1,770
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,770

PostMar 17, 2008#76

Perhaps Burke will listen to those whom he is bound to respect. The demolition of a perfectly functional building is a monstrous waste of energy and material. The squandering of the energy and the dismissal of the environmental costs of extracting, refining, and finishing all of the raw materials in a building, not to mention the landfill space they would occupy as rubble and trash, make the careless demolition of the San Luis an environmentally irresponsible decision. As such, the profligate path proposed by the archdiocese should be considered in the light of the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II at the World Day of Peace, 1/1/1990.
Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone. As I have pointed out, its various aspects demonstrate the need for concerted efforts aimed at establishing the duties and obligations that belong to individuals, peoples, States and international community. This not only goes hand in hand with efforts to build true peace, but also confirms and reinforces those efforts in a concrete way. When the ecological crisis is set within the broader context of the search for peace within society, we can understand better the importance of giving attention to what the earth and its atmosphere are telling us: namely, that there is an order in the universe which must be respected, and that the human person, endowed with the capability of choosing freely, has a grave responsibility to preserve this order for the well-being of future generations. I wish to repeat that the ecological crisis is a moral issue.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostMar 18, 2008#77

Who knows...maybe the Pope has fond memories of driving past the San Luis when he was in town, and is at this moment firing-off a warning to Burke to cease-and-desist.

466
Full MemberFull Member
466

PostMar 18, 2008#78

that pope is dead. there is a new one now.

3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostMar 19, 2008#79

And of course, one of the residents of Lindell Terrace is Caroyln Toft, head of Landmarks Association of St. Louis (you know, the people who are supposed to be trying to protect our built environment). She's been awfully quite about this...


I have also noted that she has been eerily quiet about this demolition.. and I'm aware that she lives right next door, perhaps on a floor that would benefit from SLA's destruction...hmm.



I'm also well aware that MORE than a handful of developers have approached the Archdiosese to buy and RENOVATE this structure either into a new funky modern hotel, or condos, yet refuses to sell.



It is truly PATHETIC that destruction of a historic building can happen THIS day in age in St. Louis. We are WAAAY behind on the curve. It would be one thing if it was for another structure, or would it.. but for a SURFACE PARKING LOT, What?! the cathederal has dealt without a lot for YEARS, why would they need one now, especially with a crazed archbishop who is hellbent on driving people OUT of the church, not INTO it... :evil:

PostMar 19, 2008#80

This is today's version of the destruction of the Ambassador Theater downtown.


12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostMar 19, 2008#81

bikin'_man wrote:that pope is dead. there is a new one now.


D'Oh! :oops:

5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostMar 28, 2008#82

TGE-ATW wrote:Perhaps Burke will listen to those whom he is bound to respect. The demolition of a perfectly functional building is a monstrous waste of energy and material. The squandering of the energy and the dismissal of the environmental costs of extracting, refining, and finishing all of the raw materials in a building, not to mention the landfill space they would occupy as rubble and trash, make the careless demolition of the San Luis an environmentally irresponsible decision. As such, the profligate path proposed by the archdiocese should be considered in the light of the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II at the World Day of Peace, 1/1/1990.
Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone. As I have pointed out, its various aspects demonstrate the need for concerted efforts aimed at establishing the duties and obligations that belong to individuals, peoples, States and international community. This not only goes hand in hand with efforts to build true peace, but also confirms and reinforces those efforts in a concrete way. When the ecological crisis is set within the broader context of the search for peace within society, we can understand better the importance of giving attention to what the earth and its atmosphere are telling us: namely, that there is an order in the universe which must be respected, and that the human person, endowed with the capability of choosing freely, has a grave responsibility to preserve this order for the well-being of future generations. I wish to repeat that the ecological crisis is a moral issue.


You said it well. 8)


JivecitySTL wrote:For those interested, we will be staging a march and rally against the proposed parking lot immediately following the Saturday, March 29 meeting. Any urbanists who advocate a vibrant, aesthetically appealing St. Louis are encouraged to participate. This is a rally for common sense.


I've been in and out of town for the last two weeks, so I haven't really been following this as closely as I would have liked. I might as well have been living in a cave. Is everything still on for tomorrow (3/29)?

2,433
Life MemberLife Member
2,433

PostMar 28, 2008#83

YES, everything is still on for tomorrow!!! Please please come if you can, unless you want to see a big surface parking lot in place of an awesome sexy building!

5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostMar 28, 2008#84

^ I will try to make it- thanks for the update!



(An aside- this is my 3,000th post here! I guess that could be good or bad, depending on what all of you think of my writing.) :wink:

6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostMar 29, 2008#85

I'll have more later, as I am sure some others will, but the last comment made was quite possibly the best: "Is this the best we can do?"

2,433
Life MemberLife Member
2,433

PostMar 29, 2008#86

The case made in favor of the parking lot was pathetic. I don't know how we're going to stop this disasterous plan from moving forward, but I intend to do everything in my limited power to try. I regret nearly losing my cool when I spoke, but I find the proposal to be totally insulting and offensive on so many levels.

5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostMar 30, 2008#87

I wanted to make it this morning, but 314 Jr. has been sick most of the week, and I had to take him to the doctor this morning. I'd like to try and crank out some letters this week, so if any of you can provide an update I'd really appreciate it.

3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostApr 01, 2008#88

crap. I forgot about this meeting. Is there another one? Who is the Alderman for this area? Lyda Krewson?

3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostApr 01, 2008#89

Yes, and hopefully this will go to preservation review, but we need to act before then.

1,770
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,770

PostApr 01, 2008#90

This will go to preservation review. It is in the CWE local district. Not the same as a NR district. All buildings in the local are subject to review.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostApr 02, 2008#91

At least they weren't able to fast-track this one like they've done with so many others. Originally, the building was supposed to come down in February.

242
Junior MemberJunior Member
242

PostApr 02, 2008#92

For me, the biggest loss of this project has already occurred- the resettlement of so many senior citizens who called this building home.

1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostApr 02, 2008#93

Anyone seen the video coverage of the hearing over at Pub Def?



The threats made by Rosati Kain are kind of surprising. "If this parking deal does not go through, we will be sitting here one day asking what to do with a vacant Rosati Kain building." (Not an exact quote, but very close.)



I believe I read that the San Luis apartments have an interior garage--with more spaces than the proposed surface lot! Now, obviously, if the building were spared and slated for redevelopment, these spaces would be needed for that new development. But, in the meantime, doesn't it seem like using the emptied building's parking works for both the Archdiocese and for Rosati?



Advanced Adjacent Parking Syndrome (AAPS) continues in epidemic fashion across the city of St. Louis.



There are more innovative solutions than this--including relying on extant on-street parking and old-fashioned walking (sure, security guards for uptight parents); a new garage with shuttle on a different plot of land; perhaps working a deal with Park East or the Schlafly Library for their lots, with aforementioned shuttle; incentives/vouchers for Metrolink and Metrobus; and school-sponsored valet parking(?).

6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostApr 02, 2008#94

We're working on a meeting to try to develop a proposal that factors in the needs of all sides, yet does not destroy our built environment for a parking lot, however "sustainable" it is. We're even going to try to get some Rosati students there to get their POV. I'll keep the forum updated.

2,433
Life MemberLife Member
2,433

PostApr 09, 2008#95

From today's West End Word:



Plans for surface parking lot in heart of CWE stirs opposition

(by Tim Woodcock - April 09, 2008)

The Archdiocese of St. Louis is pressing forward with plans to pull down the San Luis Apartments building on Lindell Boulevard and put a surface parking lot in its place. However, the proposal is receiving strong opposition from several groups in the neighborhood.



The building was the subject of a March 29 forum hosted by the Central West End Association Planning and Development Committee, where most, but not all, contributors from the neighborhood argued against the idea.



The150-space parking lot would serve what the archdiocese has recently begun referring to as the Cathedral Campus, meaning primarily the Cathedral Basilica itself, Rosati-Kain High School and the Catholic Center, a complex of administrative offices.



The San Luis apartment building, originally the de Ville Motor Hotel, was most recently used for federally subsidized senior living and has been vacant since last spring. However, a formal application to demolish the building has yet to be made.



If the project gets the go-ahead it will be another “ill-conceived planning blunder” in the city of St. Louis, said Randy Vines, a founder of St. Louisans for Urban Progress. “It’s against all urban sensibilities.”



“Nothing has ever been saved by a surface lot,” Vines said, and designs that address environmental concerns about water runoff are of no comfort. “A ‘green parking lot’ — I mean, come on!”



Although the San Luis apartment building is not one that most would cite as representing the best of the Central West End’s architectural heritage, the St. Louis chapter of the American Institute of Architects and the city preservation group Landmarks Association have both argued for saving the building on the basis of its architectural merits.



A statement issued by Landmarks’ Board of Directors argued that, “Through curvilinear forms and differentiation of wall materials, the hotel possesses a striking geometric presence. With covered parking placed in the rear away from Lindell Boulevard, the Hotel de Ville promotes the pedestrian-friendly quality of the Lindell streetscape.



“Additionally, the building is a complementary member of a collection of modern buildings around the intersection of Lindell and Taylor, including Lindell Terrace to the west, the Archdiocesan Chancery to the east and the Optimists’ Club building to the south.”



Designed by Colbert, Lowery, Hess & Bouderaux — a firm well known in New Orleans, although not in the Midwest — the building opened in 1963 as an independently owned motel but soon was operating as part of the Holiday Inn chain.



Dan Jay, an architect with Christner Inc. who has been working with the archdiocese on the project, said there is no economically feasible way of renovating the building, although this has been investigated.



The U-shaped building is divided up in such a way that the rooms are too small for contemporary tastes, but knocking two rooms into one throughout the building doesn’t quite work either, he said.



Rents need to stay low because the building is not attractive enough to become an upscale residence and if one increases the room sizes “the math gets even worse,” he said. The window patterns are a limiting factor in how the building could be reconfigured in other ways. This leaves architects who are considering ways to renovate the building “between a rock and a hard place,” he said.



Two other architecture firms, a mechanical engineer and representatives of Drury Hotels have looked at it and come to similar conclusions, he said.



Jay said he sympathizes with those who, like Vines, want to see greater density in the neighborhood.



“The principle is valid, but in this particular application the [parking] needs are just too important for the neighborhood,” he said. Currently there is on-street parking around the cathedral at 45 degrees on Sunday, and Lindell is too busy a thoroughfare for that to continue safely, Jay said. When there are special events, such as holiday services and concerts, parking spills over onto residential streets. But more central to this proposal is the day-to-day parking needs of the Rosati-Kain High School, which has about 400 students.



In recent years, the Central West End has seen several infill projects that increase the neighborhood’s level of density and street life — although others see these projects as crowding out some of the charms of the neighborhood. Perhaps the most prominent of these projects is Park East Tower at Laclede and Euclid avenues, which only three short years ago was a surface lot.



Asked if the proposal on Lindell Boulevard is an example of the Central West End going backward, Thomas Richter, the archdiocese’s director of buildings and real estate, said, “We don’t think it is a step backward.”



The proposed parking lot “represents an investment in the Central West End” because it shows that Rosati-Kain intends to be in the CWE for the long haul, he said.



At the March 29 meeting, representatives of the CWEA Planning and Development Committee asked the archdiocese to conduct a traffic study to justify the need for extra parking, said Jim Dwyer, a member of the committee. Dwyer said he would like to see if the archdiocese could come to an arrangement with the Engineers’ Club immediately to the east to use its parking lots.



Richter said the archdiocese is still committed to its original plan but he is unsure how quickly the project will move from here. In discussing the future of the site publicly, “we got ahead of ourselves,” he said.



Having first agreed to take part in the March 29 CWEA forum, the archdiocese later wanted to withdraw but was persuaded to take part because the meeting had already been publicized.



The largest complicating factor is the terms of the archdiocese’s contract with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The archdiocese has opted out early from a long-term contract to house seniors and the two parties are still working out the terms of this. Additionally the original conversion of the motel into a senior-living facility was done with financial assistance from HUD and this will effect how much money the archdiocese owes the federal government.



Lyda Krewson, 28th Ward aldermen, said she is ambivalent about the proposal. “I don’t have any real affection for the building,” she said. “Similarly, I don’t think a parking lot is the highest and best use for that land.”



Krewson said she would have “some input” into what happens next, but she’s not in a position to make or break the proposal, given that the archdiocese already owns the building.



It might be desirable to have a new building constructed that also meets the archdiocese’s parking requirements, but one cannot make a property owner build something, she said.



Krewson pointed to surface parking lots at the northwest corner of Lindell Boulevard and Euclid Avenue, and said one might wish for something better there, but one has to respect private property rights, she said.



Krewson’s influence is not negligible, however. If the archdiocese does move ahead it with its plans, it will have to apply for a demolition permit, something that traditionally is dependent on support from the ward’s alderman.

835
Super MemberSuper Member
835

PostApr 09, 2008#96

^One flaw in that story: it says the building has been vacant since last spring, but it has only been vacant since this past February.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostApr 10, 2008#97

Still, it was a very informative article. This is the first I heard about the HUD contract. Let's hope the feds really stick it to 'em.



By the way, both the Cathedral and Rosti-Kain have been there for how many years? Why has parking suddenly become a problem? Are Catholic girls each given their own car these days?

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostApr 10, 2008#98

The U-shaped building is divided up in such a way that the rooms are too small for contemporary tastes, but knocking two rooms into one throughout the building doesn’t quite work either, he said.



Rents need to stay low because the building is not attractive enough to become an upscale residence and if one increases the room sizes “the math gets even worse,” he said. The window patterns are a limiting factor in how the building could be reconfigured in other ways. This leaves architects who are considering ways to renovate the building “between a rock and a hard place,” he said.


Couldn't they do something here like they did with the Washington Avenue Apts?







I know something like that might not fit in with the upscale image of the CWE, but it could still end up being a viable part of the neighborhood - especially if it was marketed like the MyBluSpace Condos have done so effectively.



-RBB

1,768
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,768

PostApr 10, 2008#99

You can't claim architectural significance and then totally reface the thing. Its counter-intuitive. The problem is that the people who have come in and looked at redoing it are 1) chain hotels and 2)upscale developers looking at a price point/ cost benefit issue. It would take someone wwith the will and the creativity to make this happen.



I think this would be a great candidate for redevelopment as a rental building using federal and state historic tax credits. Then after 5 years (due to restrictions by federal historic tax credits) they can be sold as mid range condos. Corporate or student type housing, with bigger than average floorplans and 2-4 bedrooms, could be the niche to target. I would even suggest short to long term housing for med students, resident doctors, and families of the ill at BJC and Children's.



It is after all a rental market.

1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostApr 10, 2008#100

You can't claim architectural significance and then totally reface the thing. Its counter-intuitive.


If that was intended for me, I wasn't advocating the same kind of exterior refacing the Wash. Ave. apts. got - I personally think the exterior is fine as-is. I'm talking more internally - taking a building full of small hotel rooms and turning it into to apartments. I was just trying to show it's been done before, even if the situations aren't exactly the same.



-RBB

Read more posts (359 remaining)