you and gasm do so please do not get me wrong in any way, but statements like what's above are infuriating to me. NO - St. Louis doesn't "strive to emulate Detroit" and we're not "a broken city". Both statements are negative and counterproductive, though I suppose understood in light of the recent San Luis hearing. I know you and others put a whole lot of time, effort and passion into the issue.
The problem is that this is the same "only in St. Louis" crap that naysayers of our city use. As if every other major (and minor I'm sure) city in this country hasn't made decisions as bad and worse than the San Luis.
I believe that to see real positive change in this city we first and foremost need to come to terms with the fact that St. Louis isn't all that much more backwards than anywhere else and that we're making some good decisions in this city.
- 835
^ Point taken, and you know that I am a fierce defender of STL, warts and all. The thing is that this particular issue is symbolic of a much larger, much uglier, much more systemic plague that keeps St. Louis from ever truly realizing its potential. Very, very few cities are making regressive decisions like this in this day and age. This is not something someplace like Minneapolis or even Pittsburgh would ever consider. Detroit? Yes, Detroit would probably plow the San Luis for parking. I can't think of too many other places that would.
The progressive urban centers are becoming greener by the day in so many ways; several have revised their parking requirements for new development to include fewer spaces than in years past so as to discourage driving and promote walking. Most major cities have been smoke free for several years already. Many are investing in public transit more than ever, despite funding shortfalls.
St. Louis is still tearing down viable buildings for parking. St. Louis is still a smoker's paradise. Our suburban county recently voted down a measure that would ensure a viable public transit system for years to come. We are stuck thinking small while other places are thinking big. Why can't we get with the program? Is it because of our relatively isolated location? Do people here not travel enough to see what works elsewhere? I don't know the answer, but it frustrates me.
I love this city more than anyone (well, maybe this forum is a force to reckon with), but it does a disservice to St. Louis if we don't condemn its persistent inability to keep up with the rest of the urban world. Sorry if I came across as a classic "St. Louis naysayer," but outcomes like Monday's Demolition Board review make it more difficult to ignore the intrinsic backwardsness of this city's power structure.
That said, there is no city in this country that is more worth fighting for. No city deserves better more than St. Louis. In time, the old guard will fade away, and those of us with a clue will finally be able to affect change in this amazing old city and impose an urbanist agenda. When that happens, this place is unstoppable. Let's just hope we can stem the damage until then.
p.s. I know that is dramatic, but humor me.
The progressive urban centers are becoming greener by the day in so many ways; several have revised their parking requirements for new development to include fewer spaces than in years past so as to discourage driving and promote walking. Most major cities have been smoke free for several years already. Many are investing in public transit more than ever, despite funding shortfalls.
St. Louis is still tearing down viable buildings for parking. St. Louis is still a smoker's paradise. Our suburban county recently voted down a measure that would ensure a viable public transit system for years to come. We are stuck thinking small while other places are thinking big. Why can't we get with the program? Is it because of our relatively isolated location? Do people here not travel enough to see what works elsewhere? I don't know the answer, but it frustrates me.
I love this city more than anyone (well, maybe this forum is a force to reckon with), but it does a disservice to St. Louis if we don't condemn its persistent inability to keep up with the rest of the urban world. Sorry if I came across as a classic "St. Louis naysayer," but outcomes like Monday's Demolition Board review make it more difficult to ignore the intrinsic backwardsness of this city's power structure.
That said, there is no city in this country that is more worth fighting for. No city deserves better more than St. Louis. In time, the old guard will fade away, and those of us with a clue will finally be able to affect change in this amazing old city and impose an urbanist agenda. When that happens, this place is unstoppable. Let's just hope we can stem the damage until then.
p.s. I know that is dramatic, but humor me.
Jive, I think you hit on an important point in your last comment. The old guard has to hand over the crown before St. Louis can become a truly progressive city. I'd say in the next 10-20 years St. Louis will be progress a lot as a Gen X and Y take over and start to really discover the city. These next generations are going to be urbanites (most research and surveys support this), because they want the exciting, diverse lifestyles that only can be found in the urban core. They don't harbor the same white flight fears that drove their families to St. Charles. They want to come back and rebuild what their grandparents destroyed.
JiveCity, preach it brotha!
Lyda Krewson and Phyllis Young, get these old bags out of City Hall. i used to be a stauch supporter of Lyda, (don't know as much about Young). these Alderman represent OLD ST. LOUIS. I'm not kidding, I think it's time for out with the old, in with the NEW ST. LOUIS. look at all the progressive people on this board. let's get someone who is PROGRESSIVE and who doesn't cower to an organization who's power has long dried up- or so i thought..
The fact is I want what is best for St. Louis, and so do most on here. As someone who studied historic preservation and urban planning, i couldn't be more appalled. The best use for this site (and city) is either rehab or replace it with something that contributes to the city even better than San Luis. What is worse that a surface parking lot on Lindell? A smelting plant?
This is my FAVORITE:
oh well, they won't do anything with it, i guess we'll just grant demolition permits.. what a great precedent for owners of historic properties in the city! unbelievable. Does Lyda really think we're all this dumb? get this woman to the Gatesworth and fast! she's RUINING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
I will be there on Saturday and I hope everyone else is!
"sustainable CWE" LOL!!!!!
will PUBLICEYE please stand up?? hiding somewhere? hmm, come to think of it, you're getting up there too....hmmm... Gatesworth limo, pick someone else up...at least you all can go out in style.
Lyda Krewson and Phyllis Young, get these old bags out of City Hall. i used to be a stauch supporter of Lyda, (don't know as much about Young). these Alderman represent OLD ST. LOUIS. I'm not kidding, I think it's time for out with the old, in with the NEW ST. LOUIS. look at all the progressive people on this board. let's get someone who is PROGRESSIVE and who doesn't cower to an organization who's power has long dried up- or so i thought..
The fact is I want what is best for St. Louis, and so do most on here. As someone who studied historic preservation and urban planning, i couldn't be more appalled. The best use for this site (and city) is either rehab or replace it with something that contributes to the city even better than San Luis. What is worse that a surface parking lot on Lindell? A smelting plant?
This is my FAVORITE:
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.
oh well, they won't do anything with it, i guess we'll just grant demolition permits.. what a great precedent for owners of historic properties in the city! unbelievable. Does Lyda really think we're all this dumb? get this woman to the Gatesworth and fast! she's RUINING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!
I will be there on Saturday and I hope everyone else is!
"sustainable CWE" LOL!!!!!
will PUBLICEYE please stand up?? hiding somewhere? hmm, come to think of it, you're getting up there too....hmmm... Gatesworth limo, pick someone else up...at least you all can go out in style.
- 137
JMedwick wrote: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.
Agreed JMedwick!
streetsabby wrote:JMedwick wrote: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.
Agreed JMedwick!
streetsabby wrote:streetsabby wrote:JMedwick wrote:
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.
Agreed JMedwick!
Actually I agree with many of the posts. I jumped the gun! Maybe this has already been discussed and I'm sorry if I missed that. But why on earth does the church need more parking? They have been their how many years?!? Why is the parking lot on Maryland behind the church usually empty...or at least have spaces always available? Aren't the church's number of members declining? Why the need for more parking? Did I miss something? Of course the San Luis seems much more useful as the unique building it is rather than a parking lot! Put the wayward kids there, put the wayward priests there, put retired priests there, retired parishioners, turn it into a Catholic Hotel of sorts, put Catholic drug addicts there,perhaps some sort of Catholic Hostel, a Center and living space for displaced Catholic employees who are foster parents....something...anything. If an overly rich, Catholic, Index fund dude can make a successful chess club in a comparably meager building ( which in my dreams should be used for a more neighborly, public, everyone welcome sort of venue, but hey, it's still good...would be better at the San Luis though. They would have a place to put up the international chess society, with a fancy bar...heck they would never have to leave during their visit!)...you can't tell me they can't make good use of this totally historical building. They are begging for new members and they won't find them on a parking lot. The 45 degree angle parking has worked on Lindell for years...what's the big urgency now for parking? I lived right across the street from the school"s parking lot behind the church for many years...before the recent max-exodus from the church....there was always parking available. What has changed now? It's a crappy excuse for not wanting to spend the money to maintain and repair a building that could have much more pious uses. Sorry about my rant and repeats, I really don't mean to offend, I'm just tired of that stretch of Lindell's hypocrisy!
- 835
As I said before, Detroit and St. Louis are the only two major cities that could pull this off today:
http://www.freep.com/article/20090625/B ... 6/90625035
True leaders in an obsolete trend!
http://www.freep.com/article/20090625/B ... 6/90625035
True leaders in an obsolete trend!
Most of you know that I sit on the Preservation Board. I am not going to discuss an issue that has -- so far -- only been in front of the PB on preliminary review. If (when?) there is a demo permit or a construction permit, I could find myself considering it again.
I do find some of the arguments in this thread mildly offensive: the silly age-ism and sexism ("bags" Really?) cheapen the discussion -- and are pretty far beneath the generally thoughtful tone of conversation on this board.
General advice? Read the whole ordinance. Don't just look for strings of words that you think support your case.
And look forward: if this ordinance does not protect a mid-Century modern building from demo by its owner, what changes should be made in the law to do so? This is the same set of ordinances that other CWE residents used to have a court overturn a PB decision in favor of construction of a new CWE highrise. What changes should be made in the law to prevent THAT from happening again? And what sort of things have to happen to update local district laws? What are the risks of doing so?
(And one more observation. Issues involving more architecturally significant buildings than the San Luis are discussed at the PB every month, in front to an audience of two or three people. You would be welcome more often -- and, as the regulars can attest, you will make a difference.)
I do find some of the arguments in this thread mildly offensive: the silly age-ism and sexism ("bags" Really?) cheapen the discussion -- and are pretty far beneath the generally thoughtful tone of conversation on this board.
General advice? Read the whole ordinance. Don't just look for strings of words that you think support your case.
And look forward: if this ordinance does not protect a mid-Century modern building from demo by its owner, what changes should be made in the law to do so? This is the same set of ordinances that other CWE residents used to have a court overturn a PB decision in favor of construction of a new CWE highrise. What changes should be made in the law to prevent THAT from happening again? And what sort of things have to happen to update local district laws? What are the risks of doing so?
(And one more observation. Issues involving more architecturally significant buildings than the San Luis are discussed at the PB every month, in front to an audience of two or three people. You would be welcome more often -- and, as the regulars can attest, you will make a difference.)
- 835
^Thank you for chiming in, publiceye. The problem with citing loopholes in the historic district guidelines as the reason the PB approved preliminary demolition on the San Luis just doesn't sound believable to most of us, especially those of us who were at the meeting. I personally think if Lyda Krewson had stood up and asked you to deny approval, we would be celebrating a preliminary victory. That's the crux of this issue, and many other problems with this city. Too many insider favors, too much politicking at the expense of what matters most-- the health of the city.
The prime objective in the proposed Central West End Historic District is to maintain the distinctive character, quality of construction and individual architectural integrity of structures within the district. While there is neither one prevalent architectural style nor a dominant building material, there is a sense of scale, richness of detail and quality of construction, which creates a strong overall image within this district.
Some blocks within the district, however, exhibit a continuity of design with uniform building heights, materials, window size, spacing and landscape treatment. These elements help to create an unusually strong "streetscape" which must receive special attention during the design review process. Particularly when new construction is proposed, consideration of the "streetscape" and the relationship of the new structures to existing ones are of utmost importance.
It is not the intention of these regulations to in any way discourage contemporary design, which through careful attention to scale, materials, siting and landscaping is harmonious with the historic, existing structure. Distinctive older buildings are not enhanced when new construction, which resorts to "fakery and imitation", is used to fill gaps in the streetscape.
Some blocks within the district, however, exhibit a continuity of design with uniform building heights, materials, window size, spacing and landscape treatment. These elements help to create an unusually strong "streetscape" which must receive special attention during the design review process. Particularly when new construction is proposed, consideration of the "streetscape" and the relationship of the new structures to existing ones are of utmost importance.
It is not the intention of these regulations to in any way discourage contemporary design, which through careful attention to scale, materials, siting and landscaping is harmonious with the historic, existing structure. Distinctive older buildings are not enhanced when new construction, which resorts to "fakery and imitation", is used to fill gaps in the streetscape.
publiceye wrote:(And one more observation. Issues involving more architecturally significant buildings than the San Luis are discussed at the PB every month, in front to an audience of two or three people. You would be welcome more often -- and, as the regulars can attest, you will make a difference.)
Precisely.
Distinctive older buildings are not enhanced when new construction, which resorts to "fakery and imitation", is used to fill gaps in the streetscape. [/i]
Or in this case, de-construction that actually CREATES gaps in the streetscape.
The language couldn't be more clearly stated. The preliminary approval for demolition is completely antithetical to the CWE guidelines. The fact that all of these points were disregarded at the hearing only proves that the fix was in before we even entered the room.
As for attending the preservation meetings on a regular basis-- unfortunately, the 4:00 starting time is impossible because most of us work full-time.
Let's not get off topic regarding the structure and time of the Preservation Board.
Both the Preservation Board enabling ordinance and the CWE Standards are clear.
Regardless of this building being Qualifying for individually listing on the National Register (which the SPHO says), thus after listing potentially being High Merit (these are not to be torn down), the local standards clearly state their intent and purpose being the protection of the architectural diversity, distinctiveness, and street scape of the CWE. All of these are undermined with the approval, which could lead to demolition and supplantation with a parking lot.
The Preservation Board neglected its duty evident in their Enabling ordinance.
SECTION TWO. Purpose.
The intent of this ordinance is to promote the prosperity and general welfare of the public, including particularly the educational and cultural welfare, through:
A. The protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of buildings, improvements, parks, sites and natural phenomena as have or may reasonably be expected to have historic or cultural value and significance to the nation, the state or the City;
B. The stabilization and improvement of the value of property and the equity held by citizens in their property by the enhancement of the beauty, convenience and amenity of neighborhoods, parks, streets, public buildings and monuments, and by the enhancement of civic design;
C. The increase of economic resources available for the conservation and rehabilitation of neighborhoods and for the abatement of blight by the encouragement and use of public financial assistance and tax benefits available for the reuse of buildings, neighborhoods and public facilities with primary emphasis on making said resources available to City residents, property owners who by virtue of limited income might otherwise be unable to maintain their property, property owners whose property is not producing a reasonable income, and potential investors in property located in the City;
D. The increase of commerce and prosperity by the protection of the value, convenience, and amenity of property and to promote the tourist trade and civic pride and wider public knowledge and appreciation of the heritage and history of St. Louis.
A,B,C, and D were all violated with this preliminary review.
I have uploaded some of our testimony for all those who were unable to attend the meeting.
Both the Preservation Board enabling ordinance and the CWE Standards are clear.
Regardless of this building being Qualifying for individually listing on the National Register (which the SPHO says), thus after listing potentially being High Merit (these are not to be torn down), the local standards clearly state their intent and purpose being the protection of the architectural diversity, distinctiveness, and street scape of the CWE. All of these are undermined with the approval, which could lead to demolition and supplantation with a parking lot.
The Preservation Board neglected its duty evident in their Enabling ordinance.
SECTION TWO. Purpose.
The intent of this ordinance is to promote the prosperity and general welfare of the public, including particularly the educational and cultural welfare, through:
A. The protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of buildings, improvements, parks, sites and natural phenomena as have or may reasonably be expected to have historic or cultural value and significance to the nation, the state or the City;
B. The stabilization and improvement of the value of property and the equity held by citizens in their property by the enhancement of the beauty, convenience and amenity of neighborhoods, parks, streets, public buildings and monuments, and by the enhancement of civic design;
C. The increase of economic resources available for the conservation and rehabilitation of neighborhoods and for the abatement of blight by the encouragement and use of public financial assistance and tax benefits available for the reuse of buildings, neighborhoods and public facilities with primary emphasis on making said resources available to City residents, property owners who by virtue of limited income might otherwise be unable to maintain their property, property owners whose property is not producing a reasonable income, and potential investors in property located in the City;
D. The increase of commerce and prosperity by the protection of the value, convenience, and amenity of property and to promote the tourist trade and civic pride and wider public knowledge and appreciation of the heritage and history of St. Louis.
A,B,C, and D were all violated with this preliminary review.
I have uploaded some of our testimony for all those who were unable to attend the meeting.
The truth of the matter is that the ordinance is weak from a legal standpoint and needs to be fixed. While I was not at the meeting, I have read the pertinent ordinances and the weakness of the language leaves enough wiggle room for it to be readily interpreted to suit various agendas. In this case, "we" are all interpreting it in such a way that it can be used to protect the density and architectural character of one of the city's greatest neighborhoods for the benefit of present and future generations. Publiceye and Lyda, despite the fact that both understand the issues at stake and very often do the right thing for the city, are choosing to interpret it differently. While Publiceye calls your attention to the ordinance itself, the truth of the matter is that the decision had very little to do with the text and very much to do with their own political maneuvering. Had Lyda said "no" at the hearing, Phyllis Young would have backed her up and we would not be having this debate. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Publiceye and Lyda are cooking something up, probably for the next mayoral election. Together they calculated the odds on this issue and decided that it was better to have the archdiocese on their side come the mayoral race than what they perceive to be a vocal rabble of largely impotent malcontents (us, the nattering nabobs). They may have calculated correctly, they may have erred....
- 11K
STLgasm wrote:As for attending the preservation meetings on a regular basis-- unfortunately, the 4:00 starting time is impossible because most of us work full-time.
Exactly. If you really wanted public participation you would make it easier. I have a job. I would like to keep that job. I sometimes use partial vacation days to attend events/meetings when I don't have work-related travel and in-town meetings to attend. However, if the case of the San Luis you're asking people to show up early, before 4pm to sign in to speak on an item several hours later and then concluding at 10pm. Explain to me how that is supposed to work.
JivecitySTL wrote:As I said before, Detroit and St. Louis are the only two major cities that could pull this off today:
http://www.freep.com/article/20090625/B ... 6/90625035
True leaders in an obsolete trend!
C'mon JIVE - stop it. We all (should) know that Detroit is facing some extraordinary challenges and the fact is that all historically significant buildings can not and will not be save there. I'm not going to get into a link-to-one-story-to-"prove"-my-point war with you, but other cities are demolishing historic buildings as well.
TGE-ATW wrote:The truth of the matter is that the ordinance is weak from a legal standpoint and needs to be fixed. While I was not at the meeting, I have read the pertinent ordinances and the weakness of the language leaves enough wiggle room for it to be readily interpreted to suit various agendas. In this case, "we" are all interpreting it in such a way that it can be used to protect the density and architectural character of one of the city's greatest neighborhoods for the benefit of present and future generations. Publiceye and Lyda, despite the fact that both understand the issues at stake and very often do the right thing for the city, are choosing to interpret it differently. While Publiceye calls your attention to the ordinance itself, the truth of the matter is that the decision had very little to do with the text and very much to do with their own political maneuvering. Had Lyda said "no" at the hearing, Phyllis Young would have backed her up and we would not be having this debate. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Publiceye and Lyda are cooking something up, probably for the next mayoral election. Together they calculated the odds on this issue and decided that it was better to have the archdiocese on their side come the mayoral race than what they perceive to be a vocal rabble of largely impotent malcontents (us, the nattering nabobs). They may have calculated correctly, they may have erred....
I don't know about the political manuvering. I tend to think that our pols aren't so...let's say, smart. But everything else is spot on.
This is why we need people who are seeking to preserve rather than seeking to appease a powerful constituent. Of course a new ordinance - and let's all work to make the CWE plan better! - will help, but there's enough in the ordinance now to "allow" for a preservation vote. To say otherwise is lazy.