Moonrise didn't save the façade, it recreated it.
http://vanishingstl.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -loop.html
http://vanishingstl.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -loop.html
Here's a link to the ordinance for any who are interested: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... ?ord=64689preservation.research.office wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022You should read the preservation review ordinance (64689) to understand the legal formulation of the Preservation Board. It's not a court of public opinion like this forum.dredger wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022^ yep. Let's see how today played out if I got it right. Approve of a downtown high rise office building as historical even though it is probably one of the most modern non descript downtown buildings you can find (cough, incentives, cough). Borderline on a rooftop seating in Soulard but if you paint something to look metal you are good for a conitional approval and for good measure, finally kill the best dense proposal in a while on an empty building that will only make CWE better because staff says so & two members don't vote. Did I miss anything else on this idiotic very subjective process from today.? read the preservation review ordinance (64689)?
Do note that at 37 pages it's not a light read.
-RBB
Exactly. It's nice the board's members are reading...but clearly they're not listening.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022The ordinance overseeing the preservation board needs to be changed then. Protecting buildings from demolition - great. Not allowing 155 families to move into the CWE so we can look at an empty building held by a non-profit that cant afford it and doesn't want it - inexcusable.preservation.research.office wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022You should read the preservation review ordinance (64689) to understand the legal formulation of the Preservation Board. It's not a court of public opinion like this forum.dredger wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022^ yep. Let's see how today played out if I got it right. Approve of a downtown high rise office building as historical even though it is probably one of the most modern non descript downtown buildings you can find (cough, incentives, cough). Borderline on a rooftop seating in Soulard but if you paint something to look metal you are good for a conitional approval and for good measure, finally kill the best dense proposal in a while on an empty building that will only make CWE better because staff says so & two members don't vote. Did I miss anything else on this idiotic very subjective process from today.? read the preservation review ordinance (64689)?
We went from this:
To this:
To this...and they're still not happy.
Variances are granted for developments all the time. How often have protected buildings in St. Louis been torn down in the past? But now suddenly the ordinance needs to be followed to the letter. Doesn't make much sense. While in the meantime, a building its owner doesn't want and can't use will continue to sit empty and rot because of a handful of bureaucrats.
(Yes, I know there was a rather handsome proposal to reuse the existing building as office space, but with the region's current glut of empty office space, I don't think we'll see any proposals like that here again.)
- 1,794
The purposes of the Ordinance are (1) protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of use of buildings - FAIL.preservation.research.office wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022I am definitely reading, hi! Again, everyone should read the actual law that we are charged with upholding (ordinance 64689).sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022^ The AT&T building to me just shows the utter hypocrisy of our various preservation boards. “Let’s put an ugly, post-modern high rise on the national register to grease the wheels for a connected developer,” but the local group (Lux’s issues not withstanding) who are on their second try still can’t get a break despite essentially doing what they were asked.
Asinine. And I hope certain board members are reading this. Idiotic. Can’t wait to see this building plowed over for a vacant lot in a few years. Well done, preservationists!
(2) stabilisation and and improvement of the value of property and the equity held by citizens in their property - FAIL.
(3) Increase of economic resources available for the conservation and rehabilitation neighborhoods - FAIL
(4) increase commerce and prosperity - FAIL.
Congrats to the Preservation Board on failing it’s each and every purpose here.
- 3,235
Glad it was denied. Any opportunity the city has to stick it to Sid and Vic, they should do so.
- 285
It’s this logic that perpetuates shooting ourselves in the foot just to kill a fly.downtown2007 wrote:Glad it was denied. Any opportunity the city has to stick it to Sid and Vic, they should do so.
I mean, it’s the same logic that made a bunch of people say “Shut down the trolley, we deserve to have to pay the feds back tens of millions of dollars”.
Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you have to incur damage yourself or continue picking a wound.
We don’t have a better alternative for this site and it’s probably going to sit vacant if anything and deteriorate further. By sticking it to Sid and Vic, you stick it to housing supply, this building itself, and the non profit folks who can’t seem to escape the responsibility of owning something that seriously detracts from their ability to pursue their mission.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm confident this is not the case. They are not to rule on anything other than the law. It would open them up to lawsuits.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022How much of a factor is Lux's reputation playing in all this?
- 337
If your confident about that then why were several people allowed to speak on their experiences as either A a Lux resident or B resident near a Lux building. Each story the same with no real linkage to the preservation of the building other than “it’s Lux Living burn them at the stake and deny their request”.doellingd wrote:I'm confident this is not the case. They are not to rule on anything other than the law. It would open them up to lawsuits.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022How much of a factor is Lux's reputation playing in all this?
I’m not a defender of Lux by any means per my complaints I posted in the Hudson thread, which btw were fixed and I’m not even a resident of the building, I’m arguing that the only concern I heard last night, that was remotely close to preservation concerns, was the guy who expressed concern that the engineers plan could fail. Which is certainly possible and In that case I think Lux should be held accountable to build new but identical facade.
Overall this is a failure on the city and on CRO.
Because the general public is unfamiliar with the legal formulation the Board uses to make their recommendations. If you want to change their recommendation, use their legal formulation as a guide to refute their preliminary rulings.LArchitecture wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022If your confident about that then why were several people allowed to speak on their experiences as either A a Lux resident or B resident near a Lux building. Each story the same with no real linkage to the preservation of the building other than “it’s Lux Living burn them at the stake and deny their request”.doellingd wrote:I'm confident this is not the case. They are not to rule on anything other than the law. It would open them up to lawsuits.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022How much of a factor is Lux's reputation playing in all this?
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... ?ord=64689
If the board is going to use a legal formula then why are people allowed to speak at all if what they say doesn’t matter?doellingd wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022Because the general public is unfamiliar with the legal formulation the Board uses to make their recommendations. If you want to change their recommendation, use their legal formulation as a guide to refute their preliminary rulings.LArchitecture wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022If your confident about that then why were several people allowed to speak on their experiences as either A a Lux resident or B resident near a Lux building. Each story the same with no real linkage to the preservation of the building other than “it’s Lux Living burn them at the stake and deny their request”.doellingd wrote: I'm confident this is not the case. They are not to rule on anything other than the law. It would open them up to lawsuits.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/c ... ?ord=64689
How can a vote not be unanimous if it’s all a formula? Why even vote? Just go by whatever the formula says.
If an owner of a builder were to let’s say bulldoze a building without a permit, what are the ramifications? Fine?
- 9,554
Finejshank83 wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022If an owner of a builder were to let’s say bulldoze a building without a permit, what are the ramifications? Fine?
No construction permit
prison
the demo company losing its city biz license
You can think that, and I'm sure there are a few others happy this was shot down but remove Sid and Vic/Lux from the equation for a second.downtown2007 wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022Glad it was denied. Any opportunity the city has to stick it to Sid and Vic, they should do so.
This same outcome would've occurred if it was any other developer, I guarantee it. Clearly there was concern over lack of communication with Jim Dwyer and you had people concerned over the facadism precedent. This issue, more than Jim Dwyer, would've gotten the same end-result as we got yesterday.
- The preservation board stuck it the Optimist International charity by denying a proposal that would've done something with the property and provided the charity with much needed money to vacate the building and continue helping kids.
- The preservation board stuck it to the neighborhood who, when neighbors spoke up, said they wanted the new proposal.
- The preservation board stuck it to the businesses who always want more people living nearby.
- The preservation board stuck it to the apartment-seekers who want to live in the neighborhood but can't because stock is limited and, as such, rent is continuing to increase.
- The preservation board stuck it to HOK by more or less saying, "your design isn't good enough because it uses facadism" and "we expected better from you" without actually saying those things.
- The preservation board stuck it to the city who had a clear and open window to getting a property back on the tax sheets with no tax incentive request added.
If Plan C fails, which we'll know in a relatively short amount of time, then the project is fully dead. Then let's see what happens. Will someone else step up knowing they'll really only be able to build a thin, rectangular high-rise on the eastern portion of the property unless they decide to just renovate the current building for a ton of money? Or will we see another charitable organization pick up the property, continue to defer maintenance, and not contribute anything to the tax sheets?
Everyone is allowed to comment on stuff like this and even though resident feedback is important, it's more important at the neighborhood level. If I were in charge of the preservation board, I would've silenced the positive and negative Lux residents' comments because it doesn't matter in this situation. That's an issue where when neighborhood meetings are held, you voice those comments. Or you send comments to an Alderman/Alderwoman when he or she is figuring out how to make up their mind.LArchitecture wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022If your confident about that then why were several people allowed to speak on their experiences as either A a Lux resident or B resident near a Lux building. Each story the same with no real linkage to the preservation of the building other than “it’s Lux Living burn them at the stake and deny their request”.doellingd wrote:I'm confident this is not the case. They are not to rule on anything other than the law. It would open them up to lawsuits.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022How much of a factor is Lux's reputation playing in all this?
I’m not a defender of Lux by any means per my complaints I posted in the Hudson thread, which btw were fixed and I’m not even a resident of the building, I’m arguing that the only concern I heard last night, that was remotely close to preservation concerns, was the guy who expressed concern that the engineers plan could fail. Which is certainly possible and In that case I think Lux should be held accountable to build new but identical facade.
Overall this is a failure on the city and on CRO.
Both city and state are quite capable of self-inflicted wounds.brianadler6545 wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2022It’s this logic that perpetuates shooting ourselves in the foot just to kill a fly.downtown2007 wrote:Glad it was denied. Any opportunity the city has to stick it to Sid and Vic, they should do so.
I mean, it’s the same logic that made a bunch of people say “Shut down the trolley, we deserve to have to pay the feds back tens of millions of dollars”.
Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you have to incur damage yourself or continue picking a wound.
We don’t have a better alternative for this site and it’s probably going to sit vacant if anything and deteriorate further. By sticking it to Sid and Vic, you stick it to housing supply, this building itself, and the non profit folks who can’t seem to escape the responsibility of owning something that seriously detracts from their ability to pursue their mission.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow. Had forgotten that initial proposal. I wish we ‘d built this. Perfect for the site and not even a gaping garage entrance on Lindell.
Larry Deutsch Downtown every weekend in the 90s
Two Questions
Why is there a Texas Flag in front of the Optimist International?
What other legitimate city in America would deny this proposal?
Why is there a Texas Flag in front of the Optimist International?
What other legitimate city in America would deny this proposal?
- 2,929
Truly enraging. It really makes the Preservation Board look like they care a whole lot more about an empty building at a prominent corner - "that has some cool looking 60 year old concrete on it!" - more than they care about increasing (creating!) new tax revenues, helping a historic City charity, bringing in new citizens, more local construction jobs being made, and truly redeveloping the City itself.
If the laws by which they have to abide are broken, then they should farking say something and do something about it!
Bureaucracy like this is why we don't have nice things.
Chris: Godspeed with Plan C.
If the laws by which they have to abide are broken, then they should farking say something and do something about it!
Bureaucracy like this is why we don't have nice things.
Chris: Godspeed with Plan C.
- 2,055
^Chris make sure you reach out if you need support with emails/retweets/etc.