OT: SLU Medical Office

[davidnark]

http://www.stltoday....5b50b0b9cb.html

I thought I would initiate an OT (but SLU-related issue): the denial of the permit for SLU to demo the old Pevely Building and construct an $75 million doctors' office building.

I am always torn on these type of urban redevelopment issues. I am a firm believer in preserving truly historic buildings and sites, but I believe that preservation of a vacant building must be tied to an economically-viable, near-term use of the building that does not leave it abandoned and unused. If a structure does not have (i) such historical significance that a government or non-profit entity is willing to save it for historical sake or (ii) such financial viability that a private developer cannot adapt and re-use it, then it should not be preserved for preservation's sake. In this instance, I fear that is what happened. Private developers have examined adaptive re-uses for the property, but the economics just don't add up. Meanwhile, SLU was willing to invest $75 million in the site, which is a city property particularly in this economy. (I also thought their renderings were attractive.) I am somewhat disappointed at this decision and believe our leaders may be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Thoughts? Disagreement?

[joe_davola]

http://www.stltoday....5b50b0b9cb.html

I thought I would initiate an OT (but SLU-related issue): the denial of the permit for SLU to demo the old Pevely Building and construct an $75 million doctors' office building.

I am always torn on these type of urban redevelopment issues. I am a firm believer in preserving truly historic buildings and sites, but I believe that preservation of a vacant building must be tied to an economically-viable, near-term use of the building that does not leave it abandoned and unused. If a structure does not have (i) such historical significance that a government or non-profit entity is willing to save it for historical sake or (ii) such financial viability that a private developer cannot adapt and re-use it, then it should not be preserved for preservation's sake. In this instance, I fear that is what happened. Private developers have examined adaptive re-uses for the property, but the economics just don't add up. Meanwhile, SLU was willing to invest $75 million in the site, which is a city property particularly in this economy. (I also thought their renderings were attractive.) I am somewhat disappointed at this decision and believe our leaders may be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Thoughts? Disagreement?

I think there are a lot of abandoned lots that we can see them build this on. I thought I saw someone post a pic of all the surrounding lots that are vacant but can't remember where I saw it exactly. When you also consider the amount of space SLU wastes, I'm not really disappointed. SLU can definitely make better use of the land in which they ****** up. I agree with what you said about the renderings. What I saw looked pretty good.

[2010andBeyond]

It is an eyesore and the city should be happy slu is willing to invest in the area. Tear it down and build something useful. Things like this are why many parts of stl were suitable for the filming of escape from new york.

[billiken_roy]

i believe most of the "open lots" around saint louis university hospital are used for parking for the employees and overflow for visitors when the garage fills.

[WestCoastBilliken]

The whole surrounding area is a sh*thole. The only reason anything is going on in that part of the city is because of SLU. I really think it was a dumb decision on the part of the city, just like the Del Taco building mess. The loudest people in favor of preserving buildings tend to love to say 'preserve it' but A) are not willing to put up the $$ for it themselves and B. never actually use said building / area while it was around so wth do they care?... I guess that is why everyone is moving out of the place.

I still laugh at all the protestors who came out to protest in front of the Del Taco building... maybe if those protesters showed their love before they were going to tear down the building, then Del Taco would STILL be in that location w/o the threat of the building being torn down. I used to go there with my buddies, and we were the only people in there +- a homeless guy.

[joe_davola]

It is an eyesore and the city should be happy slu is willing to invest in the area. Tear it down and build something useful. Things like this are why many parts of stl were suitable for the filming of escape from new york.

Ha...I did get a laugh out of that last line. Nice.

In all seriousness though, I have a condo that is in a building that I'm sure 10 years ago, everyone said was an 'eyesore'. The building is absolutely beautiful now and one of the great buildings downtown for residents. Yeah it sucks that we have a building that is an eyesore now, but wasn't there plans to put something in there before the economy tanked? Give it more time and try to use some of the open plots of land that are begging to be built on. Just my opinion.

[slufanskip]

SLU owns this building? If the preservationists want to save it tell them to buy it and save it themselves. All this crap is a perfect example of government bureucracy. If SLU owns it, it's their business and their business only.

[Cowboy]

SLU owns this building? If the preservationists want to save it tell them to buy it and save it themselves. All this crap is a perfect example of government bureucracy. If SLU owns it, it's their business and their business only.

-i agree as in this case the proposed use and look seems in line with the area

-i wonder what mid-town would look like if Fr Reinert's inquiry of moving to chesterfield had taken root?

-it is my contention the entire area, including grand center, would be a complete disaster if not for SLU

edit - what exactly is the historical significance of the bldg? that it is old? that generations of kids got their school milk from there?

[davidnark]

In all seriousness though, I have a condo that is in a building that I'm sure 10 years ago, everyone said was an 'eyesore'. The building is absolutely beautiful now and one of the great buildings downtown for residents. Yeah it sucks that we have a building that is an eyesore now, but wasn't there plans to put something in there before the economy tanked? Give it more time and try to use some of the open plots of land that are begging to be built on. Just my opinion.

Your building is awesome, but your building and many like it downtown were theoretically financially viable for private development, albeit with historical tax subsidies intended to make the economics work. There was also not a competing offer to tear down your building and replace it with a $75 million development. The problem with this proposal is that there is no economically viable alternative to adapt and reuse the building, so the city is essentially walking away from $75 million in development to preserve an abandoned building that has been subjectively determined to have historical significance.

[Pistol]

SLU bought the complex with the knowledge that the corner building and smokestack had some level of historical landmark status and therefore would have extra red tape regarding demolition/renovation. None of the other buildings in the complex have such status.

SLU wasted an awful lot of space on both the north and south sides of the new medical research building; I don't understand the need for that degree of suburban office park-style greenspace in a dense urban medical district. Part of that could have been used for these proposed medical offices. There is also a sizeable lot north of Chouteau, west of Grand that SLU now owns, and there should be minimal barriers to developing that space with whatever the school wants. Granted, I know that was a more recent purchase.

Still, SLU bought most of the Pevely complex knowing what the barriers would be, and should have had multiple long-term plans in place in case demolition was blocked. This outcome was a strong possibility from the start.

I'm not saying the city was wise to block this, nor that the medical center wouldn't be the best use of the land. I want SLU to keep developing around there. I just don't understand why demolition of the corner building is essential when they have so much more space on that land as well as 2 of the 3 other corners at that intersection.

[joe_davola]

Your building is awesome, but your building and many like it downtown were theoretically financially viable for private development, albeit with historical tax subsidies intended to make the economics work. There was also not a competing offer to tear down your building and replace it with a $75 million development. The problem with this proposal is that there is no economically viable alternative to adapt and reuse the building, so the city is essentially walking away from $75 million in development to preserve an abandoned building that has been subjectively determined to have historical significance.

I re-read your original post and if in fact there is no use for this building then I would agree. I thought there was something in place for housing?? I guess I would need more information on what 'economically feasible' means. I know you keep up on that stuff more than I do, so maybe you can keep me straight there. Also, if there was a plan in place to tear down my building ten years ago, would you have been OK with them tearing it down? I know that is an open ended question because I guess it would depend on what they were putting in place of it. Either way, that would have been a tragedy for downtown STL and the little remaining unique architecture we have remaining down there.

[ereeves]

I haven't been inside the Pevely complex myself, but I've talked to guys who did the interior demo, and they've talked about how awesome the interior architecture is, with tile work, grand staircases, chandeliers, and whatnot. If SLU is growing so much, and plans to grow further, why not keep the old, and just renovate for housing for students who have most of their classes on that part of campus? Hopefully that's their backup plan, because between the med-school, and all of the people who are based in Doisy, there are a lot of students who have a long commute to class.

[GOSLU68]

I haven't been inside the Pevely complex myself, but I've talked to guys who did the interior demo, and they've talked about how awesome the interior architecture is, with tile work, grand staircases, chandeliers, and whatnot. If SLU is growing so much, and plans to grow further, why not keep the old, and just renovate for housing for students who have most of their classes on that part of campus? Hopefully that's their backup plan, because between the med-school, and all of the people who are based in Doisy, there are a lot of students who have a long commute to class.

Someday the stack is going to be a real liability as in "which way will it fall".

The dairy "museum" on the corner is a pretty cool representation of an old St. Louis business and SLU tore down the row houses across from Humphrey's was (one used to house Usselman's for decades our main supplier of lunch for on campus consumption as we had no student union, cafeteria, or campus club other than the "grotto" basement of Cupples-Chouteau House in the sixties) and they tore down a duplicate stone building on Lindell

To the one East of the new Law School rumored to someday to be itself torn down if someone like Chaifetz wanted to fund the business school editions.

This project may not be the worst thing SLU on wanted to do on a long, secret list but there has to be a feeling of check's and balances or SLU and Wash U will emminant domain Forest Park, undermine Kingshighway, Grand, and Lindell. These two giants of the medical school, etal thrive in a nation that will approve almost anything to elongate life after birth.

[bonwich]

In short, there has been absolutely no proof that housing would not be "economically feasible." One developer has looked at this, and that developer announced its plans circa 2009. (There was also a fire in the middle of the acquisition process.) The current real estate climate is hardly a viable barometer for long-run real estate markets.

Despite the assertion at the meeting that "SLU has more historic buildings in the city than anyone else," our dear alma mater has a very poor history of reusing buildings or of identifying buildings that have prospective reuse. Sodality, DeSmet and the Resurrectionist house, for example, all ended up getting demolished in large part because the U deferred maintenance on them to the extent that they fell apart. (They also got demolished in small part because there was precious little support for preservation in those days, the Resurrectionist house not included.) I also know, first-hand, that the highest levels of the administration felt that Lewis Hall was beyond saving as recently as 2002-3. Luckily, its demolition was prohibitively expensive and they didn't really have anything to stick in its place.

Other buildings that I believe, but don't have direct knowledge, that SLU at one time or another wanted to bulldoze include those that now house Aquinas, the Library Annex, the loft apartments on Forest Park and on Laclede and perhaps the building that now houses Six Row.

As for "they own it, they can do anything they want with it," I daresay, Skip, if you put a 50-foot neon sign in front of your lot, you'd be cited as soon as you turned it on (if not sooner). In a real-world example, Stellina Pasta put up a non-conforming sign after its recent expansion. They bitched and moaned about the City enforcing its signage code, we bring people to the area, we pay property taxes and generate sales taxes, blah, blah, blah. But as it turned out, a few of its neighbors were happy about the citation, because they'd stuck to the rules and because Stellina's sign pulled attention away from their own.

As someone else noted, SLU knew damn well that the Pevely building had restrictions on what could be done to it, but figured that they could just steamroller the process. (Also: Skip pays taxes on his property, so he should, in fact, have reasonable say on what he can do with it. SLU, if I'm correct, pays zero taxes on the Pevely building or anything else it owns. I hope some of the real estate or legal folks on this board can correct me or support me on this.)

Oh, and as for the "Reinert looked at moving to Chesterfield" story -- unless someone can produce some firsthand evidence of this, I say it's an urban myth that just won't die. Know why? Reinert met with Eisenhower in 1954 to provide a progress report on the Pius library. The library opened in 1959. Ain't no way no how that he would have built that library if he was considering moving, and ain't no way no how he would have been considering moving in the 1950s anyway, since the neighborhood was still very desirable and vibrant at that point.

[SShoe]

-it is my contention the entire area, including grand center, would be a complete disaster if not for SLU

I could very easily make an argument for the opposite.

[bills10]

The fact is that there is no reason to create empty space to build on, when you already have ample empty space to build on. Hopefully, they can use the renderings here, move them to front the street rather than be set back a la the research building, and build it in one of the empty lots they own. With how successful Spring Street, PW Shoe, etc. have been in recent years, there is no doubt that the Pevely building can be renovated just as effectively. I am 100% against demolition given the current state of the area, and glad that someone told SLU no.

[SShoe]

SLU bought the complex with the knowledge that the corner building and smokestack had some level of historical landmark status and therefore would have extra red tape regarding demolition/renovation. None of the other buildings in the complex have such status.

SLU wasted an awful lot of space on both the north and south sides of the new medical research building; I don't understand the need for that degree of suburban office park-style greenspace in a dense urban medical district. Part of that could have been used for these proposed medical offices. There is also a sizeable lot north of Chouteau, west of Grand that SLU now owns, and there should be minimal barriers to developing that space with whatever the school wants. Granted, I know that was a more recent purchase.

Still, SLU bought most of the Pevely complex knowing what the barriers would be, and should have had multiple long-term plans in place in case demolition was blocked. This outcome was a strong possibility from the start.

I'm not saying the city was wise to block this, nor that the medical center wouldn't be the best use of the land. I want SLU to keep developing around there. I just don't understand why demolition of the corner building is essential when they have so much more space on that land as well as 2 of the 3 other corners at that intersection.

This is a very good post and really hits the heart of the matter in my mind. SLU continues to be extremely inefficient in its use of land surrounding the hospital and medical school and there remains plenty of vacant and overly landscaped land that is prime for new construction. Obviously preserving the nicely manicured lawn across the street is more important to the school than another of St. Louis' historic properties.

SLU is the biggest land user in the Midtown area and the way it develops and uses its land has a direct impact on surrounding properties, so its disappointing when it continues to develop its campus in a manner that's more consistent with a suburban environment. By doing this, an opportunity is lost to create new more urban-oriented markets that would thrive in Midtown and positively impact the surrounding neighborhood. The school has repeatedly stated that one of its many goals is to create a vibrant urban environment in the surrounding neighborhood, and while I believe they want this to occur, I think they tend to miss the boat completely in their attempts.

[RiseAndGrind]

The whole surrounding area is a sh*thole. The only reason anything is going on in that part of the city is because of SLU. I really think it was a dumb decision on the part of the city, just like the Del Taco building mess. The loudest people in favor of preserving buildings tend to love to say 'preserve it' but A) are not willing to put up the $$ for it themselves and B. never actually use said building / area while it was around so wth do they care?... I guess that is why everyone is moving out of the place.

I still laugh at all the protestors who came out to protest in front of the Del Taco building... maybe if those protesters showed their love before they were going to tear down the building, then Del Taco would STILL be in that location w/o the threat of the building being torn down. I used to go there with my buddies, and we were the only people in there +- a homeless guy.

If you think SLU is the only reason Midtown is growing, I suggest you head to Midtown sometime soon and check it out.

Personally, I'm just waiting for that new law school to be built. Nice to know that Biondi can find $75 million to build a new medical office, but can't find the money for a new law school. SLU tore down two buildings on Lindell b/c the new law school was coming. What is there now? Yep, a GRAVEL parking lot. Nothing says Urban development like a gravel parking lot.

There is no doubt that SLU has done a lot of good in the area. However, they have had a lot of F'ups. They shouldn't get free reign over the area.

[Cowboy]

In short, there has been absolutely no proof that housing would not be "economically feasible." One developer has looked at this, and that developer announced its plans circa 2009. (There was also a fire in the middle of the acquisition process.) The current real estate climate is hardly a viable barometer for long-run real estate markets.

Despite the assertion at the meeting that "SLU has more historic buildings in the city than anyone else," our dear alma mater has a very poor history of reusing buildings or of identifying buildings that have prospective reuse. Sodality, DeSmet and the Resurrectionist house, for example, all ended up getting demolished in large part because the U deferred maintenance on them to the extent that they fell apart. (They also got demolished in small part because there was precious little support for preservation in those days, the Resurrectionist house not included.) I also know, first-hand, that the highest levels of the administration felt that Lewis Hall was beyond saving as recently as 2002-3. Luckily, its demolition was prohibitively expensive and they didn't really have anything to stick in its place.

Other buildings that I believe, but don't have direct knowledge, that SLU at one time or another wanted to bulldoze include those that now house Aquinas, the Library Annex, the loft apartments on Forest Park and on Laclede and perhaps the building that now houses Six Row.

As for "they own it, they can do anything they want with it," I daresay, Skip, if you put a 50-foot neon sign in front of your lot, you'd be cited as soon as you turned it on (if not sooner). In a real-world example, Stellina Pasta put up a non-conforming sign after its recent expansion. They bitched and moaned about the City enforcing its signage code, we bring people to the area, we pay property taxes and generate sales taxes, blah, blah, blah. But as it turned out, a few of its neighbors were happy about the citation, because they'd stuck to the rules and because Stellina's sign pulled attention away from their own.

As someone else noted, SLU knew damn well that the Pevely building had restrictions on what could be done to it, but figured that they could just steamroller the process. (Also: Skip pays taxes on his property, so he should, in fact, have reasonable say on what he can do with it. SLU, if I'm correct, pays zero taxes on the Pevely building or anything else it owns. I hope some of the real estate or legal folks on this board can correct me or support me on this.)

Oh, and as for the "Reinert looked at moving to Chesterfield" story -- unless someone can produce some firsthand evidence of this, I say it's an urban myth that just won't die. Know why? Reinert met with Eisenhower in 1954 to provide a progress report on the Pius library. The library opened in 1959. Ain't no way no how that he would have built that library if he was considering moving, and ain't no way no how he would have been considering moving in the 1950s anyway, since the neighborhood was still very desirable and vibrant at that point.

-one developer looked, if whatever at that location was a gold mine wouldn't other developers also be looking? what has them not looking?

-what makes the pevely bldgs historic? i still haven't seen that

-i have no firsthand evidence of the chesterfield story, just what i have read or heard along the way, but if the U has a such a bad history of decison making with its physical plant as you detail why is it then impossible to abandon to the greener vistas of west county?

[RiseAndGrind]

-one developer looked, if whatever at that location was a gold mine wouldn't other developers also be looking? what has them not looking?

The building was shut down in 2008. 2008! It's not like the building has been sitting empty forever.

http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-pevely-dairy-fire-032209,0,7176584.story

[Cowboy]

The building was shut down in 2008. 2008! It's not like the building has been sitting empty forever.

http://www.fox2now.c...0,7176584.story

-ok, the time of sitting empty is growing

-i hope somewhere there is a reasonable solution, yeah the U probably could have guessed someone would object if they wanted to destroy the bldgs, but they are also doing what many real estate experts would say to do and that is along the lines of if you like your view you better buy it because if someone else controls it the view could change, the U is trying to control its view

[bills10]

Also, if SLU had a better track record of preservation, reuse, and rebuilding on empty lots, then I know that there would not be nearly the resistance to SLU tearing down this complex. It is also viewed within the context of the barren corners of Grand/Lindell, the parking lot near Queen's Daughter's House, the stripping of the housing stock around the medical school, etc. etc.

[AlumniFan]

I think the Doisy Building is ugly and I don't like the way it is situated on the property. Guess what? NO ONE CARES WHAT I THINK! I didn't buy the property. I didn't raise the funds to build the building. SLU did these things and they deserve the right to develop it as they wish as long as it does not have a materially adverse impact on the area. Of course, that last part is to be subjectively determined, but I don't think rational people would argue that SLU has had a materially adverse impact on the area. I doubt Pappy's or Triumph would argue that. I doubt Harris Stowe would argue that. I know for a fact that most of the people I know that have been involved with Grand Center would not argue that. Same goes for the owners of the Moohlah, Crazy Bowls and Wraps, the Fieldhouse, 6th Row, and on and on.

I think preserving truly historic buildings and even non-historic buildings is great as long as those wishing to preserve them come up with the money and take the risk to redevelop the properties. Otherwise, they need to focus their efforts on productively improving the city instead of always working to stop someone else from doing something they just happen to disagree with. There is a cottage industry that has sprouted up around being against SLU so issues like this bring these individuals/groups out of the woodwork. Some are anti-Catholic, some feel Biondi screwed them on a real estate deal, some had a bad experience at SLU either as students, teachers, staff, etc. Moreover, the Post, which plenty of people believe falls into these types of groups, does not seem to hesitate to "report" stories that cast SLU in a negative light. A business acquaintance of mine who has both sold property to SLU and has gone toe to toe with Biondi on deals in Midtown always says that while he gets pissed at Biondi, he is always thankful for what he has done for businesses and property owners in the area. He is not alone even though most of us will never hear from him and others like him.

[AlumniFan]

One more point - there is a reason for clearing out areas around the campus of non-productive real estate and it does not take a genius to figure it out. As a student who was mugged twice, had his car stolen and had several other friends experience crime, I am very pleased that the University has expended significant sums to remove structures that can serve to facilitate an environment conducive to illicit and criminal activity. There is a reason Harris Stowe, AG Edwards, and SLU worked together to get rid of hell holes like Laclede Town in the 1980s and 1990s. I'll take a green, well-kept greenspace over a crackhouse any day, but, hey, that's just silly old me.

[RiseAndGrind]

I think the Doisy Building is ugly and I don't like the way it is situated on the property.

Well at least we agree on one thing. Nothing like a suburban campus out in the middle of Midtown. Throw up a few sculptures, and a tall black fence, and that would be the quintessential SLU development.

Guess what? NO ONE CARES WHAT I THINK! I didn't buy the property. I didn't raise the funds to build the building. SLU did these things and they deserve the right to develop it as they wish as long as it does not have a materially adverse impact on the area.

Yes, they deserve the right to develop the building...subject, of course, to the restrictions that come with the property. SLU was fully aware (I hope, at least) that the building was on the National Registry. Big Bad SLU can't just come in and circumvent the system because they have other plans for the building. If SLU didn't want to deal with the preservation issues, then they should not have bought the building. Rick Yackey previously owned the building and had the intent to turn it into apartments/condos. Unfortunately the economy went in the tank as soon as he bought it and he was no longer able to go through with his plans.

I think preserving truly historic buildings and even non-historic buildings is great as long as those wishing to preserve them come up with the money and take the risk to redevelop the properties

Or, people who don't own the building can make their feelings known at the preservation meeting - which is exactly what they did. Citizens didn't force anything. All they did was express their opinion. The idea that "well they don't own the building, so they have no say" doesn't work in a city.

There is a cottage industry that has sprouted up around being against SLU so issues like this bring these individuals/groups out of the woodwork. Some are anti-Catholic, some feel Biondi screwed them on a real estate deal, some had a bad experience at SLU either as students, teachers, staff, etc. Moreover, the Post, which plenty of people believe falls into these types of groups, does not seem to hesitate to "report" stories that cast SLU in a negative light.

I'm a soon to be two time graduate of SLU. My entire family is affiliated with SLU. I opposed the demo. Do I still fit into your stereotypes?