^You don't think they're smart? Slay won a 3rd term, how?
- 11K
^ maybe I should have used diabolical - but let's not start using "smart" to label someone who wins an election, or even three.
- 835
Grover wrote: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.
You're right, other cities are destroying historic buldings, but my point is that most desirable cities are not destroying them for parking lots or greenspace. We may see places like Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston, etc tearing down old buildings to make way for new buildings, but certainly not for parking...anymore. I don't want to go back and forth about this either, because I think you and I agree more than we disagree. We do need to be honest about the fact that St. Louis is still making the same awful decisions that most cities have already learned from.
- 3,235
Thanks for posting Public Eye.
We find it rather offensive when political officials do not listen to what the public’s concerns are and then take a stance on an issue without giving proper explanation as to why they take that stance. Just like the meeting. Krewson was for and stated why however the President made the final vote for but didn’t give a reason as to why he was for it or why the ordinance didnt cover the San Luis. Hearing done, demo prelim approved, everyone go home without questioning our decision. We have a right to speak up and know why decisions are made. Again we are the main reason you are in office. All I ask is for someone tell us why you are for the demo and how the bylaws do not pertain to this situation and we may understand.
You state that it was only prelim approved however why would we ever believe that you will be against it it the future with the way the last meeting turned out. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.
We find it rather offensive when political officials do not listen to what the public’s concerns are and then take a stance on an issue without giving proper explanation as to why they take that stance. Just like the meeting. Krewson was for and stated why however the President made the final vote for but didn’t give a reason as to why he was for it or why the ordinance didnt cover the San Luis. Hearing done, demo prelim approved, everyone go home without questioning our decision. We have a right to speak up and know why decisions are made. Again we are the main reason you are in office. All I ask is for someone tell us why you are for the demo and how the bylaws do not pertain to this situation and we may understand.
You state that it was only prelim approved however why would we ever believe that you will be against it it the future with the way the last meeting turned out. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.
- 11K
^^OK. Dang - why no "hug" or "love" icon. I'm feelin' you Jive!
I think we are "behind the curve" but that there are some economic, meta-social issues as to why, BUT that we're also very, very close to turning the corner and that's why I'm much, much more optimistic and excited than disappointed.
I think we are "behind the curve" but that there are some economic, meta-social issues as to why, BUT that we're also very, very close to turning the corner and that's why I'm much, much more optimistic and excited than disappointed.
publiceye wrote: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.
Ha! C'mon - no place for thin skin here. And regardless, such comments are certainly not "beneath the generally thoughtful tone of conversation on this board," but rather somewhere near the middle of it.
^ Not much thin skin left on me. Unlike many of my friends, I am a pretty regular poster here. I am as guilty of snide-ity as the rest of you.
Still, the insults ought to bear some resemblance to facts (and "bags" is thoughtless sexism). As for age: this is not an issue that divides by age. Look at the board vote: the youngest and oldest members of the PB voted differently, the oldest, no; the youngest, yes.
Still, the insults ought to bear some resemblance to facts (and "bags" is thoughtless sexism). As for age: this is not an issue that divides by age. Look at the board vote: the youngest and oldest members of the PB voted differently, the oldest, no; the youngest, yes.
- 11K
publiceye wrote:^ Not much thin skin left on me. Unlike many of my friends, I am a pretty regular poster here. I am as guilty of snide-ity as the rest of you.
Still, the insults ought to bear some resemblance to facts (and "bags" is thoughtless sexism). As for age: this is not an issue that divides by age. Look at the board vote: the youngest and oldest members of the PB voted differently, the oldest, no; the youngest, yes.
So would calling a guy a "douchebag" be "thoughtless sexism"? (I figured I'd talk about something else since you don't want to discuss the San Luis).
- 479
My rule:
Calling politicians "bags" is sexist and unhelpful.
Calling the DeVille Motor Hotel a "red hot mama" is sexist but helpful.
Calling politicians "bags" is sexist and unhelpful.
Calling the DeVille Motor Hotel a "red hot mama" is sexist but helpful.
- 3,762
so if the PB only granted preliminary approval, why was the archdiocese' architect quoted as follows (from the post dispatch via stldotage):
seems like they wouldn't hire a contractor unless they were damn sure of approval... is this just a scare tactic? i.e. "it's already a done deal so don't waste your time." ?
also, a question for publiceye:
why hadn't (allegedly) the PB board reviewed the testimony from the National Trust For Historic Preservation before the meeting, and why didn't the PB allow the reading of that testimony during the meeting?
Dan Jay, the architect on the archdiocese’s plan to replace the building with a parking lot, said today a demolition contractor could be hired by the end of the week. And after utility connections are cut, demolition could begin in about two weeks, he said.
seems like they wouldn't hire a contractor unless they were damn sure of approval... is this just a scare tactic? i.e. "it's already a done deal so don't waste your time." ?
also, a question for publiceye:
why hadn't (allegedly) the PB board reviewed the testimony from the National Trust For Historic Preservation before the meeting, and why didn't the PB allow the reading of that testimony during the meeting?
So Publiceye sits on the Preservation Board? Sorry if it's already been said, but how did he/she vote on this?
BTW, the Post ran a letter in the Friday paper by someone in favor of the demolition, but none in support of the San Luis. We need more letter writers out there, folks.
I sent an email to Krewson; I'm sure she really cares what a simple voter like me thinks.
BTW, the Post ran a letter in the Friday paper by someone in favor of the demolition, but none in support of the San Luis. We need more letter writers out there, folks.
I sent an email to Krewson; I'm sure she really cares what a simple voter like me thinks.
PublicEye, well, i got a little heated, so sorry for my somewhat light-hearted jokes about the Gatesworth.. i guess i became so SHOCKED at what i thought was a forward thinking Alderman and someone of your stature approved demolition of a historic building in a historic neighborhood for a surface parking lot on Lindell... you can try to twist this decision around the language of the ordinance as much as you want, but i'm sure you know this is ludicrous deep down and it's only because of the "power" of the owners of the property that you bowed down. Comparing this building to the Heart Association building is absurd. Again, i would personally be in favor of demolition if what went on the site was an improvement over what is there now.
This is still so shocking it just reminds of old city politics are always en vogue.
I say: RECALL LYDA!!! someone who is more in-tune with todays progressive CWE residents needs to run against her. Someone that doesn't let the ward be destroyed for surface parking lots! this is upsetting for me because i was always such a fan of her in the past.
This is still so shocking it just reminds of old city politics are always en vogue.
I say: RECALL LYDA!!! someone who is more in-tune with todays progressive CWE residents needs to run against her. Someone that doesn't let the ward be destroyed for surface parking lots! this is upsetting for me because i was always such a fan of her in the past.
- 2,093
actually the PD did run a letter online opposing the destruction of the San Luis
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/letter ... /#comments
It's a good one, if you can read the small type. And unfortunately being the PD some d-bag who calls himself "superdave" took over the comments section complaining that "libruls and blacks have ruined STL"
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/letter ... /#comments
It's a good one, if you can read the small type. And unfortunately being the PD some d-bag who calls himself "superdave" took over the comments section complaining that "libruls and blacks have ruined STL"
so, i read Kate Shea's recommendation to tear the building down. it basically comes down to the fact that they can't afford to rehab the property since the catholic church is ineligible to receive historic tax credits. So, since the owners can't afford to rehab it, they are allowed to tear it down. what a great precedent.
OK, the owners of GenAmerica downtown own a YOUNGER modern building which is on the national register, what if they said "we can't afford to rehab" we want to tear it down... would that be permissible?
It seems that it comes down to the Archdiocese and their pseudo power (or so I thought), that is railroading this demolition through the "preservation board".
The icing on the cake is the "sustainable parking lot".. Sustainable.. that buzz word makes me want to vomit. how in the hell is a parking lot "sustainable" when you bulldoze a historic structure for an auto-centric purpose. oh, we're going to plant a few more trees, look, it's "sustainable!" LOL! It's "green". Dan Jay should be ashamed, and i know him- very progressive guy. Times are tough in the architecture field these days, i guess people will sell their soul..
OK, the owners of GenAmerica downtown own a YOUNGER modern building which is on the national register, what if they said "we can't afford to rehab" we want to tear it down... would that be permissible?
It seems that it comes down to the Archdiocese and their pseudo power (or so I thought), that is railroading this demolition through the "preservation board".
The icing on the cake is the "sustainable parking lot".. Sustainable.. that buzz word makes me want to vomit. how in the hell is a parking lot "sustainable" when you bulldoze a historic structure for an auto-centric purpose. oh, we're going to plant a few more trees, look, it's "sustainable!" LOL! It's "green". Dan Jay should be ashamed, and i know him- very progressive guy. Times are tough in the architecture field these days, i guess people will sell their soul..
The Errant Hypocrisy of Alderwoman Lyda Krewson
In her testimony for the demolition of the DeVille Motor Hotel, Alderwoman Krewson <a href="http://exquisitestruggle.blogspot.com/2 ... enumerated a dangerous precedent</a> indicating that if a building owner was unwilling to sell or rehabilitate, regardless if developers support rehabilitation, then it could be torn down. Essentially this abdicates the entire purpose of Historic Districts and our Preservation Board -- the promotion of cultural and architectural economic resources for the <a href="http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data ... betterment of the neighborhood and broader community</a> (Ord. 64689, Section 2). This argument could also be postulated to support slumlords -- if an individual does not wish to maintain their property then that's acceptable despite the negative spillover effects of such mismanagement. Ironically this undermining of community concerns arise from an owner which has ample financial means. Moreover, this decision occurs contrary to established trends. Decades of rehabilitation occurring throughout our City have improved quality of life by creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and reinforcing St. Louis as <i>The <b>Place</b> to Be</i>. Her argument erodes this sense of place for the unknown whims of a single property owner and subjugates the need of the broader City to that own her own political ambitions.
The most incendiary moment of this nearly 6 hour meeting was not the actual 3-2 vote of the Preservation Board -- but when Alderwoman Krewson indicated she does not like the idea of a parking lot, that it would damage the pedestrian environment and streetscape, and that the building should be torn down anyway. Krewson said we have only one scenario: a vacant building or a parking lot. Interestingly, Alderwoman Krewson attended an event last Saturday the 27th <a href="http://www.youtube.com/sethteel">and echoed similar views</a> supporting neighborhood planning and density:
<i> ...if we do some really good planning during this time frame we will be a lot better equipped to deal with opportunity that come forward in the future for new buildings, renovated building, additional density, which I think is so key to the success of this neighborhood. Density, we really have to have people here, we have to have enough people here to support all of the the businesses and all the things we all love about this neighborhood. I'm most worried about...we will take a good site, a really good site, and decide one square building will be fine, two buildings...</i>
In the context of her most recent "planning decision," the aforementioned statement boggles the mind! How can she make that claim while summarily going against the philosophy which she professes? Alderwoman Krewson says the Central West End needs density -- and yet she signed off on a parking lot, also known as temporary sporadically used car storage. Steve Anrod, who developed the <a href="http://parkeasttower.com/">Park East Tower</a>, testified that this building could be saved. This seems like the good planning she desires for the Central West End. According to her statement, this also happens to be the ideal opportunity as the building could receive Historic Tax Credits while a developer expressed interest. Should the Archdiocese wish to remain ownership of the land, developer Steve Anrod mentioned a possible 99 year lease. This seems like an amicable solution for all parties involved -- and one that Lyda should accept given her professed ideology. Yet she threw all options aside through her acceptance of demolition.
At the end of the statement Lyda indicated objection to the underutilization of land. In her example she expresses concern with placing only a few buildings on a site. She also carefully mentions building height in her speech. If she places value upon density and maximizing land use, then why did she sign off on a parking lot? This use provides no residents, detracts from the pedestrian environment, says nothing good about our urban environment or our identity as a City, devalues surrounding historic buildings and the greater Central West End, and generates no tax revenue.
Does she believe anything she says? Did she read the testimony of those who testified at the meeting, reciting their arguments <i>in an attempt to appear the victim of an impossible Catch 22</i>? Or did she simply fail to take a leadership position on this issue because she's more concerned with her political future, ambitions for higher office, and does not wish to incense the Archdiocese?
Omnipresent the reality that a better deal could have arose from this situation -- without the need for further action. She should have brokered a meeting whereby a developer, and those for preservation, could have established an outcome suitable for all concerned parties. Alderwoman Krewson would have seemed the master politician resolving a conflict between two <i>superficially </i>opposed parties. She would have received praise from residents and activists for preserving the building while also easing the Archdioceses' alleged parking and land control concerns. Rather than doing so Alderwoman Krewson spat in the face of those who have been working on similar developments for decades. She co-opted the language, concerns, and hopes of residents and urbanists in an intellectually insulting attempt to appear powerless -- a situation far from the reality. As de-facto development czar of the 28th Ward, and given this <a href="http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data ... Qualifying </b>and perhaps </a><b><a href="http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data ... .htm">High Merit</a> </b>building resides in the Central West End local Historic District, her testimony and overtures for rehabilitation would have held great authority (Ord. 64689 Section 3, Section 61). Alderwoman Krewson instead eroded her legitimacy instantly and may resign herself to a position of grandeur amongst countless other aldermen who only voted for their career at the detriment of <i>The 4th City</i>.
Political careers which arrive through the expense of irreplaceable architectural resources -- despite the errant, unnecessary nature of the decision -- are contemptible.
We will continue to advocate for the San Luis and the vitality of our beloved Saint Louis.
Douglas Duckworth
566-3465
In her testimony for the demolition of the DeVille Motor Hotel, Alderwoman Krewson <a href="http://exquisitestruggle.blogspot.com/2 ... enumerated a dangerous precedent</a> indicating that if a building owner was unwilling to sell or rehabilitate, regardless if developers support rehabilitation, then it could be torn down. Essentially this abdicates the entire purpose of Historic Districts and our Preservation Board -- the promotion of cultural and architectural economic resources for the <a href="http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data ... betterment of the neighborhood and broader community</a> (Ord. 64689, Section 2). This argument could also be postulated to support slumlords -- if an individual does not wish to maintain their property then that's acceptable despite the negative spillover effects of such mismanagement. Ironically this undermining of community concerns arise from an owner which has ample financial means. Moreover, this decision occurs contrary to established trends. Decades of rehabilitation occurring throughout our City have improved quality of life by creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and reinforcing St. Louis as <i>The <b>Place</b> to Be</i>. Her argument erodes this sense of place for the unknown whims of a single property owner and subjugates the need of the broader City to that own her own political ambitions.
The most incendiary moment of this nearly 6 hour meeting was not the actual 3-2 vote of the Preservation Board -- but when Alderwoman Krewson indicated she does not like the idea of a parking lot, that it would damage the pedestrian environment and streetscape, and that the building should be torn down anyway. Krewson said we have only one scenario: a vacant building or a parking lot. Interestingly, Alderwoman Krewson attended an event last Saturday the 27th <a href="http://www.youtube.com/sethteel">and echoed similar views</a> supporting neighborhood planning and density:
<i> ...if we do some really good planning during this time frame we will be a lot better equipped to deal with opportunity that come forward in the future for new buildings, renovated building, additional density, which I think is so key to the success of this neighborhood. Density, we really have to have people here, we have to have enough people here to support all of the the businesses and all the things we all love about this neighborhood. I'm most worried about...we will take a good site, a really good site, and decide one square building will be fine, two buildings...</i>
In the context of her most recent "planning decision," the aforementioned statement boggles the mind! How can she make that claim while summarily going against the philosophy which she professes? Alderwoman Krewson says the Central West End needs density -- and yet she signed off on a parking lot, also known as temporary sporadically used car storage. Steve Anrod, who developed the <a href="http://parkeasttower.com/">Park East Tower</a>, testified that this building could be saved. This seems like the good planning she desires for the Central West End. According to her statement, this also happens to be the ideal opportunity as the building could receive Historic Tax Credits while a developer expressed interest. Should the Archdiocese wish to remain ownership of the land, developer Steve Anrod mentioned a possible 99 year lease. This seems like an amicable solution for all parties involved -- and one that Lyda should accept given her professed ideology. Yet she threw all options aside through her acceptance of demolition.
At the end of the statement Lyda indicated objection to the underutilization of land. In her example she expresses concern with placing only a few buildings on a site. She also carefully mentions building height in her speech. If she places value upon density and maximizing land use, then why did she sign off on a parking lot? This use provides no residents, detracts from the pedestrian environment, says nothing good about our urban environment or our identity as a City, devalues surrounding historic buildings and the greater Central West End, and generates no tax revenue.
Does she believe anything she says? Did she read the testimony of those who testified at the meeting, reciting their arguments <i>in an attempt to appear the victim of an impossible Catch 22</i>? Or did she simply fail to take a leadership position on this issue because she's more concerned with her political future, ambitions for higher office, and does not wish to incense the Archdiocese?
Omnipresent the reality that a better deal could have arose from this situation -- without the need for further action. She should have brokered a meeting whereby a developer, and those for preservation, could have established an outcome suitable for all concerned parties. Alderwoman Krewson would have seemed the master politician resolving a conflict between two <i>superficially </i>opposed parties. She would have received praise from residents and activists for preserving the building while also easing the Archdioceses' alleged parking and land control concerns. Rather than doing so Alderwoman Krewson spat in the face of those who have been working on similar developments for decades. She co-opted the language, concerns, and hopes of residents and urbanists in an intellectually insulting attempt to appear powerless -- a situation far from the reality. As de-facto development czar of the 28th Ward, and given this <a href="http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data ... Qualifying </b>and perhaps </a><b><a href="http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data ... .htm">High Merit</a> </b>building resides in the Central West End local Historic District, her testimony and overtures for rehabilitation would have held great authority (Ord. 64689 Section 3, Section 61). Alderwoman Krewson instead eroded her legitimacy instantly and may resign herself to a position of grandeur amongst countless other aldermen who only voted for their career at the detriment of <i>The 4th City</i>.
Political careers which arrive through the expense of irreplaceable architectural resources -- despite the errant, unnecessary nature of the decision -- are contemptible.
We will continue to advocate for the San Luis and the vitality of our beloved Saint Louis.
Douglas Duckworth
566-3465
I hope residents in her ward recall her or vote for someone else when her term is up. She is not progressive enough for the ST. Louis area's most cosmopolitan neighborhood. Sorry, but I think she needs to go.
She has contributed to the decline of my neighborhood. Surface parking lots on Lindell in the CWE?! WOW!
She has contributed to the decline of my neighborhood. Surface parking lots on Lindell in the CWE?! WOW!
