urbanSTL

I'm 100% certain the developer will push to tear them all down. I firmly believe we have a one-time chance here to create a truly unique setting of condos in the old church, rectory and convent with new construction on the balance of the 2+ acre site.



I'm still very concerned about the future of this church. I'm also concerned about others.



A poster on my site today linked to one of the two companies selling the church properties. http://www.lmwash.com/listings.htm I had meant to look up the listing earlier but hadn't done so. From this link you can find the churches along with PDF flyers describing each. What you can also find is the contract supplement which does list deed restrictions.



What is interesting is that as long as the buildings remain standing the land cannot be used for abortions, massages, tattoos, pubs serving alchohol and such. But once the buildings are razed, those deed restrictions are no longer enforcable.

DeBaliviere wrote:There's nothing worse for a neighborhood than an abortion clinic that sells porn and administers tattoos.

I wasn't going to be the first to comment on that but since you've started...



The way the deed restriction is written, these uses are not permitted on the grounds unless the Archdiocese gives written permission OR the buildings have been razed. Once torn down someone could, pending zoning approval, open get a tattoo while you wait for your abortion clinic. But hopefully zoning wouldn't approve such an enterprise.



Oddly they don't exclude body piercing. An oversight?

mcarril wrote:Especially if they were to name it St Aloycious' Porn-tastic Abortion Emporium and Tattoo Tavern (They'll probably try to sell alcohol as well). I'm worried that might just happen and that's why I support tearing down not only the church but also the entire neighborhood around it so nothing will taint the memory of the former church.

The irony is the best way to protect the neighborhood from unwanted uses is to keep the buildings intact. Only by keeping the church buildings intact will the deed restrictions remain in place. Raze the buildings you lose the restrictions on use.

MattnSTL wrote:I believe it's spelt St. Alouicious Porn-tastic Abortion Emporium and Tattoo Tavern.

Very funny! I love it that their own engineer didn't spell the name right even though it is in big letters on the front of the church.



I looked up the deed today at the Recorder of Deeds office and guess what, no restriction requiring the buildings being razed. I've uploaded it to my site.



Link to post: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000370.php

Direct link to PDF of deed: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com//deed.PDF

Developer to appeal decision on St. Aloysius

Shawn Clubb

Of the Suburban Journals

Southwest City Journal

01/04/2006



A developer who plans to build new homes at the site of St. Aloysius Gonzaga says he will appeal a decision keeping him from tearing down the church.



Meanwhile, there is an effort underway to gauge whether neighbors of the church want it preserved.



James Wohlert of Wohlert Company LLC plans to demolish the remaining buildings on the site at 2645 Pearl Ave. and build 22 to 24 single-family homes. However, the city's Preservation Review Board recently voted to deny the demolition permits for the church, rectory, convent and gymnasium.



"I'm planning on appealing and exploring our options," Wohlert said. "I plan on moving forward and working with the city."



Joe Vollmer, alderman for the 10th ward, said appeal is one option, but he could also have the property taken out of the Preservation Review District.



Vollmer said another option would be to find out who opposes the demolition and why they oppose it and then discuss it. He said the preservation review hearing was the first place he had heard opposition to the project.



Dana Gray, executive director of the Southwest Garden Neighborhood Association, said 2,500 households were given advanced notice of the project before the last general meeting of the association. She said no one voiced opposition to the project.



Vollmer said he also heard no opposition from people living in The Hill neighborhood.



"Everyone is pretty much set on it being razed," Vollmer said. "No one is saying lets save this building."



However, Gray said her association has sent out a letter to nearby neighbors of the church asking them for feedback on the project to ensure that it has accurately gauged public opinion on the project. The letter said it would be discussed at the association's next board meeting at 7 p.m. Jan. 9 at 4950 Southwest Ave.



Steve Patterson, who writes the blog "Urban Review ? St. Louis," advocated saving the buildings at the hearing. He said people from the neighborhood have now been contacting him to say they want to save the church building.



Read More

I liked how the article showed both sides and then closed the article allowing Steve Patterson to get the last word.

I moved to the city to escape the suburban wasteland... now it is following me! Too bad I was not a resident when the meeting occured, because I would have protested this development.

Suburban housing is going to continue to invade our city unless we stand up to Aldermen who either have no taste, or only serve the interest of the developers.