Share
282

PostDec 18, 2005#26

I ask that everyone on this list contact Alderman Joe Vollmer to urge him to withdraw his support for the project and support taking the time to seek a developer to look at adaptive reuse of the front buildings with new construction on the western half of the site.



If you are not a resident of the city that is ok. Say you are interested in what happens in the city and why you think he should reconsider.



He can be contacted via email at:

http://stlcin.missouri.org/index/contactald.cfm?Ward=10



It would be nice to send a message to the Mayor's office as well as they have pull when it comes to development projects:

http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/mayor/contact.html



And finally email the Preservation Board:

SheaK@stlouiscity.com



All of the discussions here, on my site and through the rehabbers club are making a difference. Individual members of the neighborhood association are organizing and gathering signatures on a petition. It is the final hour but with enough action from this group and others we might just make a difference!
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostDec 18, 2005#27

^Thanks Steve. I will send emails to Vollmer, the Mayor, & the Preservation Board. Good idea and thanks for posting their contact info.
696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostDec 18, 2005#28

Thank you so much. I always thought that since I am not a resident, who am I to complain? Even though I've never lived in the city, I have always considered myself a ST. LOUISAN, and I love this city more than any other. I may not reside within the boundaries, but I am in the immmediate area, which really is just like another city neighborhood. I will send emails to all you have suggested.
282

PostDec 18, 2005#29

Marmar wrote:Thank you so much. I always thought that since I am not a resident, who am I to complain? Even though I've never lived in the city, I have always considered myself a ST. LOUISAN, and I love this city more than any other. I may not reside within the boundaries, but I am in the immmediate area, which really is just like another city neighborhood. I will send emails to all you have suggested.


I think we all recognize it is in the best interests of the region for St. Louis to be strong and prosper. A strong core makes for a strong region. St. Louis city leaders have been listening to people outside the city for decades when it came to highways, parking and such. It is about time they listen to people to protect the vary things that makes our city unique from the suburbs and from other cities.



Thank you to everyone that is helping!
696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostDec 18, 2005#30

My pleasure! I only wish something like this would have happened before that fiasco in Gaslight Square. My God, a little bit of Chesterfield transplanted to the city. How sweet. The wonderful character of this neighborhod has been obliterated and replaced with something completely alien, like preying out the diamonds and pearls out of a dying old lady's jewelry and replacing them with plastic and rhinestones while she sleeps. Enough of this hideous kind of thing.

Gather! Unite! Recruit! Inform! Let's save our wonderful grand lady from theives and vandals!
282

PostDec 18, 2005#31

Alderman Vollmer introduced the planned unit development legislation on Friday. The new development is to be called Magnolia Square.



Here is a link to the bill's page which includes a link to the full 12mb 34-page PDF file. The file has floor plans including the one of the split level we all love so much!



http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/bbD ... m?BBId=796
696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostDec 18, 2005#32

The developer lives in Wildwood. Guess he figures he won't have to look at 'em.

I just finished sending emails to the alderman, Mayor Slay and the preservation board. Hope I was eloquent enough.
6,663
AdministratorAdministrator
6,663

PostDec 18, 2005#33

^Suburban homes are all he knows because he lives in Wildwood. I just looked at the interior plans on the PDF, and they are almost worse than the outside designs. Overall, this is just a really low quality development. By the dates on the PDF, they are really treying to rush things. I wouldn't give a ten year tax abatement to this development either. I wish I did not have an final exam at 4pm on Monday. All of you that are going to the meeting need to be very vocal, and I urge everyone to sign up to speak in opposition. Even if demo is approved, we are making a difference every time we show up in opposition to these political push throughs. We won't take this same old crap year after year destroying our city. Are you taking note city officials?
37
New MemberNew Member
37

PostDec 18, 2005#34

i am shocked and truly saddend by this. i went to mass there many times growing up. There were some mionr structural issues with the church and gym but nothing that would warrant demolition. Im all for development when warrented. but not just development for development sake. the new designs are NOT compatible with teh surrounding historic fabric. They could easily have rehabbed the historic structures and at the most taken the school down. Shame on the City and the church.
696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostDec 18, 2005#35

I don't ever remember seeing houses this ugly in Wildwood...maybe its because I'm not really interested in what's there and I just haven't seen them. But they do rather look like low income housing...you wouldn't find that in Wildwood.

Unless it's election time, some city officials don't take notice of anything unless you have enough fat to grease their palms.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostDec 18, 2005#36

You are corret Marmar, the houses in Wildwood are not this ugly. He is treating the city like a (can't use the word I would like to).



St. Louis is a National Treasure. That is why people care from all over the globe. That is why those of us that live elsewhere talk about St. Louis as if it were our own. So, if you live in the City, the suburbs, Missouri, Illinois, or any place on earth, it is OK to care and express your opinion to those that need to know. I have sent my emails.
696
Senior MemberSenior Member
696

PostDec 19, 2005#37

Well, I was expecting to see a longer listing of those who have emailed their concerns to the forementioned addresses about this development. How about, folks? If you've done it, let us know. If you haven't, please, please consider it. If you feel otherwise about this plan, let us know about that, too...we can bark, but we can't bite.
2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostDec 19, 2005#38

I emailed all involved.



I don't know if anyone noticed, but you can email the developer as well. His email can be found on the PDF.



jtwohlert@msn.com



I've emailed him as well, voicing my concerns over the project and stating that the city deserves better than some crappy low cost suburban tract housing.
6,663
AdministratorAdministrator
6,663

PostDec 19, 2005#39

I sent emails to the others, but didn't think to send one to the developer. I will do that right now.

PostDec 19, 2005#40

Has anyone gotten any response to emails yet? I'm expecting some after the meeting is over saying, "We would have liked to avoid demolition of these great buildings, but the cost to reuse them would have been too high, and would have made development of the rest of the site unfeasible." Pretty much the same old same old. But that's what we have been posting about this whole thread. I have this little corner of hope in my head that maybe, just maybe, the preservation ordinance will be followed. Did I mention it's just this tiny little ray of hope.

PostDec 20, 2005#41

Steve Patterson just reported on KDHX that the demo was denied 4-2 after a motion to approve the original demo plan 4-2. Sounds like they can come back in the future with a new plan, but a precedent has been set. Looks like we won this round. If they come back, we need to come back even stronger.
37
New MemberNew Member
37

PostDec 20, 2005#42

THAT IS GREAT!! They made they right call. everyone here agreed the design was sub-par at best. They could easily reuse some of the structures and make this project very unique. Hopefully the next proposal has a bette eye for preservation and design!
282

PostDec 20, 2005#43

MattnSTL wrote:Steve Patterson just reported on KDHX that the demo was denied 4-2 after a motion to approve the original demo plan 4-2. Sounds like they can come back in the future with a new plan, but a precedent has been set. Looks like we won this round. If they come back, we need to come back even stronger.


I need to correct myself. The first vote was to approve the project as noted in the agenda (with some requirements). That vote was 4-2 against the motion to approve. A motion was then made to deny the demolition permit and that was approved by a vote of 5-1.



I'm going to write a long summary of what happened and my thoughts this evening.
6,663
AdministratorAdministrator
6,663

PostDec 20, 2005#44

^Even better. 5-1 is a strong majority. So who voted against, Callow?
282

PostDec 20, 2005#45

MattnSTL wrote:^Even better. 5-1 is a strong majority. So who voted against, Callow?


Engineer Luis Porrello voted against the motion to deny. He and Mary "One" Johnson had voted in favor of the project on the first motion.



Richard Callow was brilliant and brutal, IMHO. The best way to get on his bad side is to submit an engineer's report saying that because it is a brick building with a crack near the New Madrid fault we should tear it down. The applicant was completely unprepared and Callow was excellent at asking questions that relealed these holes. I was surpised and impressed.
6,663
AdministratorAdministrator
6,663

PostDec 20, 2005#46

Interesting. Glad to hear that he was critical. I guess it makes sense that an engineer would vote for demo, after the mention of a crack from settling. But you would also think he would be critical in the same way since he knows about that type of thing. I'm still not quite sure what to think after hearing that demo was denyed. I will for sure be at the next meeting if they try to come back, which it sounds like they will.
282

PostDec 20, 2005#47

MattnSTL wrote:Interesting. Glad to hear that he was critical. I guess it makes sense that an engineer would vote for demo, after the mention of a crack from settling. But you would also think he would be critical in the same way since he knows about that type of thing. I'm still not quite sure what to think after hearing that demo was denyed. I will for sure be at the next meeting if they try to come back, which it sounds like they will.


More clarification. Luis Porrello is not a structural engineer. He is a civil engineer specializing in transportation. He works for HNTB:

http://www.hntb.com/corporation/spotlig ... ompanyid=3
6,663
AdministratorAdministrator
6,663

PostDec 20, 2005#48

Ok, it all makes sense now.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostDec 20, 2005#49

To: Steve Patterson, Urban Review:



Thanks for keeping us informed and for the time you have given this and other efforts.
2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostDec 20, 2005#50

I still think this could be a good project, let's hope the developers get it right the next time around. Thanks for the updates Steve.
Read more posts (84 remaining)
Share