urbanSTL

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think many people on this forum would agree that the AHM decision was short-sighted and wrong.

To clear up some of the info here: Washington University Medical Center is under contract, but does not own the building yet, which is why the ownership still shows Royal Oak. The purchase is likely conditional on if WashU can demolish the structure.

The interior ramp system takes up a surprising amount of space inside the building. There is a system of ramps on both sides of the building. If you reference the photos in my earlier comment, imagine that in both wings of the building, with offices in the center (the castle-like part of the building). The grand entrance is gone, and the main doors that face Laclede are not an entrance anymore. 

If demolition is denied, the building will almost certainly remain vacant and will absolutely continue to deteriorate. Again, I want to emphasize that the exterior is not a reflection of the interior layout. I do not have a floor plan to share, but I trust the experts who have walked through the building. Several multi-family developers have looked, crunched the numbers, and decided a project here is not possible. There is no developer waiting in the wings.

The building is impossible to secure, with multiple entrances and windows at ground level that continue to be broken. It’s only a matter of time before there is a fire or someone gets hurt.

Finally, I want to respond to the conspiratorially-minded comment about my work history. I was a low-level employee of Washington University for nine years. I worked in the Office of Sponsored Research Services, and then in the Department of Ophthalmology. I worked in research administration, nowhere near real estate development or higher WashU leadership. You can  see all of this on my LinkedIn. Washington University is a giant bureaucracy, and leadership had never even heard my name before I ran for office. When I was elected, I resigned from Washington University and I currently hold only one job: 9th Ward Alderman for the city of St. Louis. 

well, it sounds like you've made up your mind. just level it all, i guess. jfc what an endlessly disappointing "city".

If WUSTL is rich enough to buy this, just to tear it down($12 billion endowment btw), then they can afford to imaginatively retrofit it. Unless there is an immediate threat to the public, theres no reason this building should be demolished.

Yeah I'm not convinced. For better or for worse, the argument that developers find rehabbing a historic building cost prohibitive has been rendered meaningless because of its extreme over-use. Like why don't they just do an interior demo? And honestly equally concerning to me as demolition is handing this over to Wash U Med, who's more than comfortable landbanking for time immemorial, if it were a developer wanting to tear this down for something else this would be a bit better but this whole plan sounds bad. 

I emailed the preservation board asking that they deny demolition. 

^ Agreed.  We don't need another demolition of a sound, merit building for landbanking -- and in this case becoming tax exempt. The Preservation Board has been getting better at trying to ensure that solid proposals are in place and with a building permit issued before demolition is approved.  (The hotels proposal at the Wells-Fargo site was kind of variation of that as demo was allowed w/o a permit issued but the developer did have to post a bond that would have been forfeited if a building permit wasn't issued later.... I guess we'll see how long the land there is fallow.)  

And in addition to all the vacant lots that continue to plague our city where demo was allowed w/o solid replacement proposals, there's all the uccess stories that we have of buildings that have been saved after owners and developers said it couldn't happen. 

They could demo the interior and do whatever they want with it if they wanted to.

If they don’t want to do that, then let me see a modern tower proposal in its place. Not a stand alone parking garage, vacant lot or “green space.” We need no more of that.

I can roll with demo in many circumstances if there’s adequate replacement but we can’t do vacant lots, surface parking, garages, grassy areas any more in this city, even if it’s for a few years. SLU has already done it to everything surrounding their campus and med center. No more demos for some land banking that may culminate in a vision after 25 years.

Some people here don't care about what makes economic sense, they just want properties to be magically preserved or preserved through charity from corporation or rich people.  I would support denying the demolition if there was anyone else that would buy it and had a plan for it. 

People seem to think properties are neglected based on just mismanagement, I believe most of those cases owners don't want to keep losing money in a property that won't give any return to them. It's easy to ask someone else to waste money they'll never see back, not so easy doing it yourself. 

Michael B wrote: ↑

Nov 13, 2024

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think many people on this forum would agree that the AHM decision was short-sighted and wrong.

To clear up some of the info here: Washington University Medical Center is under contract, but does not own the building yet, which is why the ownership still shows Royal Oak. The purchase is likely conditional on if WashU can demolish the structure.

The interior ramp system takes up a surprising amount of space inside the building. There is a system of ramps on both sides of the building. If you reference the photos in my earlier comment, imagine that in both wings of the building, with offices in the center (the castle-like part of the building). The grand entrance is gone, and the main doors that face Laclede are not an entrance anymore. 

If demolition is denied, the building will almost certainly remain vacant and will absolutely continue to deteriorate. Again, I want to emphasize that the exterior is not a reflection of the interior layout. I do not have a floor plan to share, but I trust the experts who have walked through the building. Several multi-family developers have looked, crunched the numbers, and decided a project here is not possible. There is no developer waiting in the wings.

The building is impossible to secure, with multiple entrances and windows at ground level that continue to be broken. It’s only a matter of time before there is a fire or someone gets hurt.

Finally, I want to respond to the conspiratorially-minded comment about my work history. I was a low-level employee of Washington University for nine years. I worked in the Office of Sponsored Research Services, and then in the Department of Ophthalmology. I worked in research administration, nowhere near real estate development or higher WashU leadership. You can  see all of this on my LinkedIn. Washington University is a giant bureaucracy, and leadership had never even heard my name before I ran for office. When I was elected, I resigned from Washington University and I currently hold only one job: 9th Ward Alderman for the city of St. Louis. 

I'm thrilled to have Michael's realistic leadership on this. He's trying to build a city, not preserve a vacant relic in an urban area that deserves much more than this. A newer mixed-use building would be ideal here, certainly over a surface parking lot, but if there's no market feasibility to redevelopment with the current structure then we shouldn't hold onto false hope. Nor should we expect WashU or any developer to take a loss on this renovation. Why maximize that value over patient care? Student financial aide? Etc. 

If Brian Haydon can build a multi-level parking garage inside the Masonic Temple on Lindell (without tax incentives), then I'm sure Wash U could remove the ramps inside this building. 

Rick Prieto wrote: ↑

Nov 13, 2024

Some people here don't care about what makes economic sense, they just want properties to be magically preserved or preserved through charity from corporation or rich people.  I would support denying the demolition if there was anyone else that would buy it and had a plan for it. 

People seem to think properties are neglected based on just mismanagement, I believe most of those cases owners don't want to keep losing money in a property that won't give any return to them. It's easy to ask someone else to waste money they'll never see back, not so easy doing it yourself. 

The only one looking for charity here is the rich corporation that already doesn’t pay taxes

Michael B wrote: ↑

Nov 13, 2024

Finally, I want to respond to the conspiratorially-minded comment about my work history. I was a low-level employee of Washington University for nine years. I worked in the Office of Sponsored Research Services, and then in the Department of Ophthalmology. I worked in research administration, nowhere near real estate development or higher WashU leadership. You can  see all of this on my LinkedIn. Washington University is a giant bureaucracy, and leadership had never even heard my name before I ran for office. When I was elected, I resigned from Washington University and I currently hold only one job: 9th Ward Alderman for the city of St. Louis. 

I love this typical elected official response, calling someone a conspiracy theorist because they see causation for a potential conflict.  Rather than simply addressing the issue you throw labels on other people.   It was an honest question that deserved an honest answer.  A simple "I don't think I have a COI because..." should have sufficed without the need to cut me down like a anti-vax quack.  I asked "do you have sympathy"  not "are you influenced by leadership".  

This is a really bad take, from a person I voted for.  Disappointed. 

stlgasm wrote: ↑

Nov 13, 2024

We should ask ourselves what cities like Boston or Philly would do in a situation similar to the one presented before us?  I'll tell you what they wouldn't do-- demolish it for parking or greenspace. Time to start thinking and planning like a big city again. 

yep. i'm sitting in Philly right now wondering how St. Louis is ever going to become an actual city again as it demolishes five beautiful historic buildings for every meh new one that gets built. this is just Wash U maneuvering to acquire land for unspecified future development—i have no doubt that local developers are going to toe their line. being blacklisted by Wash U probably isn't good for business.

The property isn't even listed for sale. How can one argue that developers aren't interested when it's not even on the market?

I haven't had a lot of buyers interested in purchasing my house....could be the fact that I don't have it listed for sale? Probably worth tearing down I guess.

Tim wrote: ↑

Nov 14, 2024

The property isn't even listed for sale. How can one argue that developers aren't interested when it's not even on the market?

I haven't had a lot of buyers interested in purchasing my house....could be the fact that I don't have it listed for sale? Probably worth tearing down I guess.

If you want to tear it down and build I new one, up to you, go ahead!

Rick Prieto wrote:

Tim wrote: ↑

Nov 14, 2024

The property isn't even listed for sale. How can one argue that developers aren't interested when it's not even on the market?

I haven't had a lot of buyers interested in purchasing my house....could be the fact that I don't have it listed for sale? Probably worth tearing down I guess.

If you want to tear it down and build I new one, up to you, go ahead!

He literally can’t because it’s not listed for sale. Thats the point of his post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems like the last rodeo we went through on this type of situation was with SLU wanting to demolish the building on Olive.  iirc they were pretty much were forced by popular discontent and activism to market it and now its being saved.  Somewhat similar was the argument that developers had looked at the old STL Community College HQ downtown across from Busch Stadium and that it couldn't be renovated. That's now renovated as apartments. But at least that one had a plan for a replacement. 

Final agenda for Monday's Preservation Board meeting is up. CRO recommends denying demolition. Given that there are no concrete plans for what would be built in its place, I have a hard time imagining the Preservation Board going against that recommendation.

Michael B I also appreciate your engagement here, and the work you do for us- I’m in your ward.

I understand the current interior condition piece, but without a plan to utilize the lot I hope the demolition is denied. Finding an engineer to tell a customer that their building is hopeless to support their demolition plan is easy to do. I don’t take much stock in the argument that an interior that was modified in the past can’t be modified in the future, it happens all the time if the shell is in serviceable condition. There is also no such thing as a building that can’t be secured. I believe wash u ownership takes it off the tax roll too? Tearing this down to leave an empty lot without a redevelopment plan in the most valuable part of town seems more Biondi-era SLU than current day WashU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Denied!

^ excellent! now the city needs to litigate it out of Goldner Capital's hands, use some of that Rams money to clean it up/white-box it, and get it into the hands of a capable developer.