I think they're good ideas and alternatives, and if the project is shot down at tomorrow's preservation board meeting, then hopefully a reader of NextSTL, with money and a vision, takes the idea presented and runs with it.
But at this point, and my reasoning behind supporting the currently proposed project is this - the site has been for sale for nearly 8 years now. Three public development proposals have come and gone during that time frame. If it made economic sense to preserve the corner building and build around it, wouldn't it be likely that it would be done by now? I'd love it if someone came along and proposed what is shown in the NextSTL article. Another taller building in the CWE would be great, but it's unlikely on this parcel at this point. Another thing opponents of the Lux proposal aren't considering is the economic hardship on the Optimists for retaining ownership of the building. It's far too large and needs too much work for them to handle. The director of Optimist even said this at meetings and, if I recall correctly, during the previous preservation board meeting. He also said that they just want to sell the building to a developer and reinvest the money from the sale into their charitable work. And if Lux walks away, there are currently no other buyers waiting for the property. If there were, it would've been made clear by now as an "alternate proposal" and very public and messy bidding war.
So why punish a property owner who has a buyer with a plan for the site that seeks no tax incentives (new chapter for the neighborhood) and adds 150 apartments to an already dense neighborhood? I get that Jim Dwyer, Michael Allen, Andrew Weil and others want to save the building, but at what point do they take into consideration the considerations that the Optimists made in order to arrive at this conclusion on their end? A project like this needs to be looked at through more than one lens with most of the vocal opponents's lens being the preservation lens. I'd recommend they also look through the lens of the current owner, tax base, and neighborhood business lens before being as naive as they are about something like this. That's how I look at it and in through the lens of the other options, it's a 3-1 viewpoint for me which makes me in favor of this project.
And who knows, maybe the anger doesn't lie in the proposal itself but rather the developer (Lux). Maybe if another developer proposed this same project as-is, a select few people wouldn't be up in arms about it. We may never know.
But at this point, and my reasoning behind supporting the currently proposed project is this - the site has been for sale for nearly 8 years now. Three public development proposals have come and gone during that time frame. If it made economic sense to preserve the corner building and build around it, wouldn't it be likely that it would be done by now? I'd love it if someone came along and proposed what is shown in the NextSTL article. Another taller building in the CWE would be great, but it's unlikely on this parcel at this point. Another thing opponents of the Lux proposal aren't considering is the economic hardship on the Optimists for retaining ownership of the building. It's far too large and needs too much work for them to handle. The director of Optimist even said this at meetings and, if I recall correctly, during the previous preservation board meeting. He also said that they just want to sell the building to a developer and reinvest the money from the sale into their charitable work. And if Lux walks away, there are currently no other buyers waiting for the property. If there were, it would've been made clear by now as an "alternate proposal" and very public and messy bidding war.
So why punish a property owner who has a buyer with a plan for the site that seeks no tax incentives (new chapter for the neighborhood) and adds 150 apartments to an already dense neighborhood? I get that Jim Dwyer, Michael Allen, Andrew Weil and others want to save the building, but at what point do they take into consideration the considerations that the Optimists made in order to arrive at this conclusion on their end? A project like this needs to be looked at through more than one lens with most of the vocal opponents's lens being the preservation lens. I'd recommend they also look through the lens of the current owner, tax base, and neighborhood business lens before being as naive as they are about something like this. That's how I look at it and in through the lens of the other options, it's a 3-1 viewpoint for me which makes me in favor of this project.
And who knows, maybe the anger doesn't lie in the proposal itself but rather the developer (Lux). Maybe if another developer proposed this same project as-is, a select few people wouldn't be up in arms about it. We may never know.
