No, StL is appealing today mostly in part for its retention of historic character. Strongly disagree that we need no checks on demolition and preservation. We already let too much of the city get torn down pre-1980s. Go to other cities and quickly see the proliferation of plaster grey and white 4 over 1s (Charlotte/Raleigh, Austin, even Kansas City).
StL should be proud of its architecture, as it continues to be an edge over those cities I mentioned.
ON THE OTHER HAND, this particular denial is the WRONG decision. The proposal is good enough, and I agree with the developers that the corner house is not historically or architecturally significant and actually takes up the space and setback of a suburban home. I like the other buildings so unfortunate in one way but new plans sometimes must happen.
Would I love for a similarly dense site plan from AHM incorporate a red brick facade, retain the homegrown hair steeple brick building and a small retail bay? For sure! But, the project should be approved if those type of things can’t be worked in well.
There’s always a balance, and this project should be pushed forward.
Look, I appreciate that the developer wants to build a certain way on the site they have. They have to worry about lenders, costs, returns . . . But by the same token the Preservation Board is set to abide by certain regulations. They're fairly clear, really. The guidelines allow exceptions for conditions like financial hardship that allow them to ignore some of them. But the developer reputedly didn't seek suggest any of those and in the end, they chose to ignore the guidelines and CRO recommendations and push forward with the design they had. Maybe that was their only realistic choice. Maybe that's the best use for the land. If so, that's not the Preservation Board's call. It's up to planning or the Board of Aldermen at this point. I think it's high time we quit calling each other's names and accept that there's a system here and most of the people in it are working in good faith to come to the best solution for all parties. The developer could adopt a different plan and resubmit. They can appeal the decision. They can do nothing and face whatever legal consequences that might entail down the road if their building falls into disrepair. This is not the first time we've had this conversation. There are several possible outcomes. We've seen each of them come to pass before. It's an imperfect process, but I think it's generally been pretty good at balancing historic preservation with other considerations like safety, utility, and and economics. I am absolutely in favor of letting it play out and I support the work the volunteers on the board put in for us. And CRO too, for that matter. Let the developers talk it out with city hall and hopefully we'll end up with a more thoughtful and better deign.
Did the board offer any explanation of their decision or is all we get is a "DENIED!"?
I know they went well into the night talking about it because I saw they were still discussing it after 8:00 and it started at 4:00... The first hour was just them talking about board bias and whether or not to bring lawyers into a closed meeting or not...
WUUUUUUUUT?!?!?!?!? A DECISION I DON'T LIKE?!?!?!?!?!?! FIRE THEM ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!
lots of overreacting going on.
Who said that?
We're simply asking for an explanation of what was so bad about the proposal. Is it need for more parking? Design? Scale/size? Something historical about the current buildings?
We're simply asking for an explanation of what was so bad about the proposal. Is it need for more parking? Design? Scale/size? Something historical about the current buildings?
RockChalkSTL wrote:Dissolve the Preservation Board.
Auggie wrote:Entire preservation board should be fired. Useless waste of money and resources to employ them making decisions like this.
The Preservation Board considers the evaluation of the CRO. The CRO addressed the ordinance violations point-by-point in the meeting agenda.
The Preservation Board is *why* we still have a multitude of desirable historic neighborhoods, *despite* all of the population loss. They did not cause the population loss. Do I agree with all of the historic ordinances? No. I don't think the CRO and PB should be dictating form-based and aesthetic details of new construction that does not involve demolition of historic structures. I don't see the point of dictating homogeneity in architecture—modern architecture can compliment historic architecture beautifully. And the height limiting is completely arbitrary. Six stories next to two stories is fine and happens all over the east coast (and in this case probably could have circumnavigated all this drama). I also think some of the historic requirements (window types, garden wall details, fence details, etc.) are ridiculous and place an unfair burden on lower-income folks. That doesn't mean I don't realize the importance of the CRO and PB, though. And in this case I think they called it correctly. The parking excuse is an overused crutch. Reduced parking/driving is never going to happen as long as every project accommodates it. St. Louisans are not going to wake up one morning and decide in unison that it's finally time to reduce car dependency. It's going to have to be forced/enforced, one project at a time. Maybe we start ignoring neighbors who b*tch incessantly about parking and instead start building a city that is navigable without a car. That's not going to happen if we just keep on with the status quo. It's gotta start somewhere.
But it is not the developers driving the demand for more parking spaces. Having been on that side, I can say the we never argued against a city trying to get more parking than was required. It was always the opposite.
It is the neighborhood residents that demand that zoned parking requirements are maintained (or even be increased when the realize how "low" the requirements might be). AHM themselves proposed a small apartment building on Manchester in The Grove with well less than 1:1 parking, because the form-based code has no parking requirement. I remember in one meeting a neighborhood resident and Grove business owner pushed-back on the "lack" of parking, not realizing that there indeed was no parking requirement in the district. They then followed up by saying that "we should take another look at that".
I believe in this case, it was the neighborhood residents preference to keep the required parking ratio over some street-front retail. And, "lack" of parking was a big deal at Fanning School as well. So even in the progressive urban enclave of TGS, parking still remains supreme, but somehow developers are the ones that are supposed to change the status quo?
The city needs a development code that is explicit in what is allowed.
If no parking is required, I don't think a NIMBY should be allowed to do anything other than write an e-mail that gets deleted after a sentence or two is read.
Look, I appreciate that the developer wants to build a certain way on the site they have. They have to worry about lenders, costs, returns . . . But by the same token the Preservation Board is set to abide by certain regulations. They're fairly clear, really. The guidelines allow exceptions for conditions like financial hardship that allow them to ignore some of them. But the developer reputedly didn't seek suggest any of those and in the end, they chose to ignore the guidelines and CRO recommendations and push forward with the design they had. Maybe that was their only realistic choice. Maybe that's the best use for the land. If so, that's not the Preservation Board's call. It's up to planning or the Board of Aldermen at this point. I think it's high time we quit calling each other's names and accept that there's a system here and most of the people in it are working in good faith to come to the best solution for all parties. The developer could adopt a different plan and resubmit. They can appeal the decision. They can do nothing and face whatever legal consequences that might entail down the road if their building falls into disrepair. This is not the first time we've had this conversation. There are several possible outcomes. We've seen each of them come to pass before. It's an imperfect process, but I think it's generally been pretty good at balancing historic preservation with other considerations like safety, utility, and and economics. I am absolutely in favor of letting it play out and I support the work the volunteers on the board put in for us. And CRO too, for that matter. Let the developers talk it out with city hall and hopefully we'll end up with a more thoughtful and better deign.
2 members of the Preservation Board disagreed with the decision, so clearly it's not exactly cut and dry and there's plenty of opinion in the decisions. I'm sick and tired of hearing that it's all about "guidelines" and nonsense- it's not.
We're simply asking for an explanation of what was so bad about the proposal. Is it need for more parking? Design? Scale/size? Something historical about the current buildings?
RockChalkSTL wrote:Dissolve the Preservation Board.
Auggie wrote:Entire preservation board should be fired. Useless waste of money and resources to employ them making decisions like this.
The Preservation Board considers the evaluation of the CRO. The CRO addressed the ordinance violations point-by-point in the meeting agenda.
The Preservation Board is *why* we still have a multitude of desirable historic neighborhoods, *despite* all of the population loss. They did not cause the population loss. Do I agree with all of the historic ordinances? No. I don't think the CRO and PB should be dictating form-based and aesthetic details of new construction that does not involve demolition of historic structures. I don't see the point of dictating homogeneity in architecture—modern architecture can compliment historic architecture beautifully. And the height limiting is completely arbitrary. Six stories next to two stories is fine and happens all over the east coast (and in this case probably could have circumnavigated all this drama). I also think some of the historic requirements (window types, garden wall details, fence details, etc.) are ridiculous and place an unfair burden on lower-income folks. That doesn't mean I don't realize the importance of the CRO and PB, though. And in this case I think they called it correctly. The parking excuse is an overused crutch. Reduced parking/driving is never going to happen as long as every project accommodates it. St. Louisans are not going to wake up one morning and decide in unison that it's finally time to reduce car dependency. It's going to have to be forced/enforced, one project at a time. Maybe we start ignoring neighbors who b*tch incessantly about parking and instead start building a city that is navigable without a car. That's not going to happen if we just keep on with the status quo. It's gotta start somewhere.
The 3 morons who made up the majority absolutely should be fired. Couldn't care less about other proposals they've decided, if they're making decisions this bad on proposals this obviously good then they are too stupid for the job. Anything less would be an underreaction. Hopefully smarter people with more power will reverse this decision, but that shouldn't even be necessary.
Auggie, you're really not helping your case with such inflammatory name-calling. I happen to agree with much of what you say, but not the way you say it.
It would have benefited from some comments from CRO staff and/or PB member(s). Even if the reporter couldn't get a hold of one of them, a quote from the meeting or at least a description of the discussion at the meeting would have been good.
Video recording of the Monday meeting is up on the city's YouTube. The portion on this project starts at about 2:24:00. Presentation from the developers, lots of public comment, and then finally a brief discussion and vote by the Preservation Board starting at 3:56:00. In general, the public comments in favor of the development cite the economic benefit of the project and praise the developers. Public comments against the development cite the architectural makeup being ruined and replaced by an unattractive building. Ultimately I think these anti-development comments spoke much more closely to the factors that the Preservation Board actually decides on, and were enumerated by a board member introducing the motion to deny the appeal: Developers have not submitted a redevelopment plan for current structures; current structures are merit buildings, so they must not be approved for demolition except in unusual circumstances; current structures are of sound condition; no info has been submitted to suggest that these buildings can't be redeveloped, especially given the area's vitality; not an economically distressed area; urban design, integrity of block face would be lost; new construction would interrupt integrity of block face. Other board members note that they've voted to preserve worse structures than these, and that even though the proposed building looks good, they can't just tear down merit buildings willy-nilly.
Ultimately it doesn't seem like the board was overreaching by denying this project, but at the same time I hope that the developers can find another avenue to get this through (Planning Commission?) -- one which doesn't take so heavily into account historic significance, and looks at other, arguably more important factors (i.e., economic impact, effects on the neighborhood at large rather than specific structures).
One thing I am now curious about -- how important are 3 contributing ("merit"?) buildings to a historic district that has 1274 contributing buildings? (Source) (And FWIW, one of the board members makes a comment that he's not sure 3148 is a merit building anymore, due do its alterations) I can't imagine demolishing 3 buildings would jeopardize the district's historic designation. Obviously I understand that if the pattern is allowed to repeat, then that's a different conversation, but I don't feel that's a bridge that's close to being crossed with the lack of development demand in the area. Maybe in the future if there really is that level of demand for development, then we start pushing developers to redevelop rather than teardown historic properties, but I don't think the neighborhood is at that point yet where it can be so selective. In my opinion, having more (young) people move into the neighborhood will contribute to historical preservation, as they may be more inclined to purchase and maintain historic property in the neighborhood years down the line.
Finally, the city's website suggests that there are currently two vacant positions on the evidently all-powerful Preservation Board. Perhaps some of the bright minds of this forum who feel well-versed in architectural preservation may need to find a way to weasel themselves in.
Video recording of the Monday meeting is up on the city's YouTube. The portion on this project starts at about 2:24:00. Presentation from the developers, lots of public comment, and then finally a brief discussion and vote by the Preservation Board starting at 3:56:00. In general, the public comments in favor of the development cite the economic benefit of the project and praise the developers. Public comments against the development cite the architectural makeup being ruined and replaced by an unattractive building. Ultimately I think these anti-development comments spoke much more closely to the factors that the Preservation Board actually decides on, and were enumerated by a board member introducing the motion to deny the appeal: Developers have not submitted a redevelopment plan for current structures; current structures are merit buildings, so they must not be approved for demolition except in unusual circumstances; current structures are of sound condition; no info has been submitted to suggest that these buildings can't be redeveloped, especially given the area's vitality; not an economically distressed area; urban design, integrity of block face would be lost; new construction would interrupt integrity of block face. Other board members note that they've voted to preserve worse structures than these, and that even though the proposed building looks good, they can't just tear down merit buildings willy-nilly.
Ultimately it doesn't seem like the board was overreaching by denying this project, but at the same time I hope that the developers can find another avenue to get this through (Planning Commission?) -- one which doesn't take so heavily into account historic significance, and looks at other, arguably more important factors (i.e., economic impact, effects on the neighborhood at large rather than specific structures).
One thing I am now curious about -- how important are 3 contributing ("merit"?) buildings to a historic district that has 1274 contributing buildings? (Source) (And FWIW, one of the board members makes a comment that he's not sure 3148 is a merit building anymore, due do its alterations) I can't imagine demolishing 3 buildings would jeopardize the district's historic designation. Obviously I understand that if the pattern is allowed to repeat, then that's a different conversation, but I don't feel that's a bridge that's close to being crossed with the lack of development demand in the area. Maybe in the future if there really is that level of demand for development, then we start pushing developers to redevelop rather than teardown historic properties, but I don't think the neighborhood is at that point yet where it can be so selective. In my opinion, having more (young) people move into the neighborhood will contribute to historical preservation, as they may be more inclined to purchase and maintain historic property in the neighborhood years down the line.
Finally, the city's website suggests that there are currently two vacant positions on the evidently all-powerful Preservation Board. Perhaps some of the bright minds of this forum who feel well-versed in architectural preservation may need to find a way to weasel themselves in.
So did they reject because the proposal is for a modern building and not some faux-historic thing that tries to replicate the style from the 1920s?
Shame it didn't go through. Give it enough time and these types of boars end up getting in their own way and miss the reason they were created. I think originally the reason for having this process was to keep good housing stock from being replaced by cheap new construction. I think they should stick with requiring quality masonry construction that we know will stand another 100 years and let people be creative with design and use instead of mandating faux history uniformity.
One important thing I heard in the meeting (that backs up an idea I've always had) is that the city would/could gain even more residents by increasing apartments/housing in our highly sought after areas...
67% of MOFO residents are from out of state, and 54% of WYO are from out of state.
Not sure what the odds of the denial being overturned are, but I seem to remember someone from the December meeting saying that even the Planning Commission agreeing to perform the review in the first place is a rare occurrence.
I really wish both sides would just compromise and keep the 3148 Morganford building (Homegrown salon building) and they can demo the two homes and build a new project in the land space around it and rehab the commercial building. Would make for a pretty cool project.
I understand that may be fantasy land but at least wish there was a more creative solution than nope, you can do nothing or yes, mow it down and build what you want.
The Planning Commission voted 5-4 to consider again at the next meeting while staff explores with AHM, street interaction, height, parking, retail, zoning variances.
