OT: Midtown Development

[billiCAN]

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/lawrence-group-will-give-sun-theater-an-million-makeover/article_40c5a54e-b3cd-5107-8145-3a88fb1ce1eb.html

[White Pelican]

Thanks for posting this. I really thought when the cornice fell into the street a couple of years ago, that it would surely be torn down. Very nice that the school will use it and it will be saved.

[Box and Won]

Definitely!

Grand Center is running out of buildings to renovate.

[Bobby Metzinger]

I don't know if anyone caught this article, but it's pretty damning (as well as accurate):

Biondi's Legacy of Midtown Devastation

[milwaukeebill]

There are two sides. He demolished alot of buildings for no reason and ruined any idea of a neighborhood. But he also invested a lot of money and brought slu to the school it is today. Both sides are right. And yes this is an incredible over simplification

[WestCoastBilliken]

I don't know if anyone caught this article, but it's pretty damning (as well as accurate):

Biondi's Legacy of Midtown Devastation

Paul's blog always cracks me up. St Louis really is the state of 'show meeee'. So much potential for progress has been destroyed because so many in this city believe that if the building wasn't built 100 years ago and wrapped in brick then it cannot be an improvement to the city and it won't be approved to be built (see the multi use towers on Euclid from 2007).

Paul should show the crime stats, blocks and blocks of vacant and destroyed drug houses, etc that were (and still to some degree) so prominent around the SLU campus when Biondi showed up. But again the citizens of St Louis would rather keep half burned down and crumbling waste lands of 100 year old brick buildings then see any true progress.

[ucan2]

This was just posted on his blog. Would be nice for students, if it happens....

http://stlnabedev.tumblr.com/post/54518943408/new-student-housing-coming-near-st-louis-university

[cgeldmacher]

I don't know if anyone caught this article, but it's pretty damning (as well as accurate):

Biondi's Legacy of Midtown Devastation

I didn't see a building in that article that I would deem "worthy of saving." I may have a different take than some on this topic, but I think that when it comes to preservation, we have to save the really important ones and tear down the rest. St. Louis has far too many abandoned and disgusting looking buildings that can't be torn down, because someone attaches a "historically significant" label to it. A prime example are the delapidated warehouses that are between I55/I44 and the river downtown. They finally tore down the worst one a few months ago, but they were protected for years as some sort of landmark. They're "warehouses" for Christ sake.

Metz, I love your posts, but I cannot disagree more on this one. Even if someone is not a Biondi supporter, they have to acknowledge that he did an amazing job of creating a campus out limited space in a (formerly) run down area. That doesn't happen if the school's worried about knocking down a run down old home that looked like every other home on the same block 60 years ago.

The Grand Center area has made an amazing comeback since my days at SLU (the 90's) and SLU's campus is safer, much larger, and much more beautiful than those days because Biondi tore down those buildings.

[RiseAndGrind]

I didn't see a building in that article that I would deem "worthy of saving." I may have a different take than some on this topic, but I think that when it comes to preservation, we have to save the really important ones and tear down the rest. St. Louis has far too many abandoned and disgusting looking buildings that can't be torn down, because someone attaches a "historically significant" label to it. A prime example are the delapidated warehouses that are between I55/I44 and the river downtown. They finally tore down the worst one a few months ago, but they were protected for years as some sort of landmark. They're "warehouses" for Christ sake.

Metz, I love your posts, but I cannot disagree more on this one. Even if someone is not a Biondi supporter, they have to acknowledge that he did an amazing job of creating a campus out limited space in a (formerly) run down area. That doesn't happen if the school's worried about knocking down a run down old home that looked like every other home on the same block 60 years ago.

The Grand Center area has made an amazing comeback since my days at SLU (the 90's) and SLU's campus is safer, much larger, and much more beautiful than those days because Biondi tore down those buildings.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or trying to make a point but I find the bolded statement incredibly hard to believe.

[cgeldmacher]

I'm not sure if you're being serious or trying to make a point but I find the bolded statement incredibly hard to believe.

I was being serious. Which building in that article did you think was so historically or architecturally significant that it absolutely needed to be left standing at the expense of SLU building its campus? The Olympia Apartments? There are twenty buildings that look exactly like it if you drive up and down Lindell. The article didn't show enough of the Vesper Buick Building to get a good idea. Most of the rest were row houses, which, again, you can find hundreds of examples of all around St. Louis which look exactly like the ones in the pictures. The Marina building, by the photo, appeared to house a Wolworth's and had some apartments above it (how could we possibly tear that down?). The Locust Livery Stable was a brick building painted white that was about the most mundane looking building I've ever seen. And, the Pevely building, and let's not forget the delivery truck garage that was pictured as being part of that complex, had largely burned down before SLU bought it and tore it down.

So, yes, I stand by my statement. There was not one building pictured in the article that was so unique that it required saving. I'm sorry, but I don't want my city to be filled with empty and decaying "historically significant" buildings that no one wants to use for anything.

[STLfan]

I don't know if anyone caught this article, but it's pretty damning (as well as accurate):

Biondi's Legacy of Midtown Devastation

Here is a similar article from another site that shows before and after pictures.

http://nextstl.com/preservation/biondi-before-after-images

It really is a shame they couldn't find a use for some of those buildings and renovate them. They would look a lot better than empty lots.

[milwaukeebill]

Well we completely disagree regarding saving a building. Id rather see us save as many buildings as possible unless someone proposes something better with that land. That student housing is a good example of a good reason to replace a building. Agree to disagree.

[RiseAndGrind]

I was being serious. Which building in that article did you think was so historically or architecturally significant that it absolutely needed to be left standing at the expense of SLU building its campus? The Olympia Apartments? There are twenty buildings that look exactly like it if you drive up and down Lindell. The article didn't show enough of the Vesper Buick Building to get a good idea. Most of the rest were row houses, which, again, you can find hundreds of examples of all around St. Louis which look exactly like the ones in the pictures. The Marina building, by the photo, appeared to house a Wolworth's and had some apartments above it (how could we possibly tear that down?). The Locust Livery Stable was a brick building painted white that was about the most mundane looking building I've ever seen. And, the Pevely building, and let's not forget the delivery truck garage that was pictured as being part of that complex, had largely burned down before SLU bought it and tore it down.

So, yes, I stand by my statement. There was not one building pictured in the article that was so unique that it required saving. I'm sorry, but I don't want my city to be filled with empty and decaying "historically significant" buildings that no one wants to use for anything.

1) The Pevely has been an unmitigated disaster.

2) It would be a different story if SLU actually replaced a lot of these lots with new buildings or things that actually contribute to the "building" of SLU's campus. Up until about 9 months ago, the building torn down for the "expansion" of the law school was a gravel lot. It's now a patch of grass. Hurray!

[Deutschkind]

I prefer to see buildings reused than demolished, but you guys have to admit that tearing down a building (whether "historic" or not") and putting in a parking lot, or worse nothing, Is a poor choice.

[cheeseman]

What is wrong with green space? I understand both sides of the discussion but something SLU needed and now has was green space. When kids come to view the campus - they expect to see a semblance of a campus not just a bunch of buildings that are loosely configured to suppose to be a campus. There will always be pros and cons to this issue but what I can tell you is that trying to convert and old building for modern educational use is not always effective both use wise or money wise. Sometimes the building simply does not allow for this to happen in its current footprint. So I ask, what is SLU to do - renovate it into a less then useful building for educating students or simply leave it and not bother to improve the facilities? I would say a balance should be considered but ultimately if it won't work then move on. Like someone said all these buildings are not really historically significant just something someone thinks is "neat".

[Deutschkind]

What is wrong with green space? I understand both sides of the discussion but something SLU needed and now has was green space. When kids come to view the campus - they expect to see a semblance of a campus not just a bunch of buildings that are loosely configured to suppose to be a campus. There will always be pros and cons to this issue but what I can tell you is that trying to convert and old building for modern educational use is not always effective both use wise or money wise. Sometimes the building simply does not allow for this to happen in its current footprint. So I ask, what is SLU to do - renovate it into a less then useful building for educating students or simply leave it and not bother to improve the facilities? I would say a balance should be considered but ultimately if it won't work then move on. Like someone said all these buildings are not really historically significant just something someone thinks is "neat".

Yes and no. Having a campus is great - faster walks to classes, safer, etc - but we also chose to come to an urban school. Honestly, SLU has created a suburban campus in the middle of St. Louis. Some people love that, I'm unsure how much I like it.

I just don't like the idea of destroying something and not creating something better - the prime example here is the Pevely site.

[pretty_ricky]

I think Pevely is hard to judge because SLU is still waiting on the missouri belting co building to sell. The owner is trying to lowball SLU I believe I think the building will sell and SLU will put the ambulatory care center there.

[Deutschkind]

I think Pevely is hard to judge because SLU is still waiting on the missouri belting co building to sell. The owner is trying to lowball SLU I believe I think the building will sell and SLU will put the ambulatory care center there.

That's true. It will probably eventually work out the way SLU wants. These building projects usually do. How it all went down, though, was a bit ridiculous. SLU forced it's way through the demo approval process, threatening to leave, etc, and then didn't even own all of the land that they needed?

Also, Happy Birthday, man!

[cheeseman]

Yes and no. Having a campus is great - faster walks to classes, safer, etc - but we also chose to come to an urban school. Honestly, SLU has created a suburban campus in the middle of St. Louis. Some people love that, I'm unsure how much I like it.

I just don't like the idea of destroying something and not creating something better - the prime example here is the Pevely site.

None of the current students are at SLU with not knowing what the current campus looks like so I am not sure of your point - besides, if they don't like then they can always transfer. Now if you are saying that you liked the urban setting before the current campus evolved then fine but you are not the target audience.

[Deutschkind]

None of the current students are at SLU with not knowing what the current campus looks like so I am not sure of your point - besides, if they don't like then they can always transfer. Now if you are saying that you liked the urban setting before the current campus evolved then fine but you are not the target audience.

I guess I'm just saying that it's an interesting dynamic. SLU tries to play up their Midtown setting (ie: being near Grand Center, Forest Park, CWE, Downtown), but also tries to shut itself off from Midtown by closing streets, etc. Generally, it works out great, of course. But it also creates the "SLU Bubble"

[SShoe]

I didn't see a building in that article that I would deem "worthy of saving." I may have a different take than some on this topic, but I think that when it comes to preservation, we have to save the really important ones and tear down the rest. St. Louis has far too many abandoned and disgusting looking buildings that can't be torn down, because someone attaches a "historically significant" label to it. A prime example are the delapidated warehouses that are between I55/I44 and the river downtown. They finally tore down the worst one a few months ago, but they were protected for years as some sort of landmark. They're "warehouses" for Christ sake.

Metz, I love your posts, but I cannot disagree more on this one. Even if someone is not a Biondi supporter, they have to acknowledge that he did an amazing job of creating a campus out limited space in a (formerly) run down area. That doesn't happen if the school's worried about knocking down a run down old home that looked like every other home on the same block 60 years ago.

The Grand Center area has made an amazing comeback since my days at SLU (the 90's) and SLU's campus is safer, much larger, and much more beautiful than those days because Biondi tore down those buildings.

Not true at all. The main reason that STL has so many vacant buildings is that the cost of demolition typically exceeds the value of the land. Why spend $50K to demolish a building when the land is only worth $20K?

Most of the city's preservation really only takes place in areas where there is a market for reuse. It's also in most cases more financially feasible to rehab than to demolish and build new because of the availability of state historic tax credits (best in the country) and other subsidies. It's why we have countless examples of historic rehab projects, but maybe a handful of successful new construction.

[BillikenLaw]

Awesome article on some great things coming to Grand Center. It's kind of a shame that Fr. Biondi will probably get a lot of credit for this, when he has had pretty much nothing to do with it.

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/31541/new_in_grand_center_062113

[BillikenLaw]

My favorite quote from that article:

“Grand Center doesn’t need to tear anything else down,” he said. “I think everyone’s finally realized that buildings, not parking, [are] needed in Grand Center. There seems to be a tremendous interest in finding new uses.”

TRUE THAT

[brianstl]

Pace Properties proposing a big box development for the Federal Mogul site.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/retail-development-proposed-at-former-st-louis-factory-site/article_1197aae7-fa8e-5126-8f1e-c2513b2009c7.html

[brianstl]

Pace Properties proposing a big box development for the Federal Mogul site.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/retail-development-proposed-at-former-st-louis-factory-site/article_1197aae7-fa8e-5126-8f1e-c2513b2009c7.html

More on this

http://nextstl.com/central-corridor/pace-properties-to-build-midtown-station-retail-development-at-midtown-federal-mogul-site